I have been mulling over an article written in the Hamilton Spectator, Wed.
May 6, 1998, entitled Breast vs Bottle, battle lines are drawn between
advocates of nature and formula, but should babies suffer? It was a very
long article and hopefully some of my Ontario/ Canadian collegues have read
it. It is not available on the internet so it is hard to direct anyone to
where it can be obtained. I have scanned it and have been able to email it
to some people who have compatible computers (not Macs, Jack).

It is one of the saddest examples of freelance writing I have ever read
against breastfeeding, although she says that it is not against
breastfeeding but rather against breastfeeding activism.

A debate was started in this paper after a local Physician started a Dad to
Dad program. (for dads of babies of single moms) The local public health
Unit suggested that he not give out free formula (one weeks supply) to
these dads to help them to become involved with their own children. The
author of this article completely misses the point that being a dad is not
feeding formula and has used this point to write a full page article
condemning Breastfeeding advocates as activists. Please forgive me for the
length of this letter but my frustration has grown to ranting. I will at
this point just quote a few of her phrases.

"Everyone has the best intentions---the people who run the Dad to Dad
program, the Hamilton Wentworth public health depart. which thinks free
formula undermines breastfeeding, and the medical personnel and politicians
who support public health's stand.    But history teaches us that good
intentions are not enough. Some of the worse crimes of the 20th century
have been committed not by depraved bad guys, but by activists who believed
they were working toward a glorious future and were willing to inflict
profoun misery  in order to get there."..............

"The answer is to hide behind WHO regulations at the same time this
organization itself is bending them for humanitarian reasons.
In the third World, .....because of AIDS Who makes it clear that they do
not expect innocent children to suffer for the breastfeeding cause, has
fiven its blessing to a new initiative that distributes formula to HIV
positive mothers. Rather than demonizing the formula manufacturers, those
involved in the project are hoping for donationsfrom these companies."

(after talking about Canada's inability to provide for high-risk kids born
to low-income parents, unlike the US. she goes on)

"We seem to be saying that, if we can't convince these parents to choose
the house made of bricks, we'll let their family struggle by in a leaky
house of straw---despite the fact that the middle option, a sturdy house of
sticks, is within our power to supply."  (all our low/no income and single
parents do get welfare and monetary support)   "We need to start asking why
the officials involved in the formula debate think the world revolves
around breastfeeding."

"Yes children who haven't been breastfed are a somewhat higher risk of
developing health problems, and may be slightly less intelligent and
emotional secure.  But children are also at a higher risk of a long list of
difficulties---including abuse, behavioural problems, poverty, suicide,
school dropout and delinquency-- when their father are absent from their
lives"

......

"There is no loud, organized voice speaking up for the rights of hungry
babies, or for the rights of teen dads. But there is a breastfeeding lobby,
and running afoul of it is unpleasant"

( after a bit more about the same thing she states)

"This is an opportunity for breastfeeding activists to demonstrate that
they are reasonable, flexible individuals who honour that old medical
maxim: "First do no harm."

"On the way to that better future in which every woman who is able to do so
, cheerfully breastfeeds, it is necessary to be pragmatic, realistic and
compassionate."

"Otherwise the public cannot be blamed for concluding that the
breastfeeding movement consisrs of narrow-minded extremists who aren't
above using the children of the poor as cannon fodder in their holy war."
(Donna Laframboise, feelance writer, specializing in social and gender
issues, author of "The Princess At the Window")"

 I have omitted much of her article but hope to give you all a gist of the
tone of her article. When the letters came into the editor I really noted
that the extreme sounding responses were from the ani-breastfeeding crowd.
Those who wrote about breastfeeding were much more polite and factual. So
my question to you all is ? ?? How does one respond to this view point with
out falling into what she describes as extremism. How can we promote so
great a fluid as breastmilk and be really positive about the wonderful
phychological and emotional benefits of breastfeeding? Or should we ignore
this article and hope that people who are not sure about which way they
should choose, or near to giving up breastfeeding because of severe pain or
difficulties didn't have time to read the article. I'm sure they did
because there was a neat picture of a breastfeeding baby at the top of the
article. My only hope is that because the article was so long they may not
have taken the time to read it.

I have never written any thing this lengthy to you all so I probably win
the prize for the lengthiest request for help. I can photocopy the article
and mail it to anyone who would like to respond to the Spectator if you
send my your address by email,or I can try to email it to you.

Attie Sandink (Burlington Ontario)