The Dangers of Formula - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 05:23 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 15,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
Then I don't understand.

Dangers of formula- formula feeding increases risk of certain cancers, illnesses, disease. I think women should be told this.

What is the disagreement and what is considered fear mongering and what is fact?
The FACT is that scary things can happen to a child because of FFing. If that induces fear...well...?

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#122 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 05:32 PM
 
songbh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugMacGee View Post
Women who are doing it for convenience are going to do it for convenience, REGARDLESS!

I'll address this one last point and then back off and let you breathe for a bit!

Yes, many mothers seem to find that formula-feeding is more "convenient" than breastfeeding.

So let's restructure the world to make breastfeeding the more convenient infant-feeding option.

How do we do that? Well, it will cost certain powerful societal institutions quite a lot of money, time, and energy. So let's encourage them to move in that direction ... by convincing them -- everyone -- that breastfeeding is worth it.

How do we do that? By making sure that everyone understands, really and truly "gets," that not breastfeeding is risky and costly.
songbh is offline  
#123 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 05:33 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbh View Post
First, I think the "risks of formula-feeding" doesn't have to preach fear. It can promote informed consent; knowledge is power. People fear what they don't know and don't understand. It is possible to share factual information in ways that are respectful and empowering. But it is impossible to respect an individual's decision-making capacity and free choice while simultaneously denying her access to all the relevant facts.

Second, I dispute your claim that other public health campaigns aren't working. They DO work. Rates of undesired behaviors decrease and rates of desired behaviors increase following properly designed and implemented ad campaigns:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...4224904002360: (I accessed the article through my university library; the link provides the citation information so that you can find it through your own channels. Here are the highlights.)

On seatbelt usage:

On smoking:
I wish you all had been at this discussion group today. It was so pertinent to this subject.

I'm not saying the campaigns have no effect, but people are still making those choices despite a campaign of fear. Breastfeeding rates are increasing (according to the CDC) doing what we are doing now. Adding better support systems and continued education will help enforce and bloster the trend. Though I think that there will always be women who really can't be bothered to breastfeed. Sad, yes but I'm going to focus more of my energy on women who want to succeed at breastfeeding.
There are big differences in levels of breastfeeding broken down by education and socioeconomic levels. So clearly, these issues need to be addressed as well.
No one is saying withhold information. It's what you choose to emphasize.
BugMacGee is offline  
#124 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 05:36 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We're all agreeing!!!

Oy vey.:
BugMacGee is offline  
#125 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 06:48 PM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbh View Post
Actually, I went back through the thread and found numerous instances of posters (including you!) saying it is better not to share facts that cast non-emergency routine formula usage in a bad light:


My point? "Don't share these facts about formula's risks" = "Withhold facts."
My point? Highlight the facts of breastfeeding. It's still stating the truth.

Breastfeeding raises IQ.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of cancer.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of diabetes.

This is much better than

Formula lowers IQ.
Formula increases the risk of cancer.
Formula increases the risk of diabetes.

Same information, different route.

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
#126 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 06:57 PM
 
Changed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
My point? Highlight the facts of breastfeeding. It's still stating the truth.

Breastfeeding raises IQ.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of cancer.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of diabetes.

This is much better than

Formula lowers IQ.
Formula increases the risk of cancer.
Formula increases the risk of diabetes.

Same information, different route.
Why is it better? If a pregnant woman sees the risk, it seems she'd be more likely to consider breast-feeding. Possibly for the same reasons that talk of dangerous chemicals in sposies is more likely to make someone consider cloth than just talking up the perks.

It seems that a lot of the time, what trumps risks and benefits is convenience for the mother.
Changed is offline  
#127 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:10 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
My point? Highlight the facts of breastfeeding. It's still stating the truth.

Breastfeeding raises IQ.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of cancer.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of diabetes.

This is much better than

Formula lowers IQ.
Formula increases the risk of cancer.
Formula increases the risk of diabetes.

