In the 60s and 70s there was a big push towards using formula (with up to 75% of babies formula-fed rather than breast-fed), which partially mirrored the rising rates of mothers in the non-home workforce. In the later 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s there’s thankfully been a large push back towards breastfeeding, although we still only have 12% of babies exclusively breastfed (i.e., no formula used) for the 1st 6 months of life. At 2 months of age, 60% of American babies receive at least some formula. People who make less money (lower socioeconomic status) tend to use more formula (likely in part because it’s provided for free or cheaply by government subsidies).

The vast majority of mothers in the U.S. do not stick to the “biological norm.” If we start to say, “NOT breastfeeding *increases* the risk of mothers and babies developing a variety of health problems, from cancers to digestive disorders, reduced cognitive function and impaired immune responses” then are we implying that not breastfeeding is child abuse? Is NOT breastfeeding wanton neglect of children? Should mothers who don’t breastfeed be punished?

My point is that it’s usually better to phrase things in a positive manner (“breastfeeding is associated with better brain development early in life and at least into adolescence as well as is associated with higher IQ scores and better performance on cognitive tasks”) when dealing with issues (breastfeeding) that have huge societal implications. For example, does increasing breastfeeding require removing more women from the workforce? Does it require mandating longer maternity leaves (e.g., 6 months or more)? Does it require ending subsidies for formula (and thus “attacking” – to use how it would inevitably be termed by politicians and lobbyists – the poor)? Does it require extra taxes on formula manufacturers? All those questions were rhetorical.

Language is important and we have to be careful that what is said was actually demonstrated and supported by the research. Phrasