Tony wrote, and Kathy D quoted,  "However, I do feel that we need to accept
that in the vast majority of cases formula feeds do NOT damage children",
and Kathy quite succinctly pointed out that research does not support this
statement.   This makes me think of the editorial in Lancet in 1994, called
A Warm Chain for Breastfeeding, which I have used in every staff inservice
I've given for the last several years.  If I may quote,

"There is a growing list of conditions associated with artificial feeding,
including insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and multiple sclerosis.  In
New Zealand and the USA, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is commoner in
bottle-fed infants.... Premature babies fed on formula are more likely to
die from necrotising enterocolitis than those fed on breast milk.
Intolerance and allergy to cow's milk products affect as many as 7.5% of
children, including some supposedly fully breastfed infants who were given
prelacteal formula in the maternity ward.  Bottle feeding contributes to
dental decay and malocclusion.  Several studies have shown that the
intellectual development of breastfed children is slightly but significantly
better than that of the children fed artificially."

I read that list, which has been added to since 1994, and wonder which of
these effects are considered NOT damaging?  Even otitis media, though it may
be healed without lasting effect, can not be said to be "not damaging" to
the baby while it is happening.  And what's a few IQ points?  I, like many
who are breastfeeding advocates, was formula fed.  I'd tell you what I'd
like to do with a few more IQ points!  So, although, there is no lasting
damage that you can SEE, it can still be said to affect my life.   I have
bent over backwards not to appear judgmental or confrontational to staff in
my support of breastfeeding mothers, but too often, it is not that we are
judgmental of formula feeding moms, but that our complacency with formula is
so complete that staff do not see the harm of giving a bottle to a
breastfeeding baby, which is sometimes just enough interference to give a
struggling mom cause to give up and switch over.  If we are militant, it is
because this is not fair to women or to babies, and it is not smart.
Damage?  You bet there's damage.  What about moms who give up and, quoting
from that same editorial, "carry the disappointment and pain with her
always; her emotional reaction to other women who breastfeed can interfere
with her ability to help them, whether they be friends, members of her
family, or, if she is a health worker, her patients."  My guess is that some
of the emotional investment we see battling against us is from these same
women who were unsuccessful themselves or, at the least, emotionally unable
to admit that they gave less than the best to their baby.

As has been said, our focus should be on informing, encouraging and
supporting, not belittling.  But it is not belittling to tell the truth,
however much someone may not want to hear it.  On Lactnet, we tell the
unvarnished truth, which isn't necessarily the way we communicate it to
other members of the health care team
Marsha.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marsha Glass RN, BSN, IBCLC
Mothers have as powerful an influence over the welfare of future generations
as all other earthly causes combined.
John S. C. Abbot
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html