Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › Quotes and Info with References
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Quotes and Info with References  

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
For whoever needs them. They're all from public health agencies. Hopefully everyone already knows this stuff...but then again maybe not so check it out and then pass them on.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services says:

Quote:
"...infants who are not breastfed have a 21% higher postneonatal infant mortality rate in the U.S."

"Recent studies show that babies who are not exclusively breastfed for 6 months are more likely to develop a wide range of infectious diseases including ear infections, diarrhea, respiratory illnesses and have more hospitalizations."
http://www.4woman.gov/Breastfeeding/index.cfm?page=227

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says:

Quote:
"Breastfed babies are healthier and have fewer infections than formula-fed babies."

"Breast-fed babies have fewer illnesses because human milk transfers to the infant a mother's antibodies to disease."

" Human milk contains at least 100 ingredients not found in formula. No babies are allergic to their mother's milk, although they may have a reaction to something the mother eats. If she eliminates it from her diet, the problem resolves itself."
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_brstfeed.html

The American Academy of Pediatrics says:

Quote:
"Breastfeeding is best for babies, mothers, and families. It is as simple as that."

"Human milk is species-specific, and all substitute feeding preparations differ markedly from it, making human milk uniquely superior for infant feeding. Exclusive breastfeeding is the reference or normative model against which all alternative feeding methods must be measured with regard to growth, health, development, and all other short- and long-term outcomes."

"Research in developed and developing countries of the world, including middle-class populations in developed countries, provides strong evidence that human milk feeding decreases the incidence and/or severity of a wide range of infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, bacteremia, diarrhea, respiratory tract infection, necrotizing enterocolitis, otitis media, urinary tract infection, and late-onset sepsis..."

"Some studies suggest decreased rates of sudden infant death syndrome in the first year of life and reduction in incidence of insulin-dependent (type 1) and non–insulin-dependent (type 2) diabetes mellitus, lymphoma, leukemia, and Hodgkin disease, overweight and obesity, hypercholesterolemia, and asthma in older children and adults who were breastfed, compared with individuals who were not breastfed."
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;115/2/496

An extensive list of links to many of the relevant studies can be found at the bottom of the page.

The American Dietetic Association says:

Quote:
"Breastfeeding is also a public health strategy for improving infant and child health survival, improving maternal morbidity, controlling health care costs, and conserving natural resources."

"Breastfeeding, especially exclusive breastfeeding, during the first 6 months of life is an important factor in reducing infant and childhood morbidity and mortality. Breastfeeding decreases the risk for a large number of acute and chronic diseases. Breastfeeding decreases the incidence and severity of diarrhea and gastrointestinal illnesses, lower respiratory infection, otitis media [ear infections], bacterial meningitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, malocclusions or misalignment of teeth, allergic diseases, childhood asthma, childhood leukemia, childhood obesity, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Evidence continues to accumulate confirming the benefits of breastfeeding in reducing the risk for cardiovascular diseases and type 1 diabetes. Breastfeeding also has been linked with enhancement of cognitive development, with some studies showing evidence that these cognitive developmental benefits increased with the duration of breastfeeding and extended through the school-age years."
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...8_ENU_HTML.htm
http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/servenp.pdf

The World Health Organization says:

Quote:
"The vast majority of mothers can and should breastfeed, just as the vast majority of infants can and should be breastfed. Only under exceptional circumstances can a mother’s milk be considered unsuitable for her infant."

"Infants who are not breastfed, for whatever reason, should receive special attention from the health and social welfare system since they constitute a risk group."

"Mothers, fathers and other caregivers should have access to objective, consistent and complete information about appropriate feeding practices, free from commercial influence. In particular, they need to know about the recommended period of exclusive and continued breastfeeding; the timing of the introduction of complementary foods; what types of food to give, how much and how often; and how to feed these foods safely."
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/.../en/index.html
http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA55/ea5515.pdf

UNICEF says:

Quote:
"Breastfeeding is the perfect way to provide the best food for a baby’s first six months of life, benefiting children the world over. But breastfeeding is so much more than food alone; breastfeeding protects babies from diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections, stimulates their immune systems and improves response to vaccinations, and contains many hundreds of health-enhancing molecules, enzymes, proteins and hormones."

