Should formula be classified as a drug?

[Can Dance]

instead of a food? and what were the ramifications of this decision if it were made? would it be entirely positive or entirely negative?

[elspethshimon]

If I thought that the pediatric wing of the medical industrial complex were fully on board with "breast-is-standard and anything else is sub-standard" I might be inclined to agree with this. But as it is, doctors would just prescribe it willy-nilly.

Also, I really don't like the "interference" that having to get a prescription would entail.

Ultimately, however, I am not certain that regulation/legislation is the best way to motivate social change.

[Ruthla]

IMO, mostly negative.

Parents needing to supplement, or who want to continue formula for longer than a year, may have difficulty obtaining formula- and babies may end up with cow's milk when formula would be more appropriate.

What if a FF baby eats more formula than the dr prescribed for the month? Will the parents be able to buy more formula, or will the baby end up being fed regular milk, or maybe solid foods before he or she is ready?

New mothers walking out of the hospital and/or the ped's office with a prescription for formula are going to feel even MORE pressure to use it than they do now.

It may be harder for parents to experiment with different brands if the doctor prescribed a specific brand.

If formula is catagorized as an OTC drug, not a prescription drug, then most of the above problems wouldn't apply. But it would make it impossible for poor families to use food stamps to purchase formula if their baby drinks more formula than WIC supplies- which could lead to FF babies being fed something other than formula (such as rice cereal or cow's milk) if they're big eaters and need more formula.

I don't think that recatagorizing infant formula would affect breastfeeding rates at all- it would stil lbe seen as a "baby necessity" by many.

[rmzbm]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

IMO, mostly negative.

Parents needing to supplement, or who want to continue formula for longer than a year, may have difficulty obtaining formula- and babies may end up with cow's milk when formula would be more appropriate.

What if a FF baby eats more formula than the dr prescribed for the month? Will the parents be able to buy more formula, or will the baby end up being fed regular milk, or maybe solid foods before he or she is ready?

New mothers walking out of the hospital and/or the ped's office with a prescription for formula are going to feel even MORE pressure to use it than they do now.

It may be harder for parents to experiment with different brands if the doctor prescribed a specific brand.

If formula is catagorized as an OTC drug, not a prescription drug, then most of the above problems wouldn't apply. But it would make it impossible for poor families to use food stamps to purchase formula if their baby drinks more formula than WIC supplies- which could lead to FF babies being fed something other than formula (such as rice cereal or cow's milk) if they're big eaters and need more formula.

I don't think that recatagorizing infant formula would affect breastfeeding rates at all- it would stil lbe seen as a "baby necessity" by many.

ITA.

[MichelleS]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

What if a FF baby eats more formula than the dr prescribed for the month? Will the parents be able to buy more formula, or will the baby end up being fed regular milk, or maybe solid foods before he or she is ready?


If formula is catagorized as an OTC drug, not a prescription drug, then most of the above problems wouldn't apply. But it would make it impossible for poor families to use food stamps to purchase formula if their baby drinks more formula than WIC supplies- which could lead to FF babies being fed something other than formula (such as rice cereal or cow's milk) if they're big eaters and need more formula.

I strongly agree with both of these points.

[Meiri]

No, other food supplements/substitutes are not treated as drugs, and are usually not covered by insurance either.

The medical coverage can of worms itself is more than I want to contemplate.
Bad enough that formula is so casually used, I don't care to have our medical premiums going up to cover all those inevitable formula prescriptions.

[guestmama9904]

hmm. yes it probably is not really a drug but i do wish MDs and other hcps could treat it like a drug, you know like give tons of info on the risks associated with formula and strongly suggest not using it, kinda like cigarettes, i know, tabacco and formula not the same thing but my point is maybe patients and new moms would be influenced by their docs telling them the the worst choice is formula rather than some fluffy breast is best but formula is ok mantra that is usually given.

