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