[firstkid4me]

Well, the last issue of Mothering talked about how we've become a bottle society, and I was thinking tonight about the commercials for bfing (you know, bfing reduces your risk of breast cancer, reduces the risk of obesity, etc.) Well, I think they're marketing it wrong, bfing is the standard, or at least it should be, instead of bfing reducing the risk of breast cancer, they should say that formula feeding inceases the mother's risk of breast cancer. Am I totally off base in thinking this?

 

[Benji'sMom]

What if you never have children? Are you increasing your risk of breast cancer by not having children so you can BF them? I think breastfeeding is a proactive thing that you do to lower your risk. I think the baseline that they're measuring against is the - how to explain it? -person who has not done anything with her breasts. So the FF mother has the same risk as the childless woman. She's at the same risk level as before she had kids, she has not "increased" her risk by FFing. Am I making sense? I guess for marketing, it sounds good to say FF will increase the mother's risk of cancer, but it's not really accurate, yk?

 

[DreamsInDigital]

There actually are some commercials coming out using the risk method rather than the breast is best method and there has been quite a public outcry about it. People don't like being told they're putting their babies at risk for diseases.

 

[firstkid4me]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benji'sMom What if you never have children? Are you increasing your risk of breast cancer by not having children so you can BF them? I think breastfeeding is a proactive thing that you do to lower your risk. I think the baseline that they're measuring against is the - how to explain it? -person who has not done anything with her breasts. So the FF mother has the same risk as the childless woman. She's at the same risk level as before she had kids, she has not "increased" her risk by FFing. Am I making sense? I guess for marketing, it sounds good to say FF will increase the mother's risk of cancer, but it's not really accurate, yk?

Ok, maybe the breast cancer one isn't a good example, but what about childhood obesity and cancer? You're increasing your child's risk of obesity and cancer by feeding her/him formula.

 

[sophmama]

Actually it is on the list of risk factors for breast cancer to have never had children. Not that I think all women should reproduce, but it's just a statistical risk factor.

I remember Sex in the City did a show highlighting that.

 

[frontierpsych]

I definitely think that formula feeding (or at least the absence of breastfeeding) can be said to be risky for children (ass opposed to breastfeeding being beneficial) because breastfeeding is the biological standard, so therefore formula must be substandard.

 

[tallulahma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophmama Actually it is on the list of risk factors for breast cancer to have never had children. Not that I think all women should reproduce, but it's just a statistical risk factor. I remember Sex in the City did a show highlighting that.

i believe the studies link increased breast ca to higher amounts of estrogen for longer periods of time... early onset puberty, no pregnancy or lactation to cause decreased periods and late menopause all are "statistical risks"

 

[firstkid4me]

Quote:

Originally Posted by inchijen i believe the studies link increased breast ca to higher amounts of estrogen for longer periods of time... early onset puberty, no pregnancy or lactation to cause decreased periods and late menopause all are "statistical risks"

Well, on the same note, wouldn't taking birth control for a long period of time also put you at risk? (The pill with estrogen that is.) My personal belief is that there is a link between the rise in estrogen containing birth control use and the rise in rates of breast cancer.

 

[arlecchina]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamsInDigital There actually are some commercials coming out using the risk method rather than the breast is best method and there has been quite a public outcry about it. People don't like being told they're putting their babies at risk for diseases.

truth hurts.

 

[moonfirefaery]

I agree... and did anyone notice the pic of Courtney Love bottlefeeding? I have to say, that is one bottlefeeding image I'm GLAD to see. That woman has done so many drugs I'm glad she's not nursing!

 

[Kavita]

truth hurts.[/QUOTe

Actually I object to those ads for a different reason--I think that if the government wants more moms to breastfeed we need better laws--for instance in many countries women get mat. leave paid by the government. I think in Sweden women get close to a year of mat. leave! Can you even imagine that in the U.S.? What about laws requiring employers to provide time and a place for pumping? How about even a breastfeeding tax credit?! How about step in and put a stop to some of the formula company marketing in hospitals? How about training more LC's and paying them to work in the community in underserved areas, just like they do with doctors and other health professions? I don't think a big government sponsored heaping of mommy-guilt is really the answer.