[Ruthla]

But the thing is, formula really ISN'T the worst thing to feed a baby. It's the lack of breastfeeding that can be dangerous. Formula isn't poison, and it isn't a drug. It's food.

If, for example, a 4mo BF baby isn't getting enough calories, that baby is better off BF and getting a little formula than he would be BF and then getting some rice cereal. A working and pumping mom who can't pump quite enough ebm is better off supplementing with formula than supplementing with rice milk.

And as far as insurance coverage is concerned, some insurance companies already do cover special formulas for kids over 12mo, or "ensure" or equivilent for seniors with special medical needs, or liquid protein "formulas" for obese adults on a specific weight loss plan (such as all "formula" in place of real food for a short period of time.) There's no need to classify these nutritional supplements/formulas as "drugs" rather than "food" to get insurance coverage in special situations- and qualifying families can still purchase these items with food stamps if needed.

[PatioGardener]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

If, for example, a 4mo BF baby isn't getting enough calories, that baby is better off BF and getting a little formula than he would be BF and then getting some rice cereal. A working and pumping mom who can't pump quite enough ebm is better off supplementing with formula than supplementing with rice milk.

Hi Ruthla,

I was just wondering where you got this info.

I agree about the rice cereal, but I know some breastfeeding specialists feel that babies are better off with just breastmilk and adding in healthy high fat and high calorie solids as early as 4 months, rather than adding cowmilk or soy formula.

I'm not being confrontational - just wondering where your info is coming from so I can read up on the subject! Thanks.

[MamaWindmill]

...no.

[secondseconds]

are you joking?

[Ruthla]

Originally Posted by PatioGardener

Hi Ruthla,

I was just wondering where you got this info.

I agree about the rice cereal, but I know some breastfeeding specialists feel that babies are better off with just breastmilk and adding in healthy high fat and high calorie solids as early as 4 months, rather than adding cowmilk or soy formula.

I'm not being confrontational - just wondering where your info is coming from so I can read up on the subject! Thanks.

I don't have any links readily available- I just don't think that babies should be given solids before they're developmentally ready for them, and if I ever needed to supplement before 6mo or so, I'd probably use formula rather than solids.

[Can Dance]

Originally Posted by secondseconds

are you joking?

no, I just read it in Milk Money Madness but she never fleshes it out. wondering what it would look like if it was fleshed out and what good it would do, if any.

[G8P4]

If, for example, a 4mo BF baby isn't getting enough calories, that baby is better off BF and getting a little formula than he would be BF and then getting some rice cereal. A working and pumping mom who can't pump quite enough ebm is better off supplementing with formula than supplementing with rice milk.

Nope. I don't agree. In this exact situation, I think that breastfeeding plus a little bit of solids is better than breastfeeding plus a little bit of formula. Why? Because breastfeeding plus formula usually, but not always means a bottle will be given, and sometimes, but not always, that's a big problem. At least solids are actual food, that the human species has evolved to eat. Formula is essentially non-fat milk powder reconsitituted with a blend of vegetable fats. It's not the food of any species. Anyway, this is just my opinion, and I realize it won't be shared by many.

And yes, to get back to the original question, I also do think that formula should be classified as a drug. The problems people have posted about are not insurmountable.

[sonrisaa29]

I think classifying formula as a drug would be a huge mistake. This means that formula would be an illegal substance and thus one could be arrested if caught "using" it if you weren't prescribed the formula for your infant. Do we really want to see women going to jail because they're feeding their child formula? And in a somewhat ironic twist of fate the child that had been feed the "illegal' formula would now just be getting it "legally" from a foster home etc.


I am all for breastfeeding and making sure that women know that bf is the normal and best thing to do. I must say I am surprised that some people want to invite the government so closely into their lives and homes.

