Mothering › Forums › Health › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Breastfeeding and the WAPF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Breastfeeding and the WAPF  

post #1 of 24
6/18/08 at 1:43pm
Thread Starter 
Ok, I know this subject has already come up A LOT and I know some mamas on this board do not support the WAPF in any way because of their poor stance on breastfeeding, inappropriate supplementation advice, and solids for very young infants. My question is: has there been any organized effort to reach out to the WAPF on these issues in an effort to educate them? Is anyone a member of both LLL AND the WAPF?

My thinking is that WAPF has a LOT to offer to pregnant and breastfeeding moms, but they really have their heads up their bums when it comes to bfing and a few other subjects. I don't know if it's even worth it, but I've met Sally and she seems like a smart, open person. If only Price recorded what his subjects were doing wrt infant feeding!!!!!

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Thanks!
post #2 of 24
6/18/08 at 1:58pm
I own and moderate a Weston Price (not WAPF, but WAP) baby feeding email list, and a number of people on there have requested information or had questions about certain recommendations of the WAPF - specifically early solids including egg yolks (a big alergen) and the push to supplement/obvious distrust of breastfeeding.
There has been a rather decided antipathy to any questioning of the power(s) that be within the organization and outright negligence when parents have repeatedly reported issues with feeding the egg yolks to babies under a year old. Responses to those parents frequently indicate that this is a new problem - which it most definitely is not.
There are folks who have been removed from service within the organization for questioning the head on these very issues of nourishing babies. I'm sure they will speak up . . .
Melinda
post #3 of 24
6/18/08 at 8:00pm
Thread Starter 
Melinda--

If your list is public, I'd be interested in knowing what it is!
post #4 of 24
6/18/08 at 10:22pm
I think it's all because SF had such a time about it. I think if someone more knowledgeable were in charge then things would be different.
post #5 of 24
6/18/08 at 10:35pm
I have emailed these concerns to SF in the past. She has no interest in changing the WAPF stance. Period. No discussion.

Erg. Makes me mad.
post #6 of 24
6/18/08 at 10:51pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinky Tuscadero View Post
I have emailed these concerns to SF in the past. She has no interest in changing the WAPF stance. Period. No discussion.

Erg. Makes me mad.
My thinking is that *maybe* if a group of current/past WAPF supporters voiced their concern as a group, she would listen. I'd love to know what her reasoning is, exactly, besides personal bias. The formula is only as good as the raw ingredients and IMNSHO it is VERY VERY hard to find raw milk of quality (if you can find it at all). And then there's the allergy/sensitivity issue...
post #7 of 24
6/18/08 at 11:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaClaire View Post
Melinda--

If your list is public, I'd be interested in knowing what it is!
PM'ed you.
post #8 of 24
6/19/08 at 10:14am
I saw Sally Fallon (and WAPF) in March at a conference and she explained her stance is not that she doesn't believe in breastfeeding. She absolutely believes in breastfeeding. Where she says formula may be better or the same as BFing is when the mother is eating an awful diet loaded with HFCS, partially hydrogenated oils, lots of sugar, fast food. She says the baby gets everything the mother eats through her breast milk so you could just as well feed formula if you are going to eat unhealthy foods when you breastfeed.

She is not against breastfeeding at all. She made the very clear at the conference. She just believes that nursing mothers need to be mindful of their eating or they might as well not BF because she doesn't believe it benefits the baby health wise if they are not getting nutritious breast milk.
post #9 of 24
6/19/08 at 10:16am
Hi! Anyone have links to websites/threads that go into this more? I have a 6 mo old, and have been thinking about doing the recommended egg yolk, etc from the WAPF website soon, but if there are arguments against this I'd love to read about them before I start....Thanks!
post #10 of 24
6/19/08 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftyqueen View Post
Where she says formula may be better or the same as BFing is when the mother is eating an awful diet loaded with HFCS, partially hydrogenated oils, lots of sugar, fast food.
I don't suppose she has any data to back that up? Because I'm pretty sure she's wrong. (I don't have time to look into it now, but if I have time today I'll look around.)
post #11 of 24
6/19/08 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftyqueen View Post
She says the baby gets everything the mother eats through her breast milk so you could just as well feed formula if you are going to eat unhealthy foods when you breastfeed.
This, of course, completely ignores the human-specific immune-enhancing qualities of breastmilk. She has stated many times that she doesn't believe breastfeeding has any non-nutritive benefits, things that would be there no matter how unhealthy the mother's diet. She's wrong. Your body makes milk tailored to your baby's immunity needs, based on feedback from the environment and directly from the baby/mother contact. She also has stated there are no physical development advantages to breastfeeding, such as palate and facial bone development, she thinks that's purely nutritional too.

Breastmilk from a poorly-nourished mother will be inferior to that from a well-nourished mother, IMO (and there is some scientific evidence), but to extrapolate that into saying formula (commercial or home-made) is as good or possibly better than human breastmilk is wrong. A mother eating industrial, nutritionally-vacant food might make breastmilk that's nutritionally no better (and possibly worse) than a super-high-quality homemade formula, but IMO that's a very unlikely combination - a mother who's willing to go to the considerable trouble to track down and mix all those ingredients, and yet only feeds herself garbage food? She and the baby would be better off if the mother drank the formula ingredients and continued to breastfeed. And she still would be giving her baby the immunity and physical development benefits of breastfeeding.

