Strollerderby

5 Things That Make You a Breastfeeding Nazi . . . And 5 Things That Don’t

Posted by Miriam Axel-Lute

Ah, breastfeeding and formula. It seems like forever since we’ve been able to talk about infant feeding without immediately getting sidetracked into the explosive meta discussion about how we should talk about it, or, more often, how we shouldn’t.

The ability to discern between truth-telling and guilt-tripping seems to get a little hazy to all involved sometimes. In the interest of lancing the boil I present the following cheatsheet on how not to become a breastfeeding Nazi—and how not to see them where they are not.

Part 1: 5 Things That Make You a Breastfeeding Nazi

1.    Making disparaging comments to parents giving bottles to their kids.
I shouldn’t even have to say that this is Not OK, and I think it is rarer than some on the defensive would like to make out, but apparently strangers hissing “Shame on you, you should be breastfeeding” does happen. So let’s just get this straight: You don’t know what the story of that parent/caregiver and baby are (or even what’s in that bottle), so shut the eff up. Besides, even if you somehow knew that someone really could be breastfeeding, do you really think that being mean is the way to change their mind?

2.    Refusing to acknowledge that sometimes breastfeeding is hard and sometimes it sucks.
I’m well convinced that with the right post-partum protocols (baby to breast within an hour of birth, for example), support, and information (and maternity leave) that breastfeeding could be a lot easier for a lot of people than it is. But the fact is that (a) most mothers aren’t in that ideal situation and (b) even in ideal cases sometimes milk comes in late, latches aren’t formed right, infections happen, medical conditions lower milk supply, etc. and those things can be miserable. Pretending this isn’t the case is rude to the women who’ve struggled really hard—both the ones who persevered through it and the ones who eventually prioritized other things.

3.    Quoting discredited studies.
Guess what? Breastfeeding doesn’t raise your baby’s IQ. That finding failed to control for parental IQ and when they did, the difference went away. I didn’t know that until recently either, but now that you know, have the integrity to drop it from the plenty-long list of advantages to breastfeeding.

4.    Confusing lactivism with promoting one-right-way-to-parent.
I will never forget reading an otherwise decent article critiquing all the subtle ways in which our culture promotes bottle feeding when suddenly the author was on a condescending tangent about the insufficiently committed mothers who had this selfish need to occasionally have a little time to themselves without their kids. I could just hear a thousand undecided pregnant women saying “Well, if that’s what breastfeeding is about, forget it.”

5.    Blaming individuals, not systems.
The major cause with low breastfeeding rates in the United States is not selfish parents. It’s a stew of bad hospital protocols, bad family leave policy, misleading formula marketing, badly crafted parental education, overworked and undertrained labor and delivery nurses, unsupportive workplaces, and on and on. If we all keep that in mind we might even be able to work together.

Part 2: … And 5 Things That Don’t

1.    Encouraging an uncertain or undecided mother to give it a try/keep trying.
This is different from berating someone who has already made a decision and it doesn’t count if it’s done in such a way as to fall under #2 or #4 above. But if someone truly isn’t sure, offering encouragement, suggestions, information, data, or contacts that might help them succeed in something this big is a service not a judgment. This extends to critiquing misinformation or “balanced” pro-con literature that parents have been given or offering to talk to an uncertain spouse.

2.    Trying to get the word out about how some common breastfeeding problems can be alleviated by different nursing patterns.
Talking about breastfeeding “management” tactics to address problems like lactose overload in no way blames mothers for the problems. It certainly sucks to learn afterward that there might have been something in your control that might have helped make breastfeeding work better, but we all know this isn’t inborn knowledge. You can’t withhold the information from those who want it so you don’t offend those who didn’t have it when they could have used it.

3.    Talking about the statistical risks of routine formula feeding.
This is the hot, wet heart of it all. Yes, there are plenty of perfectly healthy formula-fed kids. They are just statistically less common. Yes, fear of illness doesn’t have to trump every other consideration.

But neither of those things mean we should stop talking about the real and stark differences in health between the two options on a statistical level: Two to five times the rate of SIDS, twice the death rate from diarrhea, six to ten times the rate of necrotizing enterocolitis, higher rates of respiratory illness, leukemia, asthma . . . Post neonatal infant mortality rates in the United States 26.6 percent higher. We’re not actually just talking about fewer annoying ear infections here.