[mamajake]

I admit that the first time I heard the argument that formula should only be available by prescription (that was how it was put) it had great appeal to me. The idea is not that formula is a drug but that it is a potentially dangerous substance that should only be used by those who truly need it for medical reasons. The argument goes that doctors would have to treat formula use as the exception rather than the rule and explain why a particular child is unable to be breastfed. In this way formula use would be limited to those babies who, for health reasons of their own or their moms, truly need it.

I think for many of the reasons mentioned by previous posters, it is a utopian idea that would put babies at risk in this country. But in theory I could see supporting it.

[Susuhound]

The reason formula companies took over the earth is because it was prescription-only when it was first invented. It was a great money spinner for doctors, then when it got popular they had to make it available freely, but doctors still kept control over infant feeding.
It would be a bad idea IMHO because it would give more power to doctors over infant feeding choices, I am sure it would reduce breastfeeding rates even further if we returned that power to doctors. it's taken nearly a century of hard work to see any gains in the numbers of breastfed babies.

[Twinklefae]

I find this all really funny. Apparently in Brazil formula is available by prescription only and they have excellent breastfeeding rates.

So you don't think that many woman would give breastfeeding more of a chance if they didn't have access to formula "just in case"? Than why are lactivists working so hard to "ban the bags"?

I agree with the PP who said that as a society we would need to change attitudes, but if formula wasn't being pushed on mothers so much and only available to those who truely needed it (low supply, no supply, major issues) I really think that more woman would breastfeed. It would be easier for one. Also, I think more insurace would cover an LC as it would be cheaper long term.

Oh, and I would assume the prescription would be one with several refills, so that you wouldn't have to worry about running out between doctor's visits.

Plus, wouldn't it be nice for those who do need formula to have it covered as a prescription by their insurance? And it could come in only the ready-to-feed kind, so that no baby ever has it mixed wrong.

Just some thoughts, when I heard about Brazil, I thought it was a great idea. I'm amazed that more of you don't agree.

[Turkish Kate]

Originally Posted by Can Dance

instead of a food? and what were the ramifications of this decision if it were made? would it be entirely positive or entirely negative?

Let's look at the definition of a "drug":

A drug is any chemical you take that affects the way your body works. Alcohol, caffeine, aspirin and nicotine are all drugs. A drug must be able to pass from your body into your brain. Once inside your brain, drugs can change the messages your brain cells are sending to each other, and to the rest of your body. They do this by interfering with your brain's own chemical signals: neurotransmitters.

Artificial Baby Milk, aka formula, hardly meets the definition of a drug. However, it meets the definition of food about as well as a bag of Doritos. (No offense to Doritos lovers intended.) While it is neither the best nor the worst thing that parents can give their babies, it is somewhere there on the spectrum as an option.

The ramifications of classifying ABM as a drug are numerous and some great responses above point that out. Parents would have to jump through hoops to have it prescribed or have the current Rx changed. Doctors would need to (hopefully) put some thought into the prescription. More mothers may breastfeed and for longer, providing that the change also incorporates the kind of support that is necessary for mothers who are having difficulties with their breastfeeding relationship. On the flip side of the coin, anytime you make something illegal, you open it up to trafficking on the "black market." Instead of having a crack house down the street, you may find a "formula house" where unscrupulous types sell "cut" formula in order to make a profit.

There is no such thing as "all good" or "all bad," there are merely shades of gray and cost/benefit ratio. However, I firmly believe that by concentrating on the availability of ABM to the masses, we may be missing the larger picture--that mothering through breastfeeding is not given the priority that it deserves in the US. Without a decent policy of maternity (parental) leave, adequate breastfeeding laws in place, and a sea change in cultural attitudes, no amount of restricting ABM will ever be successful in increasing breastfeeding rates.

[tsume]

Originally Posted by Can Dance

instead of a food? and what were the ramifications of this decision if it were made? would it be entirely positive or entirely negative?

I don't have any thoughts about this, but I am confused why people think that if formula is classified as a drug then it would be by prescription only. Wouldn't this be an over the counter drug like tylenol or whatever else is out there on the shelf.