Many people have gone around and around with SF about this directly, past and current members and local chapter leaders.
post #12 of 24
6/19/08 at 12:09pm
Quote:
Breastmilk from a poorly-nourished mother will be inferior to that from a well-nourished mother, IMO (and there is some scientific evidence), but to extrapolate that into saying formula (commercial or home-made) is as good or possibly better than human breastmilk is wrong. A mother eating industrial, nutritionally-vacant food might make breastmilk that's nutritionally no better (and possibly worse) than a super-high-quality homemade formula, but IMO that's a very unlikely combination - a mother who's willing to go to the considerable trouble to track down and mix all those ingredients, and yet only feeds herself garbage food? She and the baby would be better off if the mother drank the formula ingredients and continued to breastfeed. And she still would be giving her baby the immunity and physical development benefits of breastfeeding.
Exactly. The McDonalds-every-day mom is not going to be driving to a grassfed raw milk farm to make formula. It's a total contradiction. NT practically implies that if you haven't been eating TF for several years your milk won't be as good as homemade NT formula.

You can't ignore the immunities, the hormonal benefits to baby and mother, the 100+ cells in breastmilk that haven't even been identified by science, etc.... there's more to life than vitamin A or X factor! Msg and HFCS and transfat loaded breastmilk will still directly protect an infant from many HUMAN diseases, something a cow or goat can never do.
post #13 of 24
6/19/08 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaClaire View Post
My thinking is that *maybe* if a group of current/past WAPF supporters voiced their concern as a group, she would listen.
Been there, done that, got slapped down for it. I was removed as a chapter leader because I dared to question and make suggestions and I even dared to offer to write articles. Other midwives and IBCLCs in the organization have offered to write articles and the like, and have been repeatedly turned down and been ignored in favor or other people with fewer credientials and little to no experience with breastfeeding or pregnancy. I got dumped and started organizing a letter writing campaign to the board members since Sally wouldn't listen, but I had to put it on the backburner because my husband lost his job and we had to move. Maybe it's time to revive that...

There is a huge stone wall up over it. If you ask questions, IF you get a response it will be cursory and dismissive at best.

Melinda and I and rstump run the group called newwaphb. It's here- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newwaphb/

ETA: PM me if you want to join the group that is working on the e-mail petition and I'll send you an invite.
post #14 of 24
6/19/08 at 3:12pm
There are so many reasons the WAPF stand on breastfeeding is wrong that I don't even know where to begin. I agree that a good diet makes for better breastmilk. But...who is to say what is a "good diet" for me? From what I have read and from my discussion with SF, NOBODY has a good enough diet to breastfeed their baby. Apparently cows are the only ones who eat the proper diet to make milk for human babies.
And of course sily old bonding. There's nothing special between a breastfeeding baby and his mother, is there? :
I like the WAPF but I'll never join because of this. The info is so unscientific and biased on this one issue that I don't feel I can support them with my money.
post #15 of 24
6/19/08 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinky Tuscadero View Post
I like the WAPF but I'll never join because of this. The info is so unscientific and biased on this one issue that I don't feel I can support them with my money.
They are unscientific, period. This is only the most glaring example of it.
post #16 of 24
6/19/08 at 3:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftyqueen View Post
I saw Sally Fallon (and WAPF) in March at a conference and she explained her stance is not that she doesn't believe in breastfeeding. She absolutely believes in breastfeeding. Where she says formula may be better or the same as BFing is when the mother is eating an awful diet loaded with HFCS, partially hydrogenated oils, lots of sugar, fast food. She says the baby gets everything the mother eats through her breast milk so you could just as well feed formula if you are going to eat unhealthy foods when you breastfeed.

She is not against breastfeeding at all. She made the very clear at the conference. She just believes that nursing mothers need to be mindful of their eating or they might as well not BF because she doesn't believe it benefits the baby health wise if they are not getting nutritious breast milk.

But that is where she's wrong - it *Does* still benefit the baby. There are still immune system boosters, comfort, development of the palate and jaw thru proper sucking and more. And the body will give the baby any good stores in the mother, depleteing the mother before the baby.
post #17 of 24
6/19/08 at 7:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attached Mama View Post
But that is where she's wrong - it *Does* still benefit the baby. There are still immune system boosters, comfort, development of the palate and jaw thru proper sucking and more. And the body will give the baby any good stores in the mother, depleteing the mother before the baby.

I know exactly what you are saying here. I don't agree 100% with what she was saying because of the aspects you have included, but I do see what she is saying about proper nutrition. WAPF has lots of great ideas and lots of ideas that I think are not so great. It is like with everything else, I just take the information that makes sense to me and my life and leave the rest. Not one group or person has everything figured out or something that works for everyone. There is so much information in this world that contradicts the other information so it is hard to know what is correct. It is so confusing some times...okay most of the time!
post #18 of 24
6/19/08 at 7:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by krankedyann View Post
I got dumped and started organizing a letter writing campaign to the board members since Sally wouldn't listen, but I had to put it on the backburner because my husband lost his job and we had to move. Maybe it's time to revive that...
Hi KerryAnn,

Your story is ringing a bell...I've joined the group and YES, I'd love to be involved in a letter-writing campaign to board members.
post #19 of 24
6/19/08 at 10:07pm
Quote:
She and the baby would be better off if the mother drank the formula ingredients and continued to breastfeed.
Agreed!
post #20 of 24
6/20/08 at 5:53pm
We did follow the NT/TF guidelines for feeding infants, only we didn't do it on their timeline. We started when dd started solids at 8-9 months. She didn't really start eating much at all until closer to a year.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Traditional Foods
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Health › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Breastfeeding and the WAPF