"Attainment of this goal requires, in many countries, the reinforcement of a "breastfeeding culture" and its vigorous defense against incursions of a “bottle-feeding culture.”"

" Many mothers neither exclusively breastfeed for the first six months of the baby’s life nor continue breastfeeding for the reommended two years or more, and instead replace breastmilk with commercial or other substitutes. Formula feeding is expensive and carries risks of additional illness and death...."

"If every baby were exclusively breastfed from birth for six months, an estimated 1.3 million additional lives would be saved and millions more enhanced every year. Breastfeeding also eliminates the expense of infant formula or other substitutes and the incalculable emotional and economic cost of illness and death resulting from problems associated with artificial feeding."
http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/inde...stfeeding.html

Dr. Miriam Labbock, UNICEF's Senior Advisor on Infant & Young Child Feeding and Care says:

Quote:
"...formula, at its best, only replaces most nutritional components of breastmilk. Breastmilk changes with the time of the day, the duration of suckling and the age of the child. In addition, breastmilk carries passive factors that fight disease, and when breastfed, the infant gets active living cells from the mother that help combat disease."

"... in the first few months, it is hard for the baby’s gut to absorb foreign substances. If you give even one feeding of formula or other foods, you may be causing micro-injuries to the gut and it takes weeks for the baby to recover. In any case, you will disrupt the living cells and normal bacteria that inhabit the gut and support digestion. The act of breastfeeding itself stimulates proper growth of the mouth and jaw, and secretion of hormones for digestion and satiety."

" There has never been a study that shows any advantage of formula feeding over breastfeeding."
http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/2396...ctpromote.html

The Pan American Health Organization says:

Quote:
"Each year new evidence contributes to our knowledge of breastfeeding's role in the survival, growth, and development of a child as well as the health and well-being of a mother."

" This summary of the evidence of breastfeeding's impact on health outcomes makes a powerful case for protecting, promoting, and supporting a life-saving resource that ensures the best start in life for newborns."
from their publication, Quantifying the Benefits of Breastfeeding: A Summary of the Evidence:
http://www.paho.org/english/ad/fch/bob-main.htm

So...do you want to learn more about the studies that were used by all these health organizations to draw such strong conclusions?

Ginna Wall, MN, IBCLC, in "Outcomes of Breastfeeding Versus Formula Feeding" lays out in meticulous annotated detail many, many studies on various health topics impacted by breastfeeding and provides complete references to the appropriate benchmark studies. If you are wondering why all the health organizations above have drawn such strong conclusions, this document will do much to answer your questions. Some of the topics are new areas being studied and preliminarily affirm that human milk may play a protective role. Other topics have been better studied and are considered conclusive evidence of breastfeeding as the protective physiological norm.

Topics covered: candidiasis, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, giardia, haemophilus influenza, meningitis in preterm infants, necrotizing enterocolitis, otitis media (ear infection), pneumococcal disease, respriatory infections (both general and protective effect against exposure to tobacco smoke), respiratory syncytial virus, salmonellosis, sepsis in preterm infants, urinary tract infections, anemia and iron deficiency, autoimmune thyroid disease, constipation and anal fissures, cryptorchidism (undescended testicle), esophageal and gastric lesions, gastroesophageal reflex, inguinal hernia, lactose malabsorption, morbidity and mortality, pyloric stenosis, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, toddler illnesses, wheezing, allergies in general, allergic rhinitis, asthma, eczema, bedwetting, brain activity in infants of depressed mothers, brainstem cognitive and motor development in preterm infants, gastrointestinal and immune development, hormones, immune development and vaccine response, IQ, neurological psychomoto and social development, thymus development, visual acuity, appendicitis, bone mass, cancer, cardiovascular disease and cholesterol concentration, celiac disease, diabetes mellitus, helicobacter pylori infection, haemophilus influenzae meningitis, inflammatory bowel disease, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, menopause (timing of), multiple schelerosis, obesity, oral and dental health, parent-child relationships, schizophrenia, stress resilience, tonsillitis, transplant recipients. Maternal effects: breast cancer, endometrial cancer, esophageal cancer, hodgkin's disease, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, uterine cancer, cardiovascular health, diabetes, emotional health, fertility, menopausal symptoms, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, postpartum weight loss, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, urinary tract infections. Societal effects: child abuse, child spacing, environment, financial costs to government and families (food expenses, medical expenses), vaccine effectiveness.

