Maureen -- I really really do believe what I wrote.  I think that the
combination of getting the word out that breast milk protects babies against
disease (or the alternative wording that formula harms children), coupled
with the widespread acceptance and promotion of pumps as an essential piece
of breastfeeding equipment -- have the potential to lead to it becoming the
norm in the US for more babies to get breast milk, but many fewer babies
actually getting to breastfeed.  Like the situation in Utah that I heard so
much about when I went there last April (both LLL and WIC people), where so
many women were pumping and feeding breast milk in bottles, sometimes for
many many months, sometimes even though they didn't work outside the home.

I think breastfeeding is about a whole lot more than the transfer of a
nutritious fluid from mother to child, and I think that this is not the way
to go.  I think that the cuddling and skin-to-skin, and the smell, touch,
sound, etc. of mother's arms are just as important to the baby's health and
well-being as the antibodies in the breast milk.

It's sort of like the situation with cystic fibrosis research, if I may
stretch an analogy.  Once prenatal diagnosis became widely available (and
accepted, and expected, and practically mandatory after age 35) in the US
and parents could *simply* diagnosis and abort fetuses with cystic fibrosis,
the money for research into a possible cure dried up.  Of course, there are
still babies being born with cystic fibrosis, especially into poor families
who don't have prenatal care or don't have insurance to pay for an
amniocentesis.  But the funders of medical research view this as a
non-problem, now that a "solution" has been found.  Ditto for Down Syndrome
-- in wealthy parts of the US, the rate of births of children with Down
Syndrome is *way* down, because over 95% are aborted after amniocentesis
reveals that they have Down Syndrome.  Again, this means less research into
prevention, less research into therapies, less support for public education
-- "You should have had prenatal diagnosis and aborted that child.  The
taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for his medical care or educational needs."

If the separation of the product of breast milk from the process of
breastfeeding continues, then no one will be concerned about whether or not
babies actually ever get to breastfeed.  If mothers can pump, then they
don't need decent maternity leave or on-site child care, or their children
with them at work.

If mothers have sleepy babies and become overly engorged, but they can
simply pump, then no one will be motivated to *prevent* the sleepy babies by
changing labor and delivery tactics, and keeping mother and baby together
all the time.

If mothers can pump and have others feed their babies, then they can have
"the best of both worlds" -- better nutrition for their children, but the
freedom and convenience of not having to physically be there (ever) with
their child.










Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University