SINce we LCs hope to be treated as professionals, I think we should try to
sound professional, even when expressing strong feelings. Imagine how we
would feel if someone who hated breastmilk called it something as ugly and
judgmental as the term some of us are calling a product that is entirely
normal to many people. I was shocked to come back on and read that thread:
I wondered if I had got onto Lactivist (which is great, and I have no
problems with such vehemence there) and not the professional Lactnet I
left. I really hate to see professionals using such language when
artificial feeding or formula or breastmilk substitute (the WHO term, aptly
and ironically shortened to BMS) will do. But I never use the term baby
milk. Babies cannot make milk; and the products are not particularly
suitable for babies (though it is not an abomination to anyone whose baby
survived and grew within normal parameters on it!)
Just my feelings, and as you know I do feel strongly about the hazards of
the stuff. (My favourite term of polite but accurate generic naming of
these products is "qualitative dysnutrition" (Dorner). But this is a public
place: do we reach the unconverted via this language or put them off
reading any more of what can be excellent posts?
Maureen.

Maureen Minchin, IBCLC
5 St, George's Rd., Armadale Vic 3143 Australia
tel/fax after March 1: 61.3.95094929 or 95000648