Same information, different route.
The problem is that it isn't the same information. Stated that way, it assumes that one has a certain risk of getting cancer and breastfeeding lowers it when it is formula feeding increases the risk.

So instead of breastfeeding lowers the risk of certain cancers by 25%, it is actually that formula feeding increases the risk of cancer by 33%.

So it actually distorts the facts.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#128 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:16 PM
 
delphiniumpansy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 2,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
My point? Highlight the facts of breastfeeding. It's still stating the truth.

Breastfeeding raises IQ.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of cancer.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of diabetes.

This is much better than

Formula lowers IQ.
Formula increases the risk of cancer.
Formula increases the risk of diabetes.

Same information, different route.

My point, also! You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

I remember a LLL leader talking to me at an xmas party we were both at once. Before I had kids. She was telling me how she was still nursing her 2 year old and how bad formula and daycare were (I am not deviating from the topic, I promise). I thought she was nuts and pushy and I could not imagine what she meant. Formula was fine, I thought. Plenty of kids are raised on it. Her extremely negative attitude towards formula turned me off. At other functions I went to with her, I just ignored her after that. I thought she was weird.

Flash forward a few years - now I have two kids, breastfed the first for 30 mos, she had a bit of formula for first two weeks and nothing else for a year after that. I nurse the baby now. I volunteer for a pro BFing organization and I would love to go to LLL meeting myself if they did not interfere with other duties.

My point - you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!!!! If that first LLL leader had instead talked to me about the benefits of nursing, I probably would have thought very differently of her and would have liked her.
delphiniumpansy is offline  
#129 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:18 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 15,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
The problem is that it isn't the same information. Stated that way, it assumes that one has a certain risk of getting cancer and breastfeeding lowers it when it is formula feeding increases the risk.

So instead of breastfeeding lowers the risk of certain cancers by 25%, it is actually that formula feeding increases the risk of cancer by 33%.

So it actually distorts the facts.
:

Breastmilk does NOT make anyone smarter or healthier! It allows for NORMAL DEVELOPMENT, which means formula is DETRIMENTAL.

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#130 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:18 PM
 
delphiniumpansy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 2,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
The problem is that it isn't the same information. Stated that way, it assumes that one has a certain risk of getting cancer and breastfeeding lowers it when it is formula feeding increases the risk.

So instead of breastfeeding lowers the risk of certain cancers by 25%, it is actually that formula feeding increases the risk of cancer by 33%.

So it actually distorts the facts.
That is a good point. But her point is still that you could talk about the benefits of BFing rather than the negatives of formula feeding.

I think we are all in favor of talking about breastfeeding to others it is just how to talk to them about it. I think it really depends on your audience. If you want to win people to breastfeeding, just like if you want to win people to natural childbirth, it is far better to highlight the positives before you start bringing up the negatives. You can bring up the negatives when they are interested in them, after you have started to win them over and you are sure of not offending them or scaring them away. Since breastfeeding and natural childbirth both should be norms in the USA but are not, it behooves us all to approach the topics in the best way possible to sway people to what we all know is a healthy lifestyle.
delphiniumpansy is offline  
#131 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:19 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 34,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
My point? Highlight the facts of breastfeeding. It's still stating the truth.

Breastfeeding raises IQ.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of cancer.
Breastfeeding lowers the risk of diabetes.

This is much better than

Formula lowers IQ.
Formula increases the risk of cancer.
Formula increases the risk of diabetes.

Same information, different route.
But.. it's not the same information. In the case of the breastfeeding statements, it's not even factual information.

Breastfeeding does not raise a child's IQ. A breastfed child's IQ is the baseline. What you're saying is that a formula-fed babe's IQ is the baseline, and that breastfed babies get bonus points. It's not true. Same for cancer, same for diabetes, same for everything else.

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
#132 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:20 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well I think both are valid, depending on the situation, but really breast milk is the biological norm.

It is like saying not smoking lowers your risk of cancer.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#133 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:22 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post
But.. it's not the same information. In the case of the breastfeeding statements, it's not even factual information.

Breastfeeding does not raise a child's IQ. A breastfed child's IQ is the baseline. What you're saying is that a formula-fed babe's IQ is the baseline, and that breastfed babies get bonus points. It's not true. Same for cancer, same for diabetes, same for everything else.
Exactly.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#134 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:24 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In my area the initial BF'ing rate is 91%. I think that's awesome especially considering how many people we have from cultures where someone else besides mom traditionally does most of the infant care.


If a pregnant woman sees the risk, it seems she'd be more likely to consider breast-feeding.

We've established that this is not the way everyone works. We have adages like "catch more flies with honey" for a very good reason.

Positive reinforcement. It's what we are supposed to be doing with our kids, why not our potential breastfeeding moms?
BugMacGee is offline  
#135 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:28 PM
 
krystyn33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In the great green room
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
When formula is the norm, as it is now, breastfeeding is perceived as "better." If BFing were the norm, formula feeding would be seen as "worse."

We need to speak the language/spread the perception of the change we want to actualize: BFing is the norm; formula is substandard, anf therefore carries risks.
krystyn33 is offline  
#136 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:31 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 34,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
It is like saying not smoking lowers your risk of cancer.
I like this!

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
#137 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:46 PM
 
songbh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugMacGee View Post
If a pregnant woman sees the risk, it seems she'd be more likely to consider breast-feeding.

We've established that this is not the way everyone works. We have adages like "catch more flies with honey" for a very good reason.
No, we have NOT established this. I asked upthread for evidence to support claims that "benefits of BFing" works better as a public health message than "risks of formula." None of the detractors in this thread has offered such evidence -- instead, they keep insisting that "you catch more flies with honey" ad nauseum.
songbh is offline  
#138 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:49 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 15,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbh View Post
No, we have NOT established this. I asked upthread for evidence to support claims that "benefits of BFing" works better as a public health message than "risks of formula." None of the detractors in this thread has offered such evidence -- instead, they keep insisting that "you catch more flies with honey" ad nauseum.
Yup. That.

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#139 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 07:55 PM
 
songbh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy View Post
My point, also! You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

I remember a LLL leader talking to me at an xmas party we were both at once. Before I had kids. She was telling me how she was still nursing her 2 year old and how bad formula and daycare were (I am not deviating from the topic, I promise). I thought she was nuts and pushy and I could not imagine what she meant. Formula was fine, I thought. Plenty of kids are raised on it. Her extremely negative attitude towards formula turned me off. At other functions I went to with her, I just ignored her after that. I thought she was weird.

Flash forward a few years - now I have two kids, breastfed the first for 30 mos, she had a bit of formula for first two weeks and nothing else for a year after that. I nurse the baby now. I volunteer for a pro BFing organization and I would love to go to LLL meeting myself if they did not interfere with other duties.

My point - you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!!!! If that first LLL leader had instead talked to me about the benefits of nursing, I probably would have thought very differently of her and would have liked her.
Delphiniumpansy, this anecdote absolutely fascinates me. On the one hand, you say that this LLL Leader's message was off-putting; on the other hand, you have ended up doing precisely what her message encourages -- breastfeeding. You even say you would like to attend LLL meetings now.

Sounds to me like her "vinegar" caught your "flies" after all!

I often think that one way lactivists hamstring themselves is to be overly concerned with how people feel about us personally. Of course (as I stated upthread in my rant about manners) I'm not advocating a judgmental or accusatory approach to anyone. But if the main thing preventing us from using "risks of not BFing" framing in our public messages is that we don't want people to think we're weird, then we really aren't doing this cause justice. I'm not afraid to be thought weird by the mainstream, when the mainstream culture is so very wrong on this vitally important issue of infant feeding norms.
songbh is offline  
#140 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:03 PM
 
songbh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
My point? Highlight the facts of breastfeeding. It's still stating the truth.
No, it really isn't stating the truth. It is stating "facts" that are premised on a big fat cultural lie: that formula is normal and just fine.

