LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:25:52 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
 I have several comments about your inquiry. First, while I agree that infant feeding education needs to be an integral component to a human nutrition campaign for all children I do not trust that it is possible within our current educational system to make this happen. For one thing, the "education" about nutrition in public schools has been driven by industry interests, in particular the cow milk industry. How does one teach young children that they must "drink their milk" and conversely teach them that cow milk is not the appropriate food for human infants? At what point does the infant cross the line into the world of being a cow?? One cannot teach truth based upon a lie. Parents must sign a release in schools for their children NOT to receive cow milk at lunch!. Apparently, it is so risky NOT to feed children cow milk, that a signed waiver is required. 

It is my opinion that including feeding as a component of health education for older children places it in the wrong framework. When we introduce the idea of infant feeding in the same context as "sex education", we sexualize infant feeding and further sexualize the breasts. If normal infant feeding had been integral to all conversation about nutrition and reproduction anywhere in the curriculum, this would not be the case.

Further, middle school is often the age at which teens begin to experiment seriously with tobacco. Parents are not allowing themselves to conscious that this is the age where children might also experiment with behaviours that might lead to the feeding of babies. There is a cultural agreement that tobacco education will prevent children from smoking and the sooner the better. By contrast, there is a cultural attitude that discussing sex will lead to children having sex and discussing feeding babies will lead to children wanting to have babies. So, it is already placed into dialogue that is considered more risky, tenuous and precarious. Anyone who has a teenager (or can remember being one) knows that kids know when adults are uncomfortable with material. 

Finally, I would argue that we have spent the past 10-15 years educating about breastmilk, and not at all about breastfeeding. When I had my first baby, almost 19 years ago, women responded "for the bonding", when asked in childbirth classes why we wanted to breastfeed. Today, women say, "because its better for the baby". They are referring primarily to immunities and other bits they;eve heard about allergens, etc. And mostly, it's all pretty vague and has little reality for them. Bonding is at least real and emotionally quantifiable in some way and gives? benefit ot both parties at the same time, in real time--not potentially somewhere in the future. 

I think we have done such a fine job of making human milk a product that we have done ourselves right out of exclusivity. Fifteen years ago, when I ran a breastfeeding peer counseling program, I told my staff that we were never to use the term "breast is best"--that it would ultimately be our biggest adversary. With my background in advertising, it was easy to predict exactly where we were headed and who was driving the vehicle. 

Were we a breastfeeding culture, human milk would be available for babies whose mothers truly could not feed them. In a product-driven culture, that will never happen. When human milk became a commodity, it became much easier, IMO, to choose to supplement and to see exclusivity as rather irrelevant. Exclusive breastfeeding requires a way of seeing and understanding in which the relationship in all of its organic nature is primary. 

If I know that a product has benefit over another product, I will purchase that better product if I can afford the price. For example, I might wish to purchase a new car and I might want a greener vehicle--perhaps a hybrid. Let's say that I really care about the environment and really want to do my part and that it is pretty important to me. I also want safety and perhaps I find that a particular brand of hybrid has the best crash ratings, but it is also the most expensive and there is a several month delay in delivery. I now look at my own situation to determine if the cost is one I am willing to pay. Can I afford to delay--maybe I would have to spend money on repairs on my current vehicle if I delay. Maybe I am willing to make some sacrifices financially in my life elsewhere to pay for this more expensive vehicle. Maybe I am willing to even pay for repairs now, thinking I will get more on a trade-in later or I can sell my current vehicle at a better price later. Maybe safety is so important to me as well, that I am willing to make all of the sacrifices necessary. The value for me would be there and I would purchase the hybrid, in spite of the perceived "cost", even in spite of the fact that my family and friends think I am being pig-headed, too picky, etc.

OTOH, what if there is another hybrid with a lower safety rating, but the green issue is more important (think "organic AIM), so I might purchase that one instead. Maybe, I decide the hybrid isn't as important after all and I go for a whole different model with a high safety rating, Maybe I decide I cannot wait, so I make a different purchase altogether. Maybe I decide that the very best car is for people with more time to wait, more resources, more willingness to be inconvenienced. Maybe I rationalize that my one little hybrid isn't going to make that much difference after all. And, most people don't get badly injured in car accidents and don't have the highest safety-rated cars. I don't have to go to such an extreme to have something pretty good. It was a nice idea, but I can get pretty close and be content. It's just a product and there are lots of acceptable choices.

Human milk is just a product and using for a little while of in combination with AIM or just pumping it are all just variations on a theme--all pretty close to the preferred model. 

So, I am an advocate of educating children from a very young age about infant feeding, but in the context of normal processes (seeing babies feed at breast in the world!!) and in the context of valid nutrition education (that I do not believe exists in any school system in the US). (Of course, I am also an advocate of homeschooling!). I think we have so terribly lost our way with the promotion of human milk as a product, I think LCs have colluded in this effort and I think it is terribly counter-productive and that the health consequences are so vast as to be immeasurable. Normal human feeding modulates normal human function and provides for optimum human potential for the individual. It's not about the milk--it's about the process of life.

Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA
Intuitive Parenting Network LLC



________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2