I don't like this term because it juxtaposes itself to "nutritive sucking"
with the implication that "nutritive" sucking is REAL sucking, and the other
is not.  It also carries with it the implication that the main/only real
purpose of breastfeeding is the transfer of nutrients.  This is the message
the infant formula companies have been pushing all along -- breastfeeding is
JUST a way to feed your baby, and here's another which is better/as
good/almost as good.

I don't think breastfeeding is "just" about feeding the baby, any more than
sex is "just" about creating babies.  Breastfeeding the baby does provide
food, and water.  It also provides immunological factors, which may be what
the baby is after (and why they nurse so often when sick, not just for
comfort).  The process of breastfeeding itself also regulates the baby's
temperature and heart rate and lowers its blood pressure, and puts it to
sleep.  And then of course there are all those important social and
emotional factors going on during the exchange.  Dr. Blackburn's research on
the evolution of mammary glands suggests that the original purpose of
"lacteal fluids" was to kill germs in the offspring's gastro-intestinal
tract and protect it from infections, and the nutritive components of breast
milk only evolved later.

As long as breastfeeding is seen as only or even primarily a way to feed the
baby, then bottle-feeding will be seen as equivalent or good enough (IMHO).
We need to really try to get away from this idea that if the sucking is
"non-nutritive" then it is optional, or can be replaced by a pacifier.  I
know that's not what was said in the earlier post, but it is the way many
people feel -- that baby *shouldn't* want to nurse again, how could it
*possibly* be hungry already?  Well, maybe this time it wants to nurse
because it is cold or lonely or agitated or sleepy/cranky.  All of these are
*equally* legitimate needs (once again, in my ever-so-humble opinion).

A good point was made that mothers need to be able to realize if milk
transfer is not taking place, and they need to pay attention to output, and
they need to listen to their babies, and they may need someone to check
their latch-on, and keep track of the baby's weight, etc.  I've criticized
fellow anthropologists who do "stop watch" research of time baby spends at
breast without considering a) how much, if any, milk transfer is taking
place, and b) whether or not the mother is lactating.  I'm still nursing
Alex, but I'm not lactating.  So is he breastfeeding?  It's definitely
non-nutritive, but does that make it not important?

At the same time, we really need to start teaching people that breastfeeding
is a multi-factorial, complex interaction between two people that has
ramifications for the child's nutritional status, to be sure, but also its
ability to deal with disease, its physiology, its emotional and cognitive
development.  I guess to me the phrase "non-nutritive" just smacks of
"non-important" or "non-real" or "non-significant" even if it isn't meant
that way.

Off of soapbox, on to lunchbox.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.                         email: [log in to unmask]
Anthropology Department                               phone: (409) 845-5256
Texas A&M University                                    fax: (409) 845-4070
College Station, TX  77843-4352