Hello,
I've been listening to the dialog on talking about "the risks of
formula" instead of "the risks of not breastfeeding" and I would argue
that the second is much more accurate.  With the exception of cow milk
allergies, reactions to the DHA/RHA supplements, and perhaps, diabetes,
the risks are not in getting formula, but in NOT getting breastmilk or
exclusive breastmilk, or for some of the risks, simply not being at
mom's breast.   Formula alleviates the worst risk of not breastfeeding
(starvation) and provides as close a substitute as we've been able to
come up with.  Not a comparable one, of course, but better than any
alternative except EBM, which, itself has risks relative to actual
breastfeeding (Infant doesn't control intake, contamination, etc.). I
worry, from a public health standpoint, if we talk about the risks of
formula instead of the risks of not breastfeeding that some mothers
will believe that it is the formula, NOT the lack of breastfeeding,
that is the problem and substitute an even more inferior food, and,
also,  that we are removing the emphasis from BREASTFEEDING.
Just my thought.
-Rebecca Andrusiak, LLLL

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

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