Hi Laurie,
You are right: it doesn't sound very nice. That is exactly why it may
attract more attention and may get a discussion going. All I did was
substituting the comparatives in the sentence (that turned out to be a
Guardian headline and not Magda's words ;o)) for ones that use the right
frame of reference. In my opinion, it is a taboo that society has to deal
with. "Smokers are less healthy", "Fast food eaters are fatter"... do they
cause the same reaction...? I don't think so, because we accept the
unhealthiness of those behaviours, unlike what society does with formula
feeding.
Of course, outcomes are multifactorial, but the comparison you make, is not
valid. It's not high IQ parents who formula feed that you should compare to
normal IQ breastfeeding parents. What needs to be compared are high IQ
formula feeding parents with high IQ breastfeeding parents, or normal IQ
formula feeding parents with normal IQ breastfeeding parents. It's not valid
research to compare groups with more than one big difference; you need to
compare the intervention (formula feeding) to the norm(al) behaviour
(breastfeeding) and then see what happens. Results ought to be phrased as
the effect of the intervention, so: ff causes more infection, less well
developed IQ, and so on and so forth. Breastfeeding is not an intervention,
breastfeeding is what mammals need to develop according to their potential.
We need to have a certain genetic potential in the first place, to get to
certain results. Providing the right nutrition allows that potential to
develop: the genotype will turn into a healthy and strong phenotype. However
well you feed and water a daisy, it will not turn into a sun flower. Don't
feed and water that daisy well and it will not even or hardly grow out as a
daisy or dy soon.
As long as we disguise the true results of formula, we will not see a
societal change. I feel we are the ones to make a start. The wording you
dislike in the negative direction, have been (and still are!) used for
breastfeeding all over the place and noone cared. We all thought it was nice
that bf babies are 'smarter', although in fact that says the same thing. If
I say you are thinner, that means that I am thicker. If I say you are
taller, it means I am smaller. That is also true in both directions.
To offer a compromise... "Formula fed babies are less smart" (instead of
dumber); would that help?! :-)
Kind regards,
Marianne Vanderveen-Kolkena IBCLC (and member of the ILCA Multi-lingual
Committee where we are struggling with the same issue, considering the fact
that most studies have such a bad design)
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
From: Laurie Wheeler
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: rephrasing subject line
I'm sorry ya'll but I just think saying that formula fed babies are dumber
sounds mean. We all know that our outcomes in life are multifactorial.
Please don't think I'm defending or promoting formula, but two high IQ
parents who formula feed probably will have smarter kids than 2 normal IQ
parents who breastfeed. So I think saying something like "formula fed
infants start life at a distinct disadvantage" sounds better, less
alienating, and is true.
Laurie Wheeler RN MN IBCLC
Mississippi USA
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