Have you read the Weissinger article "Watch Your Language!"? What you keep insisting over and over ("benefits of BFing" wins more converts) is precisely the notion that she tears apart in that piece.

I'm sorely tempted to start a new thread in which we could walk through that article point by point. Maybe after I finish all my grading next week.
songbh is offline  
#141 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:12 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Where is formula the norm? Not where I live.

Originally Posted by songbh
No, we have NOT established this. I asked upthread for evidence to support claims that "benefits of BFing" works better as a public health message than "risks of formula." None of the detractors in this thread has offered such evidence -- instead, they keep insisting that "you catch more flies with honey" ad nauseum.


Um, yes we have or this wouldn't be so contentious. If everyone thought this would work, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. What more proof do you need?
BugMacGee is offline  
#142 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:22 PM
 
songbh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugMacGee View Post
Where is formula the norm? Not where I live.
You have already stated that while your "area" (whatever that means) has an impressive BFing initiation rate, rates a few weeks or months down the line drop dramatically. All the major health organizations recommend exclusive BFing for 6 months and continued BFing with appropriate complementary feeding for AT LEAST one year. If most of the babies in your area aren't being breastfed in keeping with these guidelines at 6 months and 1 year, then formula is the norm where you live.

And it certainly the norm for the U.S. as a whole, where only about 75% of babies are ever breastfed, less than 25% are still breastfeeding AT ALL at 6 months, and nursing a full 12 months is still more uncommon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by songbh
No, we have NOT established this. I asked upthread for evidence to support claims that "benefits of BFing" works better as a public health message than "risks of formula." None of the detractors in this thread has offered such evidence -- instead, they keep insisting that "you catch more flies with honey" ad nauseum.


Um, yes we have or this wouldn't be so contentious. If everyone thought this would work, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. What more proof do you need?
Let me rephrase. You insist "more flies with honey." I ask for evidence and offer evidence to the contrary. You reply that your evidence is my disagreement.

Sorry, but rational debate doesn't work this way. Thanks for playing.
songbh is offline  
#143 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:27 PM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jörð View Post
Why is it better? If a pregnant woman sees the risk, it seems she'd be more likely to consider breast-feeding. Possibly for the same reasons that talk of dangerous chemicals in sposies is more likely to make someone consider cloth than just talking up the perks.

It seems that a lot of the time, what trumps risks and benefits is convenience for the mother.
Because it emphasises the positive.

And you can flame sposies until the cows come home, and I will still continue to use them. Tell me of the benefits of cloth, though, and I'd be more tempted to listen.

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
#144 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:29 PM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
The problem is that it isn't the same information. Stated that way, it assumes that one has a certain risk of getting cancer and breastfeeding lowers it when it is formula feeding increases the risk.

So instead of breastfeeding lowers the risk of certain cancers by 25%, it is actually that formula feeding increases the risk of cancer by 33%.

So it actually distorts the facts.
It all depends on the study being read and the manner in which it is interpreted. I've seen it both ways.

So I'll continue to disagree.

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
#145 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:32 PM
 
My4Boys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=BugMacGee;9994402]Where is formula the norm? Not where I live.
QUOTE]

Wow, you are really, really lucky to live where breastfeeding is the norm then. That must mean you have a 99% initiation rate, similar to Norway. It must mean that the first go-to intervention in your hospitals isn't formula for everything from baby's getting a tad jaundiced to baby blinked twice more than he was supposed to. It must mean that during pediatric checkups, moms are not asked how much formula is the baby drinking now? Or, you can put her on cow's milk now that she's one? Or, he's still nursing? Or, here, take a can, just in case? It must mean that you can walk into a mall or restaurant and see women with babies nursing instead of women mixing bottles of formula. You must see it on tv and in magazines - not just in PSA's or as a butt of the joke for the night, but as part of what is done. A woman with thrush or mastitis must be able to go to her doctor and have it both diagnosed and treated without being told she has to wean. Sounds like Lactopia. Wish I lived there.
My4Boys is offline  
#146 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:35 PM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbh View Post
You have already stated that while your "area" (whatever that means) has an impressive BFing initiation rate, rates a few weeks or months down the line drop dramatically. All the major health organizations recommend exclusive BFing for 6 months and continued BFing with appropriate complementary feeding for AT LEAST one year. If most of the babies in your area aren't being breastfed in keeping with these guidelines at 6 months and 1 year, then formula is the norm where you live.

