WHO's Breastfeeding Rec's.
This NYT article really pissed me off.
Particularly the following lines: Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, has proposed requiring warning labels, on cans of infant formula and in advertisements, similar to the those on cigarettes. They would say that the Department of Health and Human services has determined that "breast-feeding is the ideal method of feeding and nurturing infants" or that "breast milk is more beneficial to infants than infant formula."
First off, my initial response was, "Duh. Everyone knows breastmilk is best." But then I started to get angry. A good deal of my anger was directly related to the fact that I wasn't able to breastfeed Declan past 5 1/2 months and felt horribly guilty for a while because I had to switch him to formula. While I do understand what WHO is getting at, their scare tactics really make me angry. There is too little information and support for breastfeeding moms in this country. It's not like how it was before, when Grandma and Mom lived with or nearby and could help out with making the whole breastfeeding experience a good one. We're left on our own, trying to glean information from books, websites and the occasional discussion with a lactation consultant. And frankly, that's not enough information or support.
For me, my problem was that from the begining, Declan went on nursing strikes every few weeks. For months I diligently pumped to try to keep my supply up while this was happening. But by 5 and a half months, he'd been on strike for so long, he would feed from me once a day, if I was lucky. Granted, I could have only fed him breastmilk and not supplemented with formula, but I wasn't producing enough to keep him satisfied. I finally gave up. Nothing I did would get Declan to nurse, and frankly there's only so many times that you can lay your kid down to nurse and have them scream like you're trying to kill them, before you give up.
For weeks I felt like a failure. Most of my friends had nursed their kids much longer than I had managed. All the breastfeeding books also convinced me that I had failed by not exclusively breastfeeding. Then it dawned on me. I'm adopted. I never had breastmilk, only formula. And funky 1960's formula at that. My IQ and health have not been adversely affected by this. This allowed me to finally come to terms with feeding Declan formula. Knowing that more likely than not, this will not adversely affect him.
I deeply resent the scare tactics that are being employed to express how important it is to breastfeed. There is enough fear involved in having a child that we really don't need senators or agencies telling us that we're causing irreparable harm to our children if we don't breastfeed for at least six months. Granted, as a society we've gotten away from an emphasis on breastfeeding, but if they're going to try to scare us, then the least they should do is make sure that we have sufficient support.
Particularly the following lines: Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, has proposed requiring warning labels, on cans of infant formula and in advertisements, similar to the those on cigarettes. They would say that the Department of Health and Human services has determined that "breast-feeding is the ideal method of feeding and nurturing infants" or that "breast milk is more beneficial to infants than infant formula."
First off, my initial response was, "Duh. Everyone knows breastmilk is best." But then I started to get angry. A good deal of my anger was directly related to the fact that I wasn't able to breastfeed Declan past 5 1/2 months and felt horribly guilty for a while because I had to switch him to formula. While I do understand what WHO is getting at, their scare tactics really make me angry. There is too little information and support for breastfeeding moms in this country. It's not like how it was before, when Grandma and Mom lived with or nearby and could help out with making the whole breastfeeding experience a good one. We're left on our own, trying to glean information from books, websites and the occasional discussion with a lactation consultant. And frankly, that's not enough information or support.
For me, my problem was that from the begining, Declan went on nursing strikes every few weeks. For months I diligently pumped to try to keep my supply up while this was happening. But by 5 and a half months, he'd been on strike for so long, he would feed from me once a day, if I was lucky. Granted, I could have only fed him breastmilk and not supplemented with formula, but I wasn't producing enough to keep him satisfied. I finally gave up. Nothing I did would get Declan to nurse, and frankly there's only so many times that you can lay your kid down to nurse and have them scream like you're trying to kill them, before you give up.
For weeks I felt like a failure. Most of my friends had nursed their kids much longer than I had managed. All the breastfeeding books also convinced me that I had failed by not exclusively breastfeeding. Then it dawned on me. I'm adopted. I never had breastmilk, only formula. And funky 1960's formula at that. My IQ and health have not been adversely affected by this. This allowed me to finally come to terms with feeding Declan formula. Knowing that more likely than not, this will not adversely affect him.
I deeply resent the scare tactics that are being employed to express how important it is to breastfeed. There is enough fear involved in having a child that we really don't need senators or agencies telling us that we're causing irreparable harm to our children if we don't breastfeed for at least six months. Granted, as a society we've gotten away from an emphasis on breastfeeding, but if they're going to try to scare us, then the least they should do is make sure that we have sufficient support.