[Gagesmom]

This is just a vent: I am so irritated.
A good friend of mine who is also a co-worker is one of those "know it all" women who actually know very little. She will preach at length on any subject, whether she is familiar with it or not. She is pregnant with her second child and has a 4 year old DD that she formula-fed because she had a combo of inverted nipples/lack of milk supply that made it nearly impossible for her to breastfeed.
Anyway, she was working on a client today and the client happened to mention breastfeeding and my friend (let's call her Carol), said, "Oh, they have done tests now showing lots of impurities in breastmilk, and they have found out that breastmilk is actually not the best thing for babies at all." The client said, "Oh really?" and Carol retorted, "Oh yes, for years they've said it's the best thing but it turns out it's not. Plus they make formula now that is better than breastmilk anyway."
I was astounded. Did I say anything? No, it wasn't the time or the place. Am I completely blind-sided by her ignorance? YES!
Normally, I don't really respond to her silly know-it-all tirades: I just let her chatter and it doesn't bother me. But this really ticks me off. The thing is, even when we do discuss the matter (and we will discuss it, I'm sure), I really can't think of any intelligent rebuttals to her argument. I know that they have come out with studies about impurities in breastmilk, but what are the findings exactly? Can anyone give me the correct info so I can educate my blow-hard friend about this before she spreads more ridiculous information?

 

[Gagesmom]

[

 

[Meiri]

Go over to www.breastfeeding.com

Go to the Community Forums, to the Advocacy page. There is a posting by a DOCTOR of his reponse to the TV networks blowing out of proportion the findings about chemicals in humanmilk.

What I remember of his points:

1)20 people does not an epidemiological study make.
2)He gives the molecular reasons why the chemicals are a nonissue...
3)I forget the rest of his points.

The only thing he left out and This might be something quick to point out to the know-nothing-true friend is that the cows and soybeans from which formulas are made exist in the same environments as we do. Therefor, if contaminants are getting into humanmilk those same contaminants are in the cow or soy formulas. Those formulas are still dead substances with nothing to support a baby's immune system.

 

[Firemom]

The thing with this news report that came out about toxins in breastmilk, is that they just like to sensationalize it.

So its in breastmilk, did it just bypass everything else on earth?

 

[Gagesmom]

Yes, exactly-it's not like formula is sterile, nor is the water you mix it with or the bottles you put it in-and even if it was w/out bacteria that doesn't mean it doesn't have contaminants, pollutants, etc. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

 

[Quirky]

You can read the reports themselves on fire retardants in breastmilk at www.ewg.org. The authors themselves prominently state that breastfeeding is best; the big question is, why the

is this crap in breastmilk??? The significance of the study is that we are contaminating our bodies with the crap we produce in the name of science, industry, and the almighty dollar, and our milk proves it.

You might want to send your co-worker a copy of the link and of the page that says breast is still by far and away the best!

 

[NaturalMamma]

Sounds like you've received some good info on breastmilks' superiority. I'll reiterate: it's living food, specifically designed for a specific baby. Researchers still haven't isolated all the amazing components of human milk. Check out La Leche League's site. On another note, if the power goes out or there is a national emergency, breastfed babies will survive!

I'd also like to point out to you that you don't sound as if you like your "good friend" too much. It seems to me that this "know it all" woman who "actually knows very little" isn't someone you should invest time in.

I think it's good to enlighten her a bit to prevent her from giving out incorrent, damaging information. I also think it's good for you to invest your time and energy in other people/co-workers. Life is too short.

Good luck to you.

 

[sm3247]

that's exactly what bothers me about these kinds of studies. i think the idea behind them is that breastmilk is a good indicator of what's going in and out of humans. They're looking at contaminants that make their way into humans through exposure, not doing a study on the safety of breastmilk. Also, they're not comparing breastmilk to formula, just seeing what humans are exposed to.

Unfortunately, it seems to give people who aren't committed to breastfeeding an excuse for not doing so, or people who don't like breastfeeding fodder for their fire.

 

[jeca]

I hate to hear people rattle on stupid things like that. Especially to a third party. I make it a point to say SOMETHING to counderact it, no matter how small. I wouldn't want that person to go off thinking what someone else said is all good and great.
I hear that alot though. "Formula now is just as good as BM". If that was teh acse thenwouldn't the AAP start recomeding taht instead and why do they keep adding stuff to it?

 

[Karennnnn]

Ugh. This is why mainstream advertising is so dangerous.
Formula commercials (among other mainstream media like certain magazines) are really nice and dumbed down and therefore give people the wrong idea. No doubt this woman saw a formula commercial or saw a report on tv or an article about the "enhanced" formulas and she came to this conclusion.
The commercials make it sound like the only two ingredients that were missing from formula in the past have now been found and now formula is the same as breast milk. Anyone else get this from the advertising?
What's funny is Martek is right down the road from where I live

Blah.
Take care,
Karen

 

[Brookesmom]

OMG, do you work with my mother??

: She had to "inform" me of that on the phone a couple weeks ago too. I just told her that overall, breastmilk is still much better and changes to meet babies' needs, like when I have a virus and antiboties are passed on... later I saw only 20 people were in the study and made sure to tell her.

grr, why are people so ready to bash breastfeeding?

Even *if* they were nutritionally equal, I would still nurse. Why pay all that money to a big corporation if you don't have to?

If she is close enough to be a friend, I'd set her straight nicely when you have the opportunity.

 

[Cadensmom]

I honestly think that people who bash on breastfeeding are just jelous or feel guilty because they didnt do it. People like that piss me off so much! The reason for the study was just to prove that the chemicals are in our body, not to say that breast milk is bad. no matter what happens the kids are going to have it in their system.

 

[Karennnnn]

Brookesmom--
I'm so glad you said that!
It's like the old saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" I guess that's something you can use on those who tend to be more ignorant, that's something maybe they'll understand.
Of course that's put simply, I can insert about 154 other reasons after the "for free" part, but that would be too much for some

Take care,
Karen

 

[beachrock]

I agree with Cadensmom. Many of the people I talk to (as nicely as I can

) about bf vs. artificial milk seem veeerrry defensive about their "choice" to use the latter.

I do think we all have a innate instinct (is that redundant?) to bf our babies. Women who overrule that instinct wind up feeling like they've lost something (which they have) and their babies have missed out (also true), but very few people are mature enough to say "I wish I had bf'ed". So they defend themselves by bashing bm and comfort themselves by enticing other moms to bottle-feed.

 

[mamawanabe]

Breaks my heart. So clearly is your coworker defending herself against her own doubts and fears about FF feeding.

Yes, the title of the flame retardent study was misleading. Read to the end of the article and you find out that the child's exposure to the chemicals occurs primarily in utero, that breastmilk is just an indicator of the chemical's build-up in the body not a significant delivery system, that breastmilk is the best way to ward off the developmental effects of the chemical exposure that occured in utero (the article literally said that).

Poor woman. She is clearly justifying and rationalizing. If she really can't breastfeed, let her continue to do so. I doubt her tirades will sway anyone else, but they may make her feel better about her own mothering. No reason to convince her that breastmilk is best when it isn't an option for her, you know?