The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Nicole — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:28:36 GMT

Frankly Jen, if you watched the video accompanying the article, Rosin and her cohorts were the ones NOT being supportive. Since when is a bedroom "defiled" by nursing or pumping? In their little tete a tete, they did everything but compare a breastfeeding mother to a cow. That was after Rosin calling children "a pain."

One has to wonder why she didn't opt for a goldfish.

If it isn't clear, I found her article scientifically and journalistically flawed, not even attempting objectivity, and Rosin herslef whiny and selfish, her group circling 'round and deferring to Queen Bee Dr. Mary themselves guilty of the very things Rosin claims to dislike about the breastfeeding moms.

Something about pots and kettles, perhaps.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

cheri — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:44:11 GMT

Nancy,

The only moms who feel the moral pressure to breastfeed are middle class+, educated moms. You don't hear these conversations with low income mothers, immigrants, and non-white elasticities. Oh yea, you can pull a couple examples to the contrary, but the facts remain that the majority of mothers in this country DO NOT breastfeed exclusively, or for long. The pressure is obvious. Spend some time working with these "others" and you will see how little support there is for breastfeeding out there.

Seriously, it is as though Babble readers are representative of the general population. So, our opinions, and personal stories represent a pretty small minority of moms.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

maggie — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:06:43 GMT

As a new mother, I have a 5 month old, I was determined to breastfeed my baby. When we took my daughter in for her 3 day old check up it turned out that she had lost more of her birth weight than she was supposed to and her doctor recommended that we supplement with formula to get her weight up. I was devastated both by my inability to nurture my daughter and by the fact that I was being ordered to give her "poison." I was so ashamed as well. I told another new mommy friend, in confidence, what had happened and it turned out she had been through the exact same thing with her son when he was born. But she had not confessed this to me until I told her, because of the stigma of giving her child formula. After we got my daughter's weight up I was able to exclusively breast feed her, at first with the help of a nipple shield, due to latch issues, and then without the shield.

Since I have gone back to work I have continued to give her breast milk exclusively because I hope it is what is best for her health and development but have come to realize that it is not the panacea it is purported to be. We put my daughter into day care about a month ago and within a couple days she had a runny nose and ear infection. It is not that I was naive enough to believe that because I was breastfeeding her she would not get sick, but I secretly hoped it would be the case. And, I was really surprised that she got an ear infection right away. I asked her doctor why that was because I thought breastfeeding was supposed to prevent ear infections. She told me that the findings on that were inconclusive, which goes along with what Rosin said in her article.

While I am glad that I am able to breastfeed my daughter I think Rosin's article brings up a lot of good points. Formula is not poison and breast milk is not a magic elixir that will protect your child from illness and make her a super genius. It is not that simple. Plus, breastfeeding is nice but it is a huge time suck (no pun intended) and pumping is just weird. I work from home most of the time, and don't mind pumping at home. But when I have to go into my office, I have the choice of pumping in our server room, a supply closet, or a bathroom stall. It feels humiliating to be stuck in one of these places with my shirt undone, holding a pump shield up to each breast and watching the milk squirt into bottles while my co-workers are on the other side of the door.

I plan to keep feeding my daughter breast milk until she is one. But reading this article made me realize that if I do ever have to supplement with formula again, it is not as if I am doing something that is going to cause her harm. It is really hard for me to shake that notion but I do believe that we have become indoctrinated with the “Breast is best” mantra.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Jennifer — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:43:43 GMT

A -- I totally agree with the comparison with vegetarianism and breastfeeding. Genius, and well stated.

Cheri -- "Honesty, I do agree that we mothers need to support each other....But if you cannot handle the challenges of breastfeeding, how equipped are you to be a great mom?" Nuff said.

Melissa: "Having children takes time and sacrifice. If you are a mother who doesn't want to make the sacrifices necessary to breastfeed, that's your choice." This is totally judging and terrible, and that makes me sad.

