Nestle’ has introduced a new product (they are the parent company of Gerber, who manufactures infant formula). The more recent comeback of breastfeeding popularity in our society is causing slumping sales for formula companies. Trying to find another way into the pockets of families, they have introduced a “Keurig” for formula. In the past several days, I’ve seen it pop up on my Facebook page in various articles and blogs, but I wanted to share this one in particular: politicsrespun. What struck me was not the opinion itself (though it is very good writing), but the comments. Here is what struck a discordant note with me:
Mad as Hell
May 26th, 2011 @ 1:21 pm
Youn know. Its people like you that made my wife feel like a failure for not being able to breastfeed. For about a day that is, until the joys of formula feeding started to show themselves.
And we have the happiest little girl you can possibly imagine. She ate meat at 4 months and loved it
I know more about the biology of antibodies then most people who read this and I can say this…..you want to breastfeed, go ahead. But keep your recriminations to yourself, because none of us want to hear about it…and at the end of the day, none of us care about you or your crazy, misguided approach to raising children.
This kind of thinking led right to the ‘Genderless child’ in Toronto
Shut up and leave us alone.
Formula Feeder, and proud of it
There are so many things wrong with this, I’m not sure where to start. I didn’t reply on the blog because there were several excellent and sensitive replies. But I still wanted to talk about it so I’m going to do so here in an effort to stimulate some productive conversation.
1) The blog was criticizing formula companies and their marketing tactics, not women who cannot breastfeed. It did also lay blame upon medical institutions and professionals who take monetary (or other) rewards from formula companies to promote their products (note: when you tell a new mother that breastfeeding is best as you hand her a sample of Gerber formula and a brochure about their new machine, it is like telling a blind date you had a nice time even though you have no intention of ever seeing them again so you give them a fake number.)
2)I am very sorry this man’s wife feels so badly. She obviously had a great desire to breastfeed! The anger here is justified, however misplaced. One day is not long enough to know if a person is medically unable to breastfeed. I do not know the exact circumstances in this case, but it takes an average of 3-5 day for a mother’s milk to come in. So unless she didn’t have nipples, a day is not long enough to try (and if she didn’t have nipples, I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t have tried). This man and his wife have been victims of poor information and lack of support. Her option to breastfeed was stolen from her by the withholding of correct and helpful information. If she (and he) had been given proper encouragement and support for her desires, if she had been given support and the facts she needed, her story may have been very different. The anger needs to be placed upon those who put her in a position of failure. SHE did not fail. THEY FAILED HER.
3) I am very glad for their beautiful and happy daughter. Children are a joy, a gift, and awaken in us the most heart-rending love humanly possible no matter how they are fed. I am very thankful formula is available when it is necessary.
4) The AAP and the WHO (World Health Organization) recommend *exclusive* (this means absolutely nothing else – no water, juice, formula) breastfeeding for the first six months. The little girl referred to in this angry comment was formula fed, and therefore needed to start solid foods earlier because formula does NOT meet all of her nutritional needs as breastfeeding would have (no wonder the mother wanted to breastfeed!). There is actually nothing wrong with feeding an infant pureed meat. It is an excellent source of iron, which all babies need. Two of my infants started with meat. It is a better alternative than cereals, as they are chalk-full of some of the most common food allergens. And the earlier an infant begins on solid foods, the higher their risk for food allergies. If you are fortunate enough to be breastfeeding, it is wonderful to know that you are providing what your baby needs within the biological norm of our species. If you are formula feeding, it is very important that you are supplementing your baby’s nutrition.
5) Of course, you realize the formula companies also manufacture all those cereals and baby foods?
6) Um, if this person really does know more about antibodies than me, I think he would have the desire to be more informed about breastfeeding so that he and his wife can be better prepared to fend off toxic information and support if they have another child. Properly informed support from spouses and grandparents have been found to be the single most important factor determining the success of a breastfeeding relationship. As so many mothers can tell you – they really wanted to breastfeed their baby and the system failed them and their supportive-but-uninformed partners. These parents are putting misplaced trust with individuals (hospitals, OB/GYNs, Nurses and Pediatricians – all well intentioned) who are improperly educated by the formula companies themselves.
7) None of this blog was a recrimination of mothers who formula feed. This was a recrimination of the companies that manufacture formula for the express purpose of making as much money as possible, regardless of the health of the consumers. I find it especially distasteful seeing as the consumers who suffer most of the physical consequences have no voice. (The mother also suffers physical consequences as well, though not as many or as severe.) Formula is an important and necessary tool. It can truly be a life saver in every sense. But consumers need to be fully informed that they and their baby are going to suffer consequences for a choice that is insidiously posed as ‘convenient’ by clever marketing and unethically promoted by institutions that parents trust to have their best interest in mind. I realize it is in the consumer’s hands. But it is hard to choose to breastfeed when you are encouraged to give the baby formula the first day you are in the hospital postpartum because you are having trouble latching the baby on. Formula companies have been reduced from marketing themselves as better than breastmilk to just as good as breastmilk to their current representation of “breastmilk is the very best, but our product is a close second and more convenient.” None of these ever has been or ever will be true.
8 ) If that last point was a bit long, let me sum it up for you. They just want your money, people. Just like everyone selling something. You have to be an informed consumer. Do not take what they say at face value. It is like watching an election debate – nobody really says what they mean, it’s all been rehearsed so many times it smacks of insincerity, and most of the time nobody actually answers a question. It’s lots of fancy slogans and banners designed to make you feel good enough about the candidate to vote for them. But you don’t really know enough about them to understand what you are really getting.
9) How in any way did this article show breastfeeding as a crazy and misguided approach to parenting? Nor does it suggest formula feeding to be a crazy or misguided way of loving and raising children. Rather, it is an open criticism of a company’s obvious bid for money over the health and well being of its consumers.
10) The raising of the genderless child in Toronto is actually much more like formula feeding than Mad as Hell would like to think. For those of you not following me – we don’t really know how the children in this family are going to be affected by their parents attempts to protect them from gender stereotyping. We know they obviously love them very much and are doing what they feel is the best thing for their family. It is a social experiment, in a way. Not because these parents want to experiment with their children, but because they truly believe with every fiber of their existence that they are doing what must be done to bring their children up the very best way they can even though it is different than everyone else. A lot like Mad As Hell because there is not an understanding of the long-term effects of formula feeding of infants, and the more studies are done the worse the news gets. But formula companies keep right on pushing it as an excellent choice and health care professionals keep letting them. And guess what – unlike Storm’s parents, who are alone in their chioces, Mad As Hell is surrounded by families in similar situations. And I’m certain Mad As Hell and his wife love their daughter more than anything in the world and believe with every fiber of their being that formula was the right and best choice for them at the time. He may feel that he knows it is bad for those three children in Toronto to be raised without gender-bias, but we all know it is worse for their daughter to have formula when his wife should have been given better support and information than she was in order to have a choice at all. The parents in Toronto made their choice freely, but Mad As Hell and his wife had their choice removed from them.
11) The author was not talking to Mad As Hell. At all. Telling the author to “shut up and leave us alone” shows how deep the wounds can cut when we are pitted against one another over an issue that involves such intense feelings. I think this is something Mad As Hell should be telling the formula companies.
12) Regardless of how this family feeds their infant, I know how much they love her and how proud they are of her.
Is it horrible that I actually wished there was a machine like this the other day, as I was contemplating the pain in the butt that is formula prep? Maybe I can get by just on Zoloft so I can keep nursing. Sigh.
Also, just to let you know, there’s actually been a few studies lately that have shown negatives to delaying the introduction of solids, and the AAP is back to saying solids between 4-6 months, although they still state closer to 6 months is preferred. I always let my kids eat solids when they wouldn’t stop grabbing for my food, which was about 5 months.
Of course it’s not horrible! I think for those who are in a situation like yours (where circumstances may prevent breastfeeding for important medical reasons and a family can afford it) it makes perfect sense to wish for something that makes a very involved job like formula prep easier for mom (especially a mom to FIVE). My worry with those types of machines (baby and adult drinks) includes the carbon footprint as well as the expense, though I’ve been known to pay for things out the nose when they are worth it for my individual situation.
Thank you for clarifying the new AAP recommendations. I think it is different for every baby. Here are some signs a baby is ready to try solid foods (for anyone who is reading this and wondering when they should start their baby): Baby can sit up unsupported, uses pincer grasp for picking things up (thumb and pointer finger), disappearance of tongue thrust reflex, continues to be hungry despite more frequent nursing which is unrelated to illness or teething, and is around six months old. (give or take – I’ve had infants on both sides of that “average.”)
My experience was the same as yours, Becky! – when they were grabbing food off my plate and shoving it in their mouths, it was time!
The AAP recommendation on solids was for prevention of obesity in formula fed infants. Recent studies found solids given before 4 months in formula fed infants increased the risk of obesity. So 4 months was based on the very earliest that you can intro solids with out increase in risk of obesity. The idea was to try & get people to hold off as long as possible & combat the practice of adding rice cereal to bottles. Early into of solids is all so associated with increase in allergies. The infants gut does not seal until about 6 months. Before that whole proteins can cross directly into the blood increasing risk of allergies.
The AAP recommendation on breastfeeding has not changed & is still exclusive for 6 months & support for breastfeeding for the first year and beyond as long as mutually desired by mother and child. Breastmilk fulfills all baby’s needs until sometime in the middle of the first year. I know some kids that were highly allergic that had nothing but breastmilk for the first 18 months & thrived.
There has been recent research on allergies that show that waiting until 6 months rather than 4 doesn’t increase the risk of allergies, and in fact delaying the introduction of grains past 6 months increases the risk of developing wheat allergy and and past 7 months increases the risk of celiac (we have a STRONG family history so I pay close attention to this). Introducing cereals before 4 months or after 6 months increases the risk of Type 1 diabetes, relative to introducing during the 4-6 month period. There’s increasing evidence for a window of 4-6 months being ideal for solid food introduction.
Some recent articles:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/1/e44.full
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/2/401.abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/6/2175.abstract
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00466-0/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1283498/
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2004/0415/p2006.html
The AAP has mixed official statements. Their current statement on Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk still states 6 months. Their statement on food allergies and solid foods states 4-6, http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;121/1/183 Some of their patient education materials now state 4 months, preferably 6; some simply 4-6 months, as the ideal time to begin solids. Again, that seems to be moving because numerous studies are showing no additional benefit (in allergy, etc.) in delaying solid foods until 6 months rather than 4.
The most recent info I can find from the AAP is this press release, which states 4-6 months: http://www.healthychildren.org/English/news/pages/Introduction-of-Solid-Foods-and-Allergic-Reactions.aspx It reads in part, “The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the introduction of solid foods between the ages of 4 and 6 months. Study authors conclude that neither extended, exclusive breastfeeding, nor delaying the introduction of solid foods, may prevent allergic diseases in children.”
That first sentence should be “waiting until 6 months rather than 4 doesn’t *decrease* the risk of allergies”
It is frustrating to sort out information sometimes when, like you said, Becky, the AAP’s official recommendations are contradictory. I think making informed decisions is the important thing – looking into things closely and reading as much about it as you can. Everyone’s situation is different, so we can all glean what we need if we are willing to work at it. Sometimes there is not one clear path or an easy way of knowing which way is the best (like your situation, Becky) so you have to take things a day at a time until it becomes more clear. One of my babies was in the highly allergic category and wasn’t really eating much solid food until she was one. It distressed a lot of people that I wasn’t working harder to “get her to eat” but she was obviously thriving and as it turns out had her own reasons for delaying solids. I’m glad she was my third baby and I felt comfortable listening to and watching her in order to make sure her needs were fulfilled. I wouldn’t have had enough mothering experience to do that with my first baby, I think. Regardless, the most important thing is to arm yourself with as much information as possible and use it to glean support from those closest to you.
Becky- not trying to argue with but while the studies are interesting, the sample sizes are all pretty small & while they all ask about BF only the last actually culls the BF group to look at them separately. That one has a sample size of 1560 kids in Colorado. Even with it’s great BF rates in 2007 only 22.5 % of babies in CO we exclusively BF for 6 months. So statistically 351 we BF exclusively & it does not say if any of the exclusively BF went on to be in the 51 who had the autoimmunity or the 25 with biopsy proven disease. It does say that the duration of BF was similar for children who developed autoimmunity and those who did not. But it does not separate out by exclusivity. So the exclusively BF baby is lumped in with the baby who maybe getting formula at day care & BF when they are with mom. The gut of those two babies would be vastly different.
To base the recommendation on studies that don’t delineate between exclusively BF babies, combo fed babies & exclusively FF babies is very questionable. I know from some insiders there is much disagreement & arguing between the general AAP & their breastfeeding division(can’t think of the name right now I want to say Breastfeeding Academy but that doesn’t sound right) about this issue & many more WRT the exclusively BF baby. The science on the whole gut closing & how it relates to allergens is quiet interesting.