Outcomes of Breastfeeding Versus Formula Feeding

Hope this helps someone.
post #2 of 15
You ROCK!!!! :::
post #3 of 15
This is awesome to have. Thank you so much for posting it! I wasn't aware of some of the information before.
post #4 of 15
Thanks for compiling it all in one place.
post #5 of 15
Thank you very much.
post #6 of 15
WOW, this information is great! Thanks!
post #7 of 15
You rock!! Awesome.
post #8 of 15
In another thread it was mentioned that for the studies that all factors are taken into account.

Can you explain how this is possible, with humans? I don't for one second doubt any of the statistics, I'm just curious how they could do that when I can think of a dozen factors off the top of my head that could differ between the children being studied.

(I'm a total stats nerd)
post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by FREEmom1120 View Post
In another thread it was mentioned that for the studies that all factors are taken into account.

Can you explain how this is possible, with humans? I don't for one second doubt any of the statistics, I'm just curious how they could do that when I can think of a dozen factors off the top of my head that could differ between the children being studied.

(I'm a total stats nerd)
I'm not sure which thread you are talking about, but the best (methodologically speaking) study so far is the randomized control trial called PROBIT. Because hospitals were randomly assigned to get breastfeeding support or not, the mothers in those hospitals were 'randomly' more likely to breastfeed or not, and so all the factors are distributed randomly and the only non-random variable (breastfeeding support which resulted in a higher breastfeeding rate) is therefore responsible for any differences seen between the 2 populations.

The studies involving NEC (necrotizing entercolitis ? - I think that is how it is spelled) in premature infants adjusted for variables thought to be confounders using logistic regression. They don't need to adjust for all variables - just the ones that are associated with the treatment (breastmilk) and the outcome (NEC.)

Of course in non-randomized studies there will always be factors that were not or cannot be measured - what really matters is how strong the association is after adjusting for everything possible. For NEC, in the study I read, the babies who were not fed human milk for more than 50% of their diet were 6 times more likely to get NEC than those fed human milk for more than 1/2 their diet. For most doctors, 6 times (a 600% increase) is big enough to change clinical practice. Even if a chunk of that was from other, non-measured factors, it is very unlikely that those factors would account for the entire increase in risk.

stats nerds unite
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatioGardener View Post
I'm not sure which thread you are talking about, but the best (methodologically speaking) study so far is the randomized control trial called PROBIT. Because hospitals were randomly assigned to get breastfeeding support or not, the mothers in those hospitals were 'randomly' more likely to breastfeed or not, and so all the factors are distributed randomly and the only non-random variable (breastfeeding support which resulted in a higher breastfeeding rate) is therefore responsible for any differences seen between the 2 populations.

The studies involving NEC (necrotizing entercolitis ? - I think that is how it is spelled) in premature infants adjusted for variables thought to be confounders using logistic regression. They don't need to adjust for all variables - just the ones that are associated with the treatment (breastmilk) and the outcome (NEC.)

Of course in non-randomized studies there will always be factors that were not or cannot be measured - what really matters is how strong the association is after adjusting for everything possible. For NEC, in the study I read, the babies who were not fed human milk for more than 50% of their diet were 6 times more likely to get NEC than those fed human milk for more than 1/2 their diet. For most doctors, 6 times (a 600% increase) is big enough to change clinical practice. Even if a chunk of that was from other, non-measured factors, it is very unlikely that those factors would account for the entire increase in risk.

stats nerds unite
I should have been an actuary like my stats teacher recommended

I guess the kinds of things I wonder about which made me pose this question are the "non-health" issues. Things like security, IQ, etc. Are the non health benefits due to the milk or due to the nature of parenting bf kids are more likely to receive?