IMHO, Hana Rosin wrote the article because it seems edgy and against the grain. Nobody is going to get kicked off an airplane for bottlefeeding their baby, so I definitely believe that the majority of this culture supports bottle rather than breastfeeding. Being a nursing mom, I have been given nasty looks (my husband was asked by an onlooker: "Why can't she give a bottle?") even in the relatively lefty suburbs of Boston. But that said, I have often found that any movement against the status quo can get nasty and unforgiving if you are caught on the 'wrong side.' Both Cheri and Melissa wrote comments that seem as if they alone hold the truth for all mothers. Motherhood is hard enough without all this static.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Gretchen — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:37:14 GMT

When you make a case against something so natural and so basic to humanity—the very feeding of our babies in the way we were meant to feed them—it seems to me you are throwing in your vote with the capital-driven, work-and-productivity-above-all-else camp. You are saying that things women inherently do are not as valuable as industry. You are devaluing women. How is this real feminism? Women should not have to match men in order to be respected.

http://mamameyeah.blogspot.com

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Melissa — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:44:26 GMT

Rosin's article and her appearance on the Today show deeply saddened me. The only thing I agree with Rosin about is that mothers need to stop judging each other and support each other. But the agreement stops there. Rosin's research is shoddy, incomplete, outdated, and inaccurate. If it was complete she would have written about a meta analysis published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (AHRQ) in 2007 entitled “Breastfeeding and Maternal and Infant Health Outcomes in Developed Countries,” which reviewed over 9,000 abstracts, 43 preliminary studies, 43 primary studies on maternal health outcomes, and 29 systematic reviews or meta-analyses that covered approximately 400 individual studies on breastfeeding and concluded with the following:

“A history of breastfeeding was associated with a reduction in the risk of acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, asthma (young children), obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis [for the child]. For maternal outcomes, a history of lactation was associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, breast, and ovarian cancer…Early cessation of breastfeeding or not breastfeeding was associated with an increased risk of maternal postpartum depression.”

If you are a woman who decides breastfeeding is not a choice you want to make, then fine. But for Rosin to go on national television and say that "the scientific literature regarding the benefits of breastfeeding is thin" is just WRONG. She thinks this article is an "I've got your back" to all the mothers who choose not to breastfeed. But in reality it is just going to hurt the breastfeeding community by spreading a doctrine that tells women, their families, their bosses, and their legislature that "it's unnecessary to support the rights of breastfeeding mothers." Healthy living takes a time commitment. Having children takes time and sacrifice. If you are a mother who doesn't want to make the sacrifices necessary to breastfeed, that's your choice. But to call breastfeeding an "instrument of misery that mostly just keeps women down" is sickening.

~Melissa

www.nursingbirth.com

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

E Gunderson — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:54:52 GMT

There is emerging science that points to important health benefits of lactation for the woman's health --- take a look at Stuebe et al. JAMA 2005 (lower risk of type 2 diabetes years later), and Stuebe et al. AJOG 2009 (lower risk of heart attack years later in life) and higher HDL-cholesterol levels years after weaning (Obstet & Gyn Jan 2007). A sweeping conclusion that breast and formula are somehow equivalent is factually and biological a misnomer based on the inherent differences in constituents such as lower protein levels in breastmilk, immunoglobins, adipose tissue hormones, etc.. Because study findings are inconsistent means that the studies are flawed not necessarily the hypothesis. The very fact that scientists cannot randomize women to breast vs formula means that this research is much more difficult, and studies are subject to the influences of extraneous factors that may be responsible for the divergent results.

Choose however you'd like to feed your baby--if you can -- - most women in the world do not have the option.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Nancy — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:55:03 GMT

I don't buy this stuff about the predominate pressure on women in this country being to formula feed. Breast feeding has become a moral imperative to the point where if you can't you're still required to prostrate yourself at the alter of GOOD MOTHERHOOD and declare that "breast is best." And if you don't *want* to breast feed you'd better just keep your mouth shut.

What's best is what's best for you and your child and it's nobody's business but your own. It has no bearing what-so-ever on whether you're a good mother, a feminist or anything else. It also has no significant bearing on your child's health, intelligence or well-being and it's about time someone told those breath-takingly arrogant busy bodies who want to ban forumula samples, make formula available by prescription only to mind their own business.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

MsC — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:48:38 GMT

I think it's beautiful how all the 'you formula feeders don't even deserve babies' comments are helpfully illustrating the author's point that people cling to the conclusions they like and ignore the fact that the next study just contradicted those results or that even the study they like has in bold letters a disclaimer about how there are dozens of uncontrolled variables that can't be factored out.

Madeline: 'All that's less a case against breastfeeding than a case for changing the way the workplace operates, how we see women AND men as workers and parents, maternity/paternity leaves, etc., etc.' YES!

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

catmom — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:22:24 GMT

Shannon LC Cate, I've walked in your shoes and I agree with you. Also, people who say the dominant pressure in the U.S. is to formula feed aren't living my experience, or the experience described in the article and video. How many people in my various mom groups formula fed? One. Me. How much information did I get from medical professionals about formula feeding? Zero. I know, believe me, that my experience might have been different in another city or another state. But I live here.

