Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 6 Jul 1997 16:53:57 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Many of us are dismayed by the article in the July issue of American Baby
Magazine. This magazine reaches about 80% of the households in the US with a
baby. I wrote the following letter to the editor and would suggest that
breastfeeding advocates speak with our childbirth educator colleagues,
pediatricians, obstetricians, family practice physicians, midwives, etc and
ask them to refrain from giving this magazine to pregnant or new mothers.
Mothers are signed up to receive this magazine in childbirth classes and see
it in waiting rooms. Breastfeeding has enough problems without blatant
discouragement.
July 7, 1997
Judith Nolte, Editor
American Baby Magazine
249 West 17th St
New York, NY 10011
To the Editor:
I wish to express my deep concern regarding some serious misinformation in
the "Visit with a Pediatrician" section of the July 1997 issue of American
Baby Magazine. The article states that there is no vitamin D in breast milk.
This of course is not true. Breast milk most certainly contains vitamin D as
any infant nutrition textbook will show. Vitamin D supplements are not
necessary at two weeks of age for breastfed babies. The tone of this entire
article is that breast milk is inadequate, that infant formula has everything
a baby needs for optimal development, and that a mother cannot produce milk
that is proper for her baby so it must be supplemented. The section on iron
goes even further in its misinformation. Breastfed babies need nothing else
until about six months of age. Adding additional iron places a breastfed baby
at risk of gastrointestinal disease. Only 4% of iron in formula is absorbed
while almost 50% is absorbed from breast milk. That is why so much must be
added to formula. Giving a breastfed baby formula to increase the iron
content in his diet places him at increased risk for cow's milk allergy and
illness, as the anti-infective properties of breast milk are diluted by
formula.
The statement regarding DHA falsely reassures parents that there are no long
term differences in visual or cognitive function between babies fed human
milk or formula. This is not true. Research shows that increased IQ and
higher scores on mental development tests hold true well into adolescence.
Giving babies unnecessary vitamin supplements so that they will get used to
the taste and take them at one year of age (when they probably still do not
need them) is ludicrous. I have sent a copy of this article to the American
Academy of Pediatrics for comment. I have suggested that they alert their
membership to be prepared to correct the inaccuracies in this article for
their patients and refrain from making this publication available to new
mothers.
Please consider correcting this misinformation in your next issue. Articles
like this make the national breastfeeding goals of a 75% initiation rate and
a 50% continuance rate until six months only a remote possibility. How many
women have read this article and chose not to breastfeed (based on incorrect
data) or began unnecessary supplements, placing their babies at risk for all
the illness associated with the artificial feeding of infants. Breastfeeding
is the normal and natural way to feed a baby. Qualifying data on
breastfeeding because you think the truth will make bottle-feeding mothers
feel guilty is patronizing and robs mothers of the information necessary to
make informed decisions. You do your readers a great disservice by publishing
inaccurate data designed to discredit breast milk and breastfeeding.
Sincerely,
Marsha Walker, RN, IBCLC
|
|
|