May 26, 1997

Editors:

I am writing about an article that appeared May 21 in your London Times,
written by Dr. Thomas Stuttaford, entitled "When the breast is no longer best
for the loving mother and child."  The article discusses breastfeeding a 3
1/2 year old child.  It is obvious that Dr. Stuttaford does not have current
information on breastfeeding.  He seems to favor early weaning and is not
aware of how normal, natural breastfeeding progresses, ending with child-led
weaning.

He is incorrect when he says that "careful bottle feeding will to a large
extent alleviate any problems caused by lack of breast milk."  The research
is so clear that artificial feeding is inferior, and babies fed this way have
greater morbidity and mortality.

He says, "Long before the baby has become a toddler, breast milk should be
regarded only as a nourishing drink, not a complete diet" and "over reliance
on breast milk could blunt a child's appetite for other foods that are
essential to prevent malnourishment."   He may not know that most children
begin solids at 6 months of age, but some thrive on breastmilk alone through
their first year.  He may not know that most 3 yr old nurslings are eating
all the same foods as the adult family members, some taking mother's milk
instead of cow's milk in their diets, and many nurse only occasionally for
comfort.   For babies, NOT breastfeeding would increase the risk of
malnourishment.

He says "a child may become overdependent on the mother and find it difficult
to develop a separate existence later. This may cause trouble ranging from
rejection of babysitters to difficulties when starting at the nursery
school."  He asks, "Could...well-intentioned breastfeeding handicap her Son,
mentally and physically?"  The answer is no, quite to the contrary.   Mothers
who practice child-led weaning will attest to the greater health,
intellectual and emotional development, and the independence of their
offspring.  Even so, does the doctor believe that weaned toddlers and
preschoolers never reject a babysitter or balk at starting nursery school?!

His questions about pituitary and ovarian function show his lack of
understanding of the reproductive cycle.  Breastfeeding is part of this cycle
with the suppression of ovulation and amenorrhea during the first several
months being the normal state of affairs, and facilitating optimum child
spacing.  Regarding his dire predictions about osteoporosis, mothers appear
to rebuild strong bone tissue after six months or so of bone loss, perhaps
even building more bone than was lost.  His statement that "breast milk is an
ideal food for young babies but it does not provide adequate iron and is
short of some vitamins, in particular vit D" is incorrect.  Iron treatments
during the first months of life may actually be harmful in breastfed infants
because they may alter the bacterial flora of the intestine in favor of more
pathogenic bacteria.  Vit D supplementation is not necessary either, except
under extreme conditions when mothers and babies are kept covered and do not
get sunlight exposure.  Dr. Stuttaford may be surprised to know that their
are multitudes of exclusively breastfed infants who are thriving and healthy
on just their mother's milk.

I am not surprised that most of his commentary takes the form of questions.
 Some of his questions are even laughable, like breastfeeding is good but
"when should a mother consider that her child is off the starting line and
ready to learn to live independently?"  Is he trying to say that age 3 1/2 is
the age of independence?!  I suggest he quickly address some of his questions
to those who are knowledgeable about human lactation.

Sincerely,
Laurie Wheeler, RNC, MN, IBCLC
[log in to unmask]
Louisiana Breastfeeding MediaWatch Coordinator
Violet Louisiana USA