Like Shannon, I support breastfeeding and women's right to do it wherever and whenever and as long as they can. But I would have appreciated some more support and understanding for my own situation. It's somewhat fascinating to see that when this writer dares to say that evidence for several of the purported benefits of breastfeeding have been overstated - and frankly, she's right - she's personally attacked for not being enthusiastic enough about her own, extensive breastfeeding experience.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Sheri — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:39:22 GMT

Not only am I "broken" but I guess I just didn't try hard enough. Nice...

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Twyla — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:16:04 GMT

Avimom- I hope I am confused by your comment. I am sure you wouldn't be saying that we could put an end to all social issues if all children were breastfed? That is silly.

I breastfed all my kids. I don't think that protects them from a life of hardships and economic issues. I think what gives my kids a leg up is that we have discipline, boundries and we are active in their schooling. Those things will certainly help our kids compete in the world. And any parent can provide those things.

I make a joke when I talk to parents that didn't breastfeed and I can tell they are beating themselves up about it. I tell them that my kids will know one more big word that nobody uses. No harm done there.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

cheri — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:25:53 GMT

I do not support formula feeding simply because the predominate pressure in US society is to use formula. Whether exclusively, occasionally or to "supplement" all us broken mothers out there who cannot provide adequate nutrition for our babies ourselves.

Formula feeding is normalized. You see formula ads, coupons and freebee's everywhere when you are pregnant/birthing. Mothers are encouraged to formula feed those first few colostrum days, when the milk is slow to come. If we drop the "breast is best" and adopt the attitude that formula is equal....we are in effect giving in to the social bias that has been generated through profit seeking mega-companies like Nestle.

Women need a bit of pressure to breastfeed, and those of us who are breastfeeding advocates are trying to counteract the pressures coming from marketing. Breastfeeding should be the norm, and the FIRST option for all mothers. Formula is the exception to the best choice.

Honesty, I do agree that we mothers need to support each other. Mothering is hard. But if you cannot handle the challenges of breastfeeding, how equipped are you to be a great mom? Sure, many kids survive (thrive even) formula feeding. They also survive absentee parenting, abuse, neglect and other charming parenting styles. Children are resilient for sure, but shouldnt we as mothers want the best for our children, not simply the easiest?

If you cannot afford kids, dont have them. If you cannot emotionally support your kids, dont have them. If you know that parenting is a challenge you cannot fully master, dont have kids.

(ok, caveats here...no I dont think formula feeding is = to abuse/neglect. I also dont think having kids is a right all people are due. And, I do know that some mothers, who are wonderful, supportive, nurturing mothers are unable to nurse for medical reasons, and obviously, formula is a good solution for them. However, too many people claim to be unable to breastfeed when they really mean to say unwilling. An unwillingness to bear the "burden" or survive the "struggle" of any parenting difficulties should make you reconsider parenting.)

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

avimom — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:44:23 GMT

Breastfeeding is not just a personal decision and that's why moms don't just say, "You do your thing, I'll do mine. No harm done." If the study that shows breastfeeding significantly improves cognitive outcomes is accurate, imagine how that might affect society in the long term if as many babies as possible were breasfed. Would we be able to make better progress in closing the achievement gap? Could we improve graduation rates? Could that lead to higher incomes, which in turn could lead to more comfortable living conditions for the next generation?

I use an analogy to smoking. Why did the surgeon general start putting a warning on cigarette packs? Not to shame people, but to try to make an impact on health care costs. Chronic disease causes higher health care costs for everyone and smoking is a risk factor in many chronic diseases.

The "breast is best" mantra is not to belittle someone's personal choice, but an attempt to make widespread, societal change that could, in fact, benefit even those children who were not breastfed as infants. We need to stop taking everything so personally and think big picture.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Jane — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:54:44 GMT

Shannon LC Cate, I'm sure your kids are bright and healthy. When people say "breast is best," they don't mean formula-feeding is inadequate, just that breastfeeding is ideal. And I understand that some people can't breastfeed, and that it is unfair that there is some benefit not every parent can provide their child. But some things are unfair yet true.

I'm sure there's a lot of stuff that would be beneficial for my children but that I won't be able to provide. That's life; we all do our best, and no parent does every ideal thing.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Jane — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:49:37 GMT

i have to agree with BeansMom here. I thought, reading the title of her article, that she was going to show all kinds of evidence for some equivalence between breastmilk and formula. Instead, all she did was say that some of the studies finding benefits for breastfeeding were flawed. Well, that doesn't make the good studies any less good. And certainly no one has ever found that formula is better.