 

[firstkid4me]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arlecchina truth hurts.[/QUOTe Actually I object to those ads for a different reason--I think that if the government wants more moms to breastfeed we need better laws--for instance in many countries women get mat. leave paid by the government. I think in Sweden women get close to a year of mat. leave! Can you even imagine that in the U.S.? What about laws requiring employers to provide time and a place for pumping? How about even a breastfeeding tax credit?! How about step in and put a stop to some of the formula company marketing in hospitals? How about training more LC's and paying them to work in the community in underserved areas, just like they do with doctors and other health professions? I don't think a big government sponsored heaping of mommy-guilt is really the answer.

Well, if they're going to give people a year of maternity leave, I have a feeling health insurance rates are going to go up, as well as taxes, and people aren't going to like that, regardless of how they're going to make out.

Training LC's, that's like saying, why doesn't the government train more teachers... the government has nothing to do with it, it has to do with teenagers and other adults wanting to do what they want to do, they don't want to be teachers because the pay sucks, they don't want to be an lc because they either don't know what it is or they don't really give a crap.

I do agree that the formula advertising in hospitals (and on tv, imo) should stop though.

 

[callmemama]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benji'sMom What if you never have children? Are you increasing your risk of breast cancer by not having children so you can BF them?

Actually yes, from what I've read. And for those like me that postponed child bearing and breastfeeding until our 40's, its considered too little too late (for the mom). Or so that is my interpretation of the reading material. Not to worry, my ds self-weaned at 5.75 years.

To the OP, I agree! People need to be made aware of the risks!

 

[jeanine123]

Nope you're not....and there's no way in hell that an ad like that would ever make it to the airwaves.

 

[elanorh]

Personally I think the only way that there will be enough public support to CAUSE legislation to protect women's rights to pump while at work, to provide longer maternity leaves, etc. etc. etc. --- will be if John Q Public (not just we lactating mothers) actually comes to realize that ffing is RISKY and is COSTING MONEY that they are paying to the gov't for health issues that the ff babies have, etc. etc. etc. That it's raising their insurance premiums to cover those infants' needs, etc.

So, I do think that the "risk" ads are a route towards that. The "mechanical bull" ads actually initially had the "FF increases your/your child's risk of X, Y, Z" on them, but they never aired that way (formula companies prevented that, we got the watered-down versions, and then those were canned too).

I really think there won't be critical mass enough behind bf legislation, until at least the majority of the (voting) public realizes that it's not so much that "Breast is Best," but that "Formula is Risky." Until then, it's easy for most folks to say, "Eh, put the baby on formula when you go back to work, what's the big deal?" KWIM?

 

[frontierpsych]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery I agree... and did anyone notice the pic of Courtney Love bottlefeeding? I have to say, that is one bottlefeeding image I'm GLAD to see. That woman has done so many drugs I'm glad she's not nursing!

But I'm still wondering why she had to be topless to give her baby a bottle.

 

[moonfirefaery]

To be sexy? To show off her useless breasts?

 

[frontierpsych]

She isn't sexy, just scary.

 

[moonfirefaery]

Quote:

I don't think a big government sponsored heaping of mommy-guilt is really the answer.

No, but not educating someone, providing alternatives to their excuses, and pushing what's best for a child to avoid making them feel guilty isn't the answer either. Women need to be told the truth, and if they chose to ignore it, they need to be told it's their choice but that it's not okay, it's not just as good, and that it's not condoned. You cannot make a woman feel guilty where no guilt is not already present. If that makes them feel guilty, then that just means you got through to them, that they know they didn't make the best choice, that maybe next time they will make the best choice. There need to be consequences for every action. Guilt is just one of the ways we learn from our mistakes. There's no point in talking at a woman JUST to make her feel guilty, but doing it to convince her to make the better choice is quite different. If she feels guilty for not making the best choice then that's a sign she's learned something.