And it certainly the norm for the U.S. as a whole, where only about 75% of babies are ever breastfed, less than 25% are still breastfeeding AT ALL at 6 months, and nursing a full 12 months is still more uncommon.



Let me rephrase. You insist "more flies with honey." I ask for evidence and offer evidence to the contrary. You reply that your evidence is my disagreement.

Sorry, but rational debate doesn't work this way. Thanks for playing.
No need to get nasty, dear. Your evidence is still opinion, and we are entitled to disagree.

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
#147 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:41 PM
 
Changed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
Because it emphasises the positive.

And you can flame sposies until the cows come home, and I will still continue to use them. Tell me of the benefits of cloth, though, and I'd be more tempted to listen.
So what you're saying is that you're more interested in hearing how cloth benefits you and your baby than hearing how you could be hurting him/her? I don't operate that way. If I was planning to do something potentially harmful to my baby, I'd want to know! It's not a matter of flaming something. Facts are facts and that doesn't change because they inconvenience you or make you feel guilty.
(such a bad example for someone who used quite a few 7th gens this year )
Changed is offline  
#148 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:42 PM
 
delphiniumpansy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 2,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbh View Post
Delphiniumpansy, this anecdote absolutely fascinates me. On the one hand, you say that this LLL Leader's message was off-putting; on the other hand, you have ended up doing precisely what her message encourages -- breastfeeding. You even say you would like to attend LLL meetings now.

Sounds to me like her "vinegar" caught your "flies" after all!

I often think that one way lactivists hamstring themselves is to be overly concerned with how people feel about us personally. Of course (as I stated upthread in my rant about manners) I'm not advocating a judgmental or accusatory approach to anyone. But if the main thing preventing us from using "risks of not BFing" framing in our public messages is that we don't want people to think we're weird, then we really aren't doing this cause justice. I'm not afraid to be thought weird by the mainstream, when the mainstream culture is so very wrong on this vitally important issue of infant feeding norms.
I guess it is ironic that I am doing exactly what she told me about. I still think she was annoying. I found my own path to where I am now for many reasons.

I think it is a good point to look at what the research shows about advocating breastfeeding and risks. LLL has a page which says that, in fact, it is better to talk about the risks, that they do increase the likelihood of breastfeeding.

http://www.llli.org/NB/NBSepOct05p208a.html

So, I stand corrected. But, I will say, that I do think in-your-face advocacy is annoying. So, be polite.

And, my major issue has been with the loaded language. I also think it depends on to whom you are speaking. You should approach this differently if you are talking to a formula using crowd than if you are talking to a bunch of moms to be. You can be more open and honest with the moms to be but need to tread more lightly with those who already use formula. Just my opinion.
delphiniumpansy is offline  
#149 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:46 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Let me rephrase. You insist "more flies with honey." I ask for evidence and offer evidence to the contrary. You reply that your evidence is my disagreement.

What I said was basically that not everyone thinks, reacts to information the same way. Which, the presence of *the detractors* on this thread, proves.
BugMacGee is offline  
#150 of 209 Old 12-12-2007, 08:49 PM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jörð View Post
So what you're saying is that you're more interested in hearing how cloth benefits you and your baby than hearing how you could be hurting him/her? I don't operate that way. If I was planning to do something potentially harmful to my baby, I'd want to know! It's not a matter of flaming something. Facts are facts and that doesn't change because they inconvenience you or make you feel guilty.
(such a bad example for someone who used quite a few 7th gens this year )
If I have already made my decision, my legal decision, my decision which has been confirmed by millions of families, then your argument will put me on the defensive.

If you want people to change, making them feel defensive about their current practices is the quickest route to nowhere.

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off