She was also reaching to devalue breastfeeding when she discounted the research because it couldn't tell whether the benefit was from the act of breastfeeding (holding the baby against you for long periods of time every day) or from the milk itself. Well, that's not a reason to discount the studies -- especially when she said she wanted to stop breastfeeding in order to do stuff away from the baby. Why does it matter whether it's the act or the milk, when what you're proposing means stopping both?

And from both an individual and (especially) an epidemiological standpoint, 5 to 10 IQ points is HUGE. If any medical intervention did that, our government should be providing it to every child.

I generally agree, Jen, that it's not right to attack someone's motives; attack the arguments. But this article was so inexplicable otherwise. Her reasons for discounting the evidence were baseless. I just couldn't think of any reason for doing that unless she were trying to justify her own impatience with nursing.

I think every mom should make up her own mind on this. I just think we should all be adults about it and OWN our own decisions, not try to convince ourselves and everyone else that nothing was lost when we made those decisions.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Shannon LC Cate — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:31:38 GMT

Beans Mom,

Did you finish the article? Rosin didn't dislike breast feeding her third child. She was just a bit ambivalent about all the years she'd been doing it. The last paragraph was all about how she loved holding her baby against her body and would miss it.

I agree with those who've said that this should be a decision women make and are supported for regardless of which thing they choose (or end up needing) to do. I've never breast fed a baby (two adopted kids) and I couldn't be more supportive of breast feeding. I think it's super cool and was always jealous of the convenience of the boob when I was carting bottles and formula all over the place. But I'd also like to see more of this kind of realistic looking at the supposed medical benefits of breast feeding. My formula babies are considerably healthier than the average kids their age. And I dare say, on the upper curve of smart, too.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Tony — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:23:46 GMT

Before everyone rushes to accept Rosin's conclusion that there's really no difference between bottle vs. breastfed children, I found it useful to consult responses from the authors of one of the main studies cited (usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/.../oh-really-hanna-rosin-in-atlantic-makes.html). According to Evenhouse and Reilly, they found "credible evidence of a causal link between breastfeeding and cognitive ability... The effect is large enough to matter, and it is lasting, persisting into adolescence." And they also found other long-term effects of breastfeeding had been overstated (note: they didn't say the effects were non-existent, just overstated which cries out for more context.)

The division of labor within the home and society (and the cultural wars regarding such) continues to rage on. But if it's this battle that Rosin's enlisting to fight, I just wished she wouldn't abuse scientific research in the process (oh right, that only applies to those exaggerating the benefits of breastfeeding, not those inaccurately representing the results to fit their needs).

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

laura — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:46:50 GMT

"A", i loved your comments about bfing and vegetarianism. Spot on.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Sheri — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:25:48 GMT

Madeline,

Isn't being a feminist all about being able to do whatever it is you want to do?? I've always thought it was all about choice. Whether you want to be a firefighter, a Wall Street trader or a teacher, women have fought for your right to do that. But isn't being a mom a choice?? Isn't staying at home with your children because you WANT to a choice? What is so wrong with that? Why can't women who stay at home to raise their children be feminists too? What is so wrong with the traditional family? Especially if that is what you want to do. Maybe I'm just boring and too "white bread" midwestern for my own good. I believe that women can do anything they want, and if that involves having children, and cleaning their sinks till they shine, if that's what they want, then go for it!!!

From a strong, smart, purposeful (feminist) stay-at-home-becuase-it-suits-her mom

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Heather — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:24:34 GMT

I think that if Rosin wanted to offer up the best and most accurate advice about the science behind breastfeeding then she could have delved into similair studies and not just ones that pertain to breast or bottle feeding.

She could have compared all of these different studies and how they relate to our society and then she could have drawn parallels between those and the studies also done on breast milk.

This is just one of the many issues I had with this article.

Another involves her take on the family dynamic in regards to the nursing mother and baby relationship. She suggests that by doing so dad gets left out in the cold. The reason this irks me is because it's a very common, very widely spread misconception that a father cannot bond with his baby because he's unable to feed it.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Jen — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:50:19 GMT

BeansMom: I meant for those last two paragraphs to address the general breastfeeding debate out there - it was not specifically directed at you - and I apologize if it came across that way.

I did address your specific comment in the first paragraph though. Yes, I did read the article. And even if Rosin felt unhappy about nursing and felt pressured to do so, it seems like a leap to assume that she only wrote that article to alleviate her "guilt" about not enjoying nursing. I'm not sure I understand how looking at the way some research findings about breastfeeding are exaggerated is the same as "devaluing breastfeeding." Rosin did not just address studies with modest effect sizes but studies that did not adequately control for confounding variables and assertions not backed by the data (i.e. her link to the Sydney Spiesel article). Shouldn't we be honest about the studies that show the clear benefits of breastfeeding and not overplay the studies that are flawed? Isn't that being fair to women to give them the best and most accurate info out there?

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

hootie mcboob it is — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:41:41 GMT

I recently had my first child and no one has taken me to task for not breastfeeding. I did try, but found it painful, and wasn't producing much even after a week of trying and pumping and gave up after the first cracked, bloody nipple. Yes, I put my own needs above that of my baby (the need to not feel pain), but he is healthy and happy and isn't that the most important thing? call me lazy or whatever (I am to a point), but I would rather spend time with my child snuggling after a bottle, then being frustrated trying to keep him attached to a nipple and worrying that he's getting enough.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Beans Mom — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:18:09 GMT

Jen: Did you read the article? That was not a huge leap of logic I was making there. Rosin herself states that she felt unhappy nursing and only continued to do so because she felt "trapped" by peer pressure and "too many years of Sears condidtioning." Why is it mean-spirited to refer to feelings that the author describes in her article? I never once attacked attacked women who don't breastfeed. What I don't appreciate is her tactic of devaluing something that I consider to be important, even if the statistical findings are modest. If anyone is engaging in black and white thinking it is Rosin, who breaks down the decision to breastfeed as bringing slight health benefits to baby on the plus side and taking away "modesty, independence, career, sanity" on the minus side.

re: The Case Against the 'Case Against Breastfeeding'

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:08:16 GMT

I'm pregnant with my first child, and just becoming aware of the "breastfeeding debate". So far, it's reminded me a lot of the "vegetarian debate".

See, I'm a vegetarian. Sometimes I tell people this-- like, for example, when we get into a conversation about meat. (It happens more often than you'd think, oddly.) In certain social circles, a frequent response to this is: "I wish I could be a vegetarian-- I tried it-- my doctor told me I couldn't, he said I need a lot of protein." Or something along those lines. The impression I get is that my interlocutor feels pressured to be a vegetarian. Sometimes this is explicit: people will tell me that they feel pressured to be vegetarians. Sometimes-- about 1 in 3-- this conversation then turns into a lecture about how vegetarianism isn't really all that healthy, anyway.

This type of answer always takes me aback. I've certainly never pressured anyone not to eat meat. I've never heard a conversation in which someone was explicitly pressured to be a vegetarian. I don't even volunteer the info unless the topic comes up, and I don't talk about my reasons unless asked. I, and the vegetarians I know, are happy to sit at a table where others are eating meat. Even where I live-- urban West Coast-- vegetarians are a distinct minority. Even in my yuppie-haven neighborhood, there are restaurants that have nothing vegetarian on the menu. I seriously don't know where this perceived pressure towards vegetarianism is coming from.

So far, the conversations I've had about breastfeeding have been very much like this, too. I've been asked if I plan to breastfeed-- I don't volunteer it. When I say yes, I get one of two responses: "I really loved breastfeeding my kids", or "I really wanted to breastfeed, but I couldn't because of [XYZ]." I haven't asked for reasons-- this is the answer women volunteer. Even from my midwife, what I heard was "we encourage breastfeeding, and we'll give you the support you need if you choose to do it." That's some pretty mild pressure!

Now, I know there is more material in the media about the benefits of breastfeeding than about the benefits of vegetarianism; for breastfeeding, pressure does exist. However, I'm getting really tired of defensiveness from the "embattled majority". On both issues.

One last parallel. I'm not a vegetarian because I believe that keeping my body "pure" is a one-step prescription for health. I'm a vegetarian because commercial meat farming is environmentally damaging and ethically questionable; because the way I eat, veg is cheap; because it seems to make sense as the way humans were meant to eat; and because, now, it's a habit. All of this is generally accepted wisdom, and none of it precludes eating meat in moderation. I also don't plan to breastfeed because it's a one-step prescription for a superbaby. I want to do it because it reduces cost and packaging, and because it's obviously something humans were meant to do. Basing the debate on "health" loses track of the issue.