The main reason I do wonder if that stuff is related to the milk itself is because of this article I found on MDC somewhere related to early brain development where breastfeeding is not mentioned once.

I'm not making any claims one way or the other. Just curious.
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by FREEmom1120 View Post
Are the non health benefits due to the milk or due to the nature of parenting bf kids are more likely to receive?
Good question.

We can even question if these outcomes are from the breastfeeding part of breastfeeding and not the milk part - impossible really to separate the 2, but the dental/oral development could be entirely from the mode of delivery, rather than the milk itself.

A possible study for security/anxiety/emotional development (so difficult to measure in themselves!) would be to compare kids who were breastfed to kids who were bottle fed formula with skin-to-skin, never fed alone, always fed while being held, etc.

OR to find a population where breastfeeding is the norm throughout all walks of life and see the distribution of anxiety etc in the population. Then compare it to a primarily formula fed population.

But I guess in a way it comes down to if you feel it is necessary to separate out the parenting, mode of delivery etc for those softer (as you said 'non-health') outcomes. If formula fed children are shown to be more anxious than breastfed children, perhaps we don't need to sort out if it is the breastfeeding or the parenting that goes with the brestfeeding, and can instead help families to breastfeed. If in the end it turns out that breastfeeding isn't strong enough an exposure to overcome the powerful factors that affect anxiety, such as poverty and stress, then at least the child and mother will have the health benefits of breastfeeding.

ETA: I saw a really neat talk about how the brain develops when a child is breastfeeding - imaged with MRI maybe? I can't remember - but the point was that it is the perfect time to assimilate all the senses - touch, smell, taste, sight and hearing, and the emotions (it was the use of the emotional center of the brain that was seen on the imaging). I'll try to find the reference (it's relatively new I think.)
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatioGardener View Post
ETA: I saw a really neat talk about how the brain develops when a child is breastfeeding - imaged with MRI maybe? I can't remember - but the point was that it is the perfect time to assimilate all the senses - touch, smell, taste, sight and hearing, and the emotions (it was the use of the emotional center of the brain that was seen on the imaging). I'll try to find the reference (it's relatively new I think.)
I would love to see that if you can find it.

Thanks for all your input.
post #13 of 15
Can we make this thread a sticky?
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatioGardener View Post
ETA: I saw a really neat talk about how the brain develops when a child is breastfeeding - imaged with MRI maybe? I can't remember - but the point was that it is the perfect time to assimilate all the senses - touch, smell, taste, sight and hearing, and the emotions (it was the use of the emotional center of the brain that was seen on the imaging). I'll try to find the reference (it's relatively new I think.)
OK, so I wasn't dreaming this - but I just went back through the speaker's notes and it turns out that he was summarizing a paper that took a lot of different studies on infants (including neuroimaging, stress hormone release etc) and built a case for attachment parenting to promote healthy brain development. The speaker I saw (Nils Bergman) had concentrated on the skin-to-skin aspect, smell and vision, and the processing that happens orally to build a case for breastfeeding - no actual imaging studies for breastfeeding have been done.

Here is the paper - I just skimmed it this morning, but it makes an interesting case. It isn't a population study, more a summary of scientific studies:
SCHORE, ALLAN N. 2001. EFFECTS OF A SECURE ATTACHMENT RELATIONSHIP ON RIGHT BRAIN DEVELOPMENT, AFFECT REGULATION, AND INFANT MENTAL HEALTH. INFANT MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL, Vol. 22(1–2), 7–66
(sorry about the CAPS - cut and paste.)
post #15 of 15
This is fabulous! Thank you so much for posting this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lactivism
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › Quotes and Info with References