Hi All,

In a message dated 96-05-25 06:20:05 EDT, Becky writes:

>  Do smokers and non-smokers choose breastfeeding in equal proportions?
>If more smokers choose to bottlefeed, the smoking may be more of an
influence
>on respiratory infections than the feeding method.  Same goes for
daycare--we
>know kids that are in daycare tend to be sick more often and going back to
work is
>often a reason to switch to the bottle or never start breastfeeding.  So,
are
>more bottlefeeding babies sick because they're bottlefeeding or because more
>bottlefeeding babies are in daycare?

Becky, your points are all great, but they are combination points.  In other
words, babies who are BF but have parents who smoke around them do have an
increase of respitory probs, but they are still protected by the BF.
 However, babies who are ABM fed and have parents who smoke are not protected
at all and are hit with a double whammy.  The illnesses associated from
smoking as well as from ABM.  Moms who smoke are encouraged to BF as well as
try to cut back (or quit) and don't smoke around the baby.
In RE: to the day care thing, again, babies who get EBM, are better protected
from the common day care illnesses, especially if they get to BF from the
source when they get home!  Babies who are fed ABM get no protection
whatsoever, and are at the mercy of the daycare environment (which is capable
of reducing the transmission of germs if they try.  I know cause I used to
work in daycare)
So, if you think about it, regardless of any other factors, BF still saves
money for the healthcare field.  Even if the BF baby is exposed to other
factors that cause illness, their chances of staying healthy are greater
simply because of BF.
Jay
Maybe, someday people will see that BF babies can save our healthcare
situation here in the US.  If all the babies in the US were BF exclusively
for 6 mo, imagine how many billions of $$ per year we'd save in healthcare!