We need to talk about these numbers not in order to make anyone feel bad, but in order to organize for the systemic changes that would actually make breastfeeding a viable option for more people.

4.    Opposing formula marketing in hospitals.
Formula is an important option to have on hand when breastfeeding doesn’t work for many reasons. In that way it’s a little like a drug, or at least a nutritional supplement. Hospitals don’t hand out anti-cholesterol meds to people with healthy hearts; they shouldn’t hand out formula as a matter of course either. It’s misleading and it implies that doctors think it is a medically equivalent option and it isn’t. (Same goes for opposing misleading formula ads.)

5.    Disliking the term “breastfeeding Nazi.”
Aside from this being yet another case of the term Nazi being tossed around like the Nazis were merely cross-patches, not mass murderers, it implies that there is an organized movement to be horrible and judging to all parents who don’t toe the line, instead of a loosely-knit network of people and organizations trying to advocate for a public health measure, some small minority of which sometimes behave in mean or counterproductive ways. The same can be said of both sides of nearly any cause people get passionate about. It’s time we got back to having the real conversation.

Related Posts:

More by this author:


+ DIGG + STUMBLE

Comments

 

SFmama said:

Great post! I had such a hard time breastfeeding. I did stick to it and eventually nursed my son for 12 months, but the first 3 months were pure hell. I had lots of support (family) around me, and I also was able to quit my job to stay at home with my son. I know that if my situation was different there was no way I would have been able to do it.

I should start by saying I live in San Francisco. I remember when my son was little and I'd be pushing him in a stroller (so I obviously was not feeding him at the same time), I can't tell you how many strangers stopped my and asked me something like "I certainly hope you are breastfeeding", or "you ARE breastfeeding, aren't you???" Even though I was doing it I was so disgusted. One time I was traveling to another city, and I was nursing my son, and a woman came up to me and said "good for you, it is such a good thing you are doing!" I was so happy. This is the kind of encouragement people need. (I'd like to add that nobody ever said anything like this to me in SF.)

February 9, 2009 12:49 PM
 

Spiff said:

SFmama...I totally agree.  I had a horrible time breastfeeding as well, but also stuck with it.  I too was amazed by how many strangers approached me and made comments about hoping that I was breastfeeding, or asking me if I was.  I was taken off-guard at first to say the least.  It is wonderful when people make positive comments without seeming judgmental about it...

February 9, 2009 1:49 PM
 

Alice said:

Why do breastfeeders hate Jews?  I love Jews, I have Jewish relatives and I breast fed 2 of my children.

February 9, 2009 3:33 PM
 

Karen said:

Yes, let's talk about health risks but PLEASE can we use absolute rather than relative risk? Does it really matter if the risk of disease X increases from 1 in 10 000 000 to 10 in 10 000 000? OMG it's TEN TIMES the risk. But, uhm, it's still one in a million.

Babble editors: PLEASE insist on absolute risk statistics (perhaps in addition to relative risk).

February 9, 2009 4:08 PM
 

Miriam Axel-Lute said:

Karen: That's a good point and I'll try to put my hands on those numbers. That is, though, one of the reasons that of the many things that people list increased risk for, I focused on common causes of death SIDS (still leading cause of death), diarhhea and necrotizing enteritis (a very common problem for preemies), rather than some of the less common problems. Some people have calculated increased deaths in the thousands per year--as compared to, say 11 to 150 for peanut allergies. So I do think the absolute numbers are not insignificant. But it does depend what your other risk factors are for those problems.

February 9, 2009 4:32 PM
 

Coco said:

I appreciate the intent of this article. As a nation, we can go much further in supporting breastfeeding. And really there is no doubt that when it's an option, breast is best.

However, I disagree with the phrasing "statistical risks of routine formula-feeding". The way that is phrased is problematic if that is on the list of what we as women should be doing to support breastfeeding. It implies that one is "risking" one's child's health by formula feeding and that is really not accurate. Maybe "statistical advantages/benefits of breastfeeding" would have been a better way to phrase it. I have heard too many women make statements indicating that they think formula feeding causes ear infections and the like. (I kid you not. That was in a published letter to a very well-known crunchy mom magazine.)

