"Breastfeeding is nothing more than normal," but the reality is that in the
US and many countries around the world it is not the norm. So while I, as a
breastfeeding advocate, love that statement and understand what is meant by
it, I do not think it represents our reality. I think the statement can
easily be misunderstood as Cindy's post proves.
Saying, "babies who are not breastfed are not as healthy," actually
minimizes the risks of infant formula feeding. No, it is not meant to come
across that way but that is how it strikes me. While there has been many
posts that have addressed the issues of "healthy or not" because of
breastfeeding, I think there is significant research on the subject to show
that infant mortality rates are tied to breastfeeding even in developed
nations. There is about 5 pages of references to studies in regard to this
in, "Topical Review and Bibliography of the Literature of Breastfeeding,"
edited by Mary-Margaret Coates. It is chapter 5, Public Health Implications
of Breastfeeding by Allan S. Cunningham, MD. I quote from Allan Cunningham,
"Even in the best of circumstances, infant mortality appears lower among
breastfed infants." We can also look at Marsha Walker's paper in the JHL in
June of 1993 called "A Fresh Look at the Risks of Artificial Infant Feeding."
Looking at the patents on human milk has made me realize that the infant
formula industry has done an excellent job (social marketing) in convincing
most of the public
(including breastfeeding advocates) that there is very little difference in
developed countries like ours between the methods of feeding. But you know
when I look at the infant mortality statistics for Florida for the year 1997
and read the causes of infant death such as intestinal infectious disease,
pnemonia, influenza, upper respiratory illiness, bronchitis, enteritis,
colitis, septicemia, I can't help but wonder if exclusive breastfeeding might
have prevented these deaths. But we won't know this because method of
feeding and deaths isn't being tracked. Why? The US ranks 25th in infant
mortality in the developed world. Why? Are more infants in the nations that
rank in the top ten breastfed? Breastfed longer and exclusively?
I think the infant formula industry like the tobacco industry has done an
amazing job of suppressing information/research that is vital for the health
and well-being of mothers and babies. Certainly we will always have some
people who survive and are healthy despite infant formula (just as we can
have smokers who live long lives). But they are the exceptions and one does
have to take into account that some people are just hardier due to genetics.
I remember reading about a fellow in the 16th or 17th century who as an
infant was not breastfed but given beer not any kind of milk. He survived
into his 70's. Of course, beer was a different substance then. His survival
up into his 70's speaks to his hardiness not to beer being good for infants.
Breastfeeding is normal in a society that values the richness in physical and
mental health that the act of breastfeeding brings to mothers and infants.
And yes we need to continue to say it is normal and act accordingly. But we
also need to accept that our society (at least the US) has not gotten close
to accepting this richness nor feeling obliged to give infants their rightful
inheritance--not just breast milk but breastfeeding. Valerie W. McClain,
IBCLC
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
