Dear Lacnet

Hospital practices have a powerful, often negative effect, on both
initiation and maintenance of bf...so why are bf rates in the Netherlands
so low, when home birth is high, Lactnet posters have asked?

If you look at stats from Norway where (I think) hospital birth is almost
universal, their bf rates are very high compared to the Western 'norm' -
virtually 100 per cent at birth ;  80 per cent at 3 mths; 60 per cent at 6
mths. (figs. from the bf support association, Ammeehjelpen, in  Empowerment
of Women: The Case for Breastfeeding in Norway).

But in Norway, there has never been universal ABM feeding. Their bf stats
fell postwar, and in the 1960s and 1970s,  but the greatest fall off was at
around 3 mths. Then government and others took action to reverse the trend.
Initiation and newborn bf , however, has *always*  been virtually 100 per
cent;  the big switch to ABM happened with older babies.

So, bf supporters and health promoters in Norway have never had to try 'to
raise bf from the dead'  (compare US and UK figs, for example).  I would
love to know why ABM was kept at bay for so long, and like other
Lactnetters, I spspect this has to do with the presence of commerical dairy
interests. Was ABM kept out of hospitals, so even when mothers began
delivering there instead of at home, there was still no ABM? Or was the
market for dairy produce in Norway considered too small for aggressive
selling and promotion  of ABM?

Perhaps members of Lactnet in Norway or Scandinavia can let us know what
happened (or didn't happen)  to enable their early bf  rates to stay  so
high?

all the best


Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc UK