Thanks to Katherine Dettwyler and Marjorie Wilson for the letters to USA
Today regarding the article, "In a reversal, bottle-feeding gets a bad rap."
Here is what I sent

To the Editor:
I was disappointed to see your 12-5-95 article entitled, "In a reversal,
bottle-feeding gets a bad rap." Articles like this provide no useful
information and serve to polarize a health issue into a trivialized "us
against them" hair-pulling contest. As a nurse and lactation consultant, I
must take exception to your statement that the majority of bottle-fed babies
in this country do just fine. What is your definition of doing just fine?
Consider this:
- at least 400 infants dies each year in the US from diarrheal disease.
250-300 of these are attributable to not breastfeeding
- 500-600 respiratory related deaths occur annually because these infants
were not breastfed. We are talking about lower respiratory infections like
pneumonia, not upper respiratory infections like colds
- over 30 million visits to pediatricians are made each year for war
infections. Formula-fed babies have four times the number of ear infections
that breastfed babies do. All these ear infections cost over $1 billion in
health care dollars. With the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics,
does permanent hearing loss sound like a baby is doing just fine?
- breastfeeding in North America decreases infant mortality by 4 per 1000
annually
- bottle-fed babies are at twice the risk for SIDS for each month they are
not breastfed
- having been breastfed as a child reduces breast cancer rates in women over
40 by greater than 25%
- etc, etc, etc
Your misleading article and the book that you promote in it, "Bottle-feeding
Without Guilt," contribute directly to the above statistics.

The issue of guilt should not be a part of infant feeding decisions. You
cannot make a person feel guilt. Guilt is something one chooses to feel. Why
is it if health professionals promote car seats, healthy eating habits, and
exercise, this is supportive, but if breastfeeding is mentioned, it is termed
"pressure" from a "cult?" Publishing articles like this perpetuate this type
of thinking and divert attention from real information.

Breastfeeding does not endanger babies. Uninformed, angry authors and
newspapers who promote their books are what contributes to less than optimal
health outcomes for babies whose mothers believe that it makes no difference
what they feed their babies. Why doesn't USA Today publish articles on the
hazards of formula feeding and the resulting problems such as:
- the 19 day old baby who had several feet of bowel removed due to
necrotising entercolitis, caused by overconcentrated powdered formula. His
mother lost the measuring scoop that came with the can
-the lead intoxicated infant whose mother used hot tap water to make bottles
each morning
- the baby who became ill when his mother mixed lamp oil instead of water
with the formula
- the ill baby whose father did not dilute concentrated liquid formula
- the epidemic of water intoxicated babies who suffer neurological insults
from the large amounts of water given to them to stretch the formula supply

Studies show that women do not choose to feed their babies formula because it
is good for babies. It is usually chosen because they feel something is
displeasurable about breastfeeding. Happy, contented parents may be more
important than infant feeding method to some people, but this adult-centered
short-sightedness does not take into account how unhappy many will be when
their babies experience 6-8 ear infections the first year, monthly bouts of
diarrhea, allergies, and decreased pay checks when they stay home to take
care of their sick babies. I think parents and children deserve better.

Marsha Walker, RN, IBCLC