I appreciate Karen's comment above and am glad you thought it was a point well-taken. Too many people in this country don't understand how to interpret statistics, and that can cut both ways, no pun intended. I have no other source for this, so apologies if I'm wrong, but my midwife told me than many OBs, when a patient is having a planned C-section, choose to do it at my 39 weeks instead of 40 weeks because the statistical risk of stillbirth is lower at 39 weeks. That sounds like a good reason on the face of it. My midwife also said the difference is miniscule, so it's completely pointless. Understanding the absolute risk is key to making good decisions sometimes.

Thanks for food for thought.

February 10, 2009 1:11 AM
 

Greer's Mum said:

Thank you so much for this. As someone who bottle fed my child, I find it hard to hear bottle feeders being called selfish, lazy or worse. I respect people's decision to breast feed, and I would like people to respect my decision to bottle feed. You don't know why someone would bottle feed, there are a myriad of reasons. It's nice to see someone say, that being mean is no way to get your point across.

February 10, 2009 9:09 AM
 

Miriam Axel-Lute said:

Coco: It's tricky language. I tried to phrase it to be clear I meant the aggregate risks to the health of the population if formula feeding is done routinely, as an assumed first choice. I do think on that level, talking about risks is appropriate, unless reducing SIDS, etc is a cool "bonus."

But on the individual level, I would never presume to say what you interpreted it as, because there are so many things going into that decision and such varying contexts that you can't out of context call it a risky choice; it is in fact a good and healthy option for many. If nothing else, compared to the absolute risk levels of any of these things, having a sane, happy parent comes way way first.

I don't see that as contradictory with thinking that we actually could reduce our infant mortality rate noticeably by providing better (nonjudgmental) breastfeeding support in hospitals, for example.  

I say this, by the way, as someone whose daughter experienced a high lead level at a age one--I know how to hold a contradiction in my head, where I can see on an individual level she's not irreparably destroyed and I shouldn't carry around a burden of guilt, but on the other hand I know the risk is real and if she had also been malnourished or ingested more it might have been much worse, so I fight for more education about it and more strict regulations, etc. (I am *NOT* comparing formula to lead paint--just the experience of the looking at the indiv/aggregate difference.)

February 10, 2009 9:22 AM
 

Sheri said:

I never had letdown, my breasts never worked.  Really.  I pumped both breasts with a hospital grade pump and you know how much I got???  The bottom of the bottle was almost coated with milk.  And I tried, had a great support system, read every book I could get my hands on.  It didn't work for me.  And let me tell you, I really appreciated the formula I got in the hospital.  I was able to get off the phone with my LaLeche "person" (after she told me I needed to get some formula in my son NOW) and make him a bottle.  

If you can breastfeed, great, but those who don't or can't would like our free samples.  And the more, the better.  

That's akin to me saying that I'm not for extended medical leave after having a baby, since I'm a stay-at-home mom, it doesn't pertain to ME......  (and no, I don't believe that).

February 10, 2009 9:31 AM
 

Miriam Axel-Lute said:

Sheri: I'm not against free formula samples for those who ask for them/need them. Just against handing them out to everyone regardless as part of standard "goodie bag" type arrangements.

February 10, 2009 9:38 AM
 

TwinMommy71 said:

As someone who had major breastfeeding problems due to PCOS and IGT, I really appreciated this article.  When I would take my twins out for a walk, almost every woman (I'm not kidding) we encountered would ask me if I was breastfeeding - to the point my husband and I would joke about it before we went out. Most of the time, it seemed to be well-intentioned or done out of curiousity.  Occasionally, it was snarky.  No matter how it was intended, I felt a lot of shame about it all.  I gotten myself to the point that now, when someone asks me, I've decided to use it as an opportunity to tell them about PCOS and IGT and how those things affected me.  

The reasons for formula feeding are legion and very personal for many women.  Anyway, thank you for an even-handed article about such a touchy and loaded issue. Whether we formula feed or breastfeed, we love our kids just the same.

February 10, 2009 10:53 AM
 

Kris said:

The idea that breastfeeding raises IQ can't be so easily dismissed, though people tend to talk about it more than it deserves.  See this article from the economist about a study that shows a link even when parental IQ is taken into account:

www.economist.com/.../displaystory.cfm

Here's a quote:

<blockquote>What Dr Caspi and Dr Moffitt found was that the increase in intelligence associated with breastfeeding only happened to people who had inherited at least one copy of the C version of FADS2. (Most genes are present as two copies, one inherited from the mother and one from the father.) The effect did not depend on the social classes or IQs of the parents, nor on the birthweight of the child in question (low birthweight has been linked to lower IQ). And the difference in IQ was preserved into adulthood.</blockquote>

February 10, 2009 11:36 AM
 

Sprgtime said:

GREAT article!  