I thought this was a good response http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/6/2175.abstract/reply#pediatrics_el_2061
Jessica is right that as moms we need to gather as much info as we can & apply it to our unique situation & individual child. I like to start with the exclusively BF baby as the norm & move from there. So for MOST exclusively BF babies (without a family history of allergies) waiting till closer to 6 moths seems the prudent thing. But like with everything else YMMV based on differing family factors.
Andrea, I took a survey/statistics course when I was majoring in PR in college (didn’t end up finishing with that degree – this course left an unpleasant taste in my mouth) and I have never looked at “studies” in the same way. It is hard work to look into the specifics of studies and so often we find they are not definitive. The sooner a person realizes this, even though it makes the decision process more difficult, the sooner they will be able to make *truly* informed decisions. It can be very frustrating because we really all just want to know what is best, especially for our babies. I liked the way Becky talks about “increasing evidence” – this is often a good practice for determining what is best for an individual (studying an entire body of work and looking at the “big picture.” )
I wish there were an easier way to see who funded a study, as well as the credentials behind who authored it. There are lots of great studies out there based on true scientific methods and carried out by individuals who are truly interested in the topic and outcome for pure purposes. There are also plenty of “junk” studies that have questionable methods, done by “experts” on the payroll of the organization benefiting from the study, and the organization footing the bill often stands to gain a large monetary benefit if the study goes their way. People are people no matter where you go, and there is a large body of evidence that suggests following the dollar will often get you the closest to the truth.
Also wanted to say I am loving the discussion you two are having. I imagine other mothers reading it and gleaning a great deal of information from a respectful and informed discussion about caring for our babies! There is no single right way – just a right way for every individual baby based on the circumstances for that child and the child’s family. This is helping mothers to find their own information and be their own advocate.
Andrea, you’re right that these studies aren’t perfect and aren’t definitive, but pretty much all of our decisions have to be based on non-definitive information. We also want to be careful not to state things as absolutes and definitive when they aren’t so, in fact. That’s why I think we (as society, bloggers, news media, health organizations) need to be careful to indicate that this is our best recommendation now, based on the info we have. Also, most babies will do alright with whatever choices are made, babies are resilient. It is only when we look at the population level that we can see real health differences in these feeding choices.
Jessica, looking at studies can be tough! Just beyond the info of having the necessary background knowledge, studies can be flawed in many ways. There are the funding issues, although even studies with questionable funding could be well done and executed, there is the journal the study is published in and whether it is a junk advertising journal or a journal that actually exercises good peer review (and even those can make mistakes), and of course one study on its own means little to nothing, the importance of the finding is dependent on it being replicated as other scientists and researchers respond and attempt to prove or disprove the finding. It doesn’t help when the media takes one study and trumpets its findings, often conflating correlation and causation, and promoting preliminary findings as clear and definitive. Looking at the whole picture, and how the information is trending, and taking everything with a grain of salt is definitely necessary but not always easy.
Becky, I agree 100 % with everything you just said. Absolutes are always dangerous (haha – did anybody catch that?). And your explanation of how to view studies is how I try to do things. It’s the old “don’t believe everything you hear/read.” What you stated managed to articulate what I have been trying and failing to say since the beginning of this discussion. So, in short, “what she said!”
Becky-I’m a big skeptic so I look at the recommendation & think who gains in this? I see the big formula/baby food makers gaining first from 2 months of mom’s buying their products. Then the earlier you start the sooner baby is being introduced to more complex food & more of it. That again puts more $$$ in the formula/baby food coffers. In the BF baby more food=less nursing…start of downward spiral to “I lost my milk” & now the mom is spending on both jarred food & formula.
I think the studies are interesting & we need more studies to see if the preliminary results stand. But I do not think the research is strong enough for the AAP to make a recommendation change. And since I know there was a huge debate over the change, with the Breastfeeding group dissenting, It take it even more with a grain of salt.
I also look at the ethno pedatric side, start with the BF baby as norm & say “when is a baby designed to begin intro of solids & what solids?”
You are right that babies are resilient & many will never see a risks come to fruition. But there are situations where it makes a HUGE difference to an individual child. Kind of like most people were fine not wearing seat belts because most people never get in a car crash- but we do have control over that risk factor so we wear them & put our kids in car seats. I guess I feel there is so very little we DO have control over why take an unnecessary risk.