Comments | shelbyg: How would you spin it?

shelbyg

How would you spin it?

Aug 03, 2007 16:23

So the CDC was hoping to have US breastfeeding rates to 75% by 2004 (and 60% exclusive for the first 3 months by 2010). They did not achieve this missing there target by 1% (but only getting 31% to exclusively breastfeed in the first 3 months). 74% is still the highest breastfeeding rate in the US on record (obviously it was higher before formula ( Read more... )

journalism

Comments 10

jlg35 August 3 2007, 23:58:53 UTC

This is completely an individual's choice. While I agree that breast feeding is beneficial for babies (until 6 months when they develop their full set of immunities), there are a number of reasons not to breastfeed.

(1) For some women it is extremely painful and/or uncomfortable.
(2) Exclusive nursing in the first 3 months does not allow the father to develop the same level of bonding with the infant as the mother (although I guess this depends on whether they are promoting nursing or breast milk).
(3) Many women have full-time careers and taking a full 3 months off or pumping for 3 months is not necessarily possible.
(4) etc. etc. etc.

My take on it would be that it is great that public has been educated on the benefits of nursing and has chosen to do what is best for their children. Missing a target by 1% does not mean much when you consider the errors associated with polling the general population. My guess it that there is a plus or minus 5-10% accuracy.

Besides, I was never breastfed and turned out perfectly normal. *

futurenurselady August 4 2007, 14:44:37 UTC

It's breast milk, not nursing. Pumps and a bottle fed by the father is perfectly fine.

kayranord August 4 2007, 00:26:11 UTC

mothers.

mothers who breastfeed and become lactivists.

mothers who breastfeed and become "boob nazis" (yes, there is an lj community for that.)

mothers who formula feed and regret the decision, or alternatively, feel attacked by above mentioned lactivists.

mothers who intend to breastfeed, but are unable due to a) lack of education, b) little to no support, c) misinformation from "authority" figures, d) oppressive employers, e) etc.

kayranord August 4 2007, 12:52:45 UTC

and something I thought of last night

taxpayers should care. in present day, breastfeeding predominant in the upper/middle, educated class. so how is the lower/poverty class paying for formula (which, once those free samples from formula companies run out, is expensive)? WIC and other gov't subsidy programs. Which means you (generic taxpayer "you") are paying for feeding their children. And paying for something for which there is a free (and better) alternative.

futurenurselady August 4 2007, 14:45:34 UTC

It's not always better if the mother is drinking alcohol or using drugs. That stuff gets passed on in the breast milk...

kayranord August 4 2007, 16:04:10 UTC

Really, it depends on the amounts. Personally, I won't argue about a drug addict using formula. There are some who would though. But honestly, drug addicts do not comprise the majority of formula feeders.

Same goes for alcohol. Alcohol gets processed through breastmilk in a similar manner as blood. There's even a product that nervous mothers can use to check the alcohol content of their milk, in case they're unsure about giving straight from the tap or using EBM. (expressed breastmilk)

I should add, my comments all come from someone who is (still) breastfeeding her 9mo old and plan to until "she's done" And I'd give her EBM from a trusted friend before I'd give her formula (which, if my NYC travel issues had extended further, we would have had to do.)

noirbettie August 4 2007, 02:31:27 UTC

Well, I do.

For one thing, formula is absolute garbage. Yes, it is adequate nutrition if there is no other option. However, it is 55% high fructose corn syrup (YUCK), and the other 45% is preservatives and highly processed dairy or soy. So right there you have three of the top allergens. Not a very nice start to life. Why not wean straight to McDonalds?

For another, there is a reason that breastfeeding is recommended for a MINIMUM of one year (and the WHO says two years). It is necessary nutritionally and for comfort.

In response to another commenter (I'm sorry, I didn't take note of who), the idea that fathers don't bond is absolute propaganda. It is simply not true. The idea that feeding is the only way to bond with a baby is, frankly, bullshit. I don't know who started that rumor, but my money's on Nabisco.

jlg35 August 4 2007, 05:12:09 UTC

For clarification...'another commenter' was simply citing reasons why some couples choose not to breastfeed exclusively during the first 3 months of their child's life. The comment regarding new fathers bonding with their infant stems from personal experience, not from propaganda started by Nabisco ( ... )

noirbettie August 4 2007, 18:21:20 UTC

I'm not judging other people's choices, I am judging formula and the incorrect information that's out there about its nutritional value ( ... )

futurenurselady August 4 2007, 14:56:05 UTC

A large number of mothers who advocate breast feeding and are not medical professionals care.

Another thing I read about was a situation in Botswana where mothers with AIDS started feeding their children with formula...the results were less than promising. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072201204.html

I have no personal experience with this, I don't even have any idea how I was fed, but I do know that I don't get sick as much as other people and have only one known allergy.