On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:51:37 -0400, cian sawyer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

<snip>
>
>She was saying that bf may indeed be best, but it's still normal.  and
>that by contrast formula - which is currently accepted as the norm - is
>less than normal.  So that when we re-word our benefits of
>breastfeeding to the hazards of formula feeding, the benefits above
>would read like this:
>
>If you feed your baby formula:
>
>1) mom's and baby girl's risk of breast cancer is *increased*
>2) mom's risk of osteoporosis is increased
>3) pregancy weight is more difficult to lose.
>
>and the list goes on.  all that to say that after i read that article,
>i realised how right she was (so sorry author, please chime in and take
>your credit) and that if we put it like that - with bf being the
>standard for NORMAL results, then other methods pose hazards.
>
>what do you think of that???
>
>warmest regards,
>cian sawyer, CLC


I would suggest instead--
"If your baby does not get breast milk"

I recently talked with a mother who was supplementing with goat's milk 
because she knew formula was "not good for babies."

-Claire Bloodgood, IBCLC

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html