The truth of the matter is, there ARE proven risks that go along with formula-feeding.  These risks are the reason why formula-feeding should not be seen as a "choice" but rather as the solution for when breastfeeding does not work.  

To state the advantages/benefits of breastfeeding rather than the drawbacks/risks of formula feeding makes it sound like breastfeeding is simply a healthier meal choice. It should instead be seen as the standard.  

As for formula companies shamelessly sending ALL mothers home with sample formula, they should instead provide the same amount of free formula, but only to the women who need it.  It's a sneaky marketing ploy that works great.  I've personally known 2 women who used the formula rather than pumping or when their baby had a growth spurt and was nursing more, not knowing that it would impact their supply (lack of cultural information).  They ended up needing more and more formula and within months had switched to only formula feeding and were quite upset about losing their milk supply.

February 10, 2009 11:49 AM
 

Twinmommy71 said:

Just to touch on Kris' comment above and to add to the discussion about the complexity of interpreting research findings...the Caspi and Moffit study used very reliable and valid measures of child IQ (the WISC and the WPPSI).  However, the measures they used to assess maternal IQ are highly questionable - they included the WRAT (which is a brief test of word recognition, simple math calculation and spelling) and a "verbal ability" subtest of the SRA.  Neither of these tests are considered to be useful measures of "intelligence" - and are not used in routine testing.  Thus, the study did not provide a good estimate of maternal IQ and seemingly ignored the role of fathers' IQ - thus, not really controlling for the confounding factor of parental IQ - which, of course, would impact the finding of the study.  It seems almost impossible to control for all the potential confounds in a study on breastfeeding, formula feeding, and IQ.  The only way to know that for sure, hypothetically, would be a study where women are randomly assigned to groups in which they are required to breastfeed exlusively or to formula feed - and that would obviously be totally unethical on all fronts!!  

February 10, 2009 1:01 PM
 

UberWiseOne said:

Absolute Risk Statistics:

The difference between formula feeding and breast feeding?

9.4 deaths per 1,000 babies vs. 4.7 deaths per 1,000 babies.  Quite significant!

There are parents today who will lose their children due to our socially condoned & widely acceptable "choice" to use formula without knowing that there are very real risks to that choice.

Infant Mortality Rates (IMR) are the number of infant deaths per 1,000 live births, from 0 to 12 months of age.

Based on the current U.S. infant death rate of 6.75 and an average breastfeeding rate of 50%, the American infant mortality rate would climb to 9.4 if all infants were formula-fed and would drop to 4.7 if all were breastfed.

References from www.naturalfamilyonline.com/.../312-formula-report-2.htm

February 10, 2009 1:31 PM
 

Kathy G said:

I think it is interesting that people have such a strong reaction to the phrase, "statistical risks of routine formula feeding." Almost every parenting choice comes with some relative degree of risk.  Carseats, shoes, baby-gates, if/where we do daycare, etc -- it all has some degree of relative statistical risk.  Each time I put my kids in the car to go anywhere, I am putting them at risk.  Does it make me a bad mom?  I hope not, but frankly it is my own decision to make as a mother.

As a woman who is still breastfeeding her 20 month old twins, I have to say that the risk of formula wasn't what kept me going during the rough times...  I just thought nursing was really important for our family -- and that I knew it felt right for me as a mom.  I feel strongly that I came to that decision because I was loved and supported by many women who were willing to gently share information with me and then RESPECT my instincts and choices as a mother -- no matter what those choices may be.  

We are lucky to live in a country where clean water and sanitary conditions are widely available -- thus minimizing the statistical risks associated with formula.  If another mom makes a different feeding decision for her family, who am I to judge her choice?

I really wish that we could begin to look at the many universals we share as mothers.  We each have a hard job and experience our own share of struggles.  I think if we could focus on love and support among moms (rather than the painful culture of comparison that I see everywhere), that the appropriate education and healthcare support (for things like breastfeeding, educated birth choices, etc.) would have to follow.  Afterall, the only people who benefit from maternal factions are larger systems who can use that division to avoid acting in ways that benefit all mothers and children.

I appreciate the even-handed tone of this article, but look forward to a day when this type of mommy-comparison (no matter how well-written and well-intentioned) is unnecessary.

February 10, 2009 1:54 PM
 

Miriam Axel-Lute said:

Kathy G: Your point about how we all take risks all the time is exactly what I think is often missing from these discussions...

February 10, 2009 2:00 PM
 

Greer's Mum said:

Kathy G, so well-said, thank you!

February 10, 2009 4:12 PM
 

Reader said:

I think my issue is that we need to interpret stats correctly if we are going to use them.

In social stats, there is rarely a one-variable model that explains anything. Take UberWiseOne's quote: "The difference between formula feeding and breast feeding? 9.4 deaths per 1,000 babies vs. 4.7 deaths per 1,000 babies.  Quite significant!" Ratios do not mean something is statistically significant, for one thing. That would involve looking at a standardized test statistic and the level of significance (confidence level) the researcher used to reject their null hypothesis. For another thing, can we really say that the independent variable (what one feeds one's infant) is the only variable responsible for that outcome? We have to remember that in social stats, there is almost never a one-variable model that best explains a relationship between two variables, no matter how well a study is designed.  

Take SIDS, for example. We can say that breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the probability that an infant will die of SIDS. That's true and it's important. However, there are a number of other factors that will reduce that probability, too, including getting good prenatal care and placing an infant to sleep on his/her back. So, we would need to explain it using a model that included a number of different models, not just breastfeeding. I think it's fine to say that breastfeeding is correlated with lower rates of SIDS. But people don't always stop there. Part of my issue is when people act as if breastfeeding is somehow the only variable affecting these outcomes... is a panacea... is the most-important thing one can do for one's child. I do think it's a problem when women overstate the case -- and trust me, I know women who do -- especially since it's such a sensitive issue.

For the record, I exclusively breastfeed my baby and the little one is sick all the time. My pediatrician shakes his head and says, "So rare in a breastfed baby." Not really so shocking to me. Breastmilk may lower the probability that my child gets sick, but it doesn't prevent it. Nor would formula, were I to give it, cause my child to get sick. I guess, that's my point. We have to remember that the studies have really strong data supporting the fact that breastfeeding is correlated to lots of improved probabilities for our children and all children. And that's really incredible and shouldn't be downplayed. But it's a correlation and we should understand its importance as well as its limitations if we are going to discuss it with others. Lots of other factors are important, too. Ms. Axel-Lute has already made that point, actually, so why I feel the need to make it again, I don't know.

Good points. To get off the risks/stats stuff for a minute, I especially like the point about not getting judgy about women who bottle feed.

February 11, 2009 1:44 PM
 

Karen said:

UberWiseOne: Your stats are not controlled for variables other than type of feeding, which is Miriam's point about other risk factors.

Yes, breastfeeding is _associated_ with lower SIDS incidence; however, the association is correlation, not causation. (Stupid example but, kinda like carrying a purse is associated with having long hair if we include an entire population, not just its women, in the experiment.) When other risk factors (bedding, sleep position ...) are taken into account, the difference in incidence of SIDS is insignificant for breast- vs. formula-fed babies.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/.../1207 is the AAP journal article cited by Wikipedia.

I would speculate that families that choose to breast-feed, are also a families that have good access to good prenatal and postpartum education about sleep position and bedding.

By no means am I arguing against breastfeeding - loved it, kid thrived! I just think it's only fair that people have access to the correct information when it's available. Especially good is information that is quantified so that they can know how big a difference their decision makes.

It's unfair to ask people to weigh "breast-feeding MIGHT reduce the risk of SIDS" against the myriad of other factors that might contribute to the decision.

Even tougher... I don't see any numbers out there for the effect of combining breast- and formula-feeding. Does breast-feeding need to be exclusive in order to obtain quantifiable benefits? How much better is exclusive versus once a day? versus twice a day? And yikes, how about pumped versus straight from the breast?

As an aside, I was happy to see that the article controlled for type of bed-sharing. Bed-sharing with parents doesn't seem to increase the risk of SIDS. I fell asleep nursing in bed all the time.

February 12, 2009 4:14 PM

About Miriam Axel-Lute

Miriam Axel-Lute is a freelance writer, editor, poet, and urban planning junkie. She lives, works, and gardens in Albany, NY, with her two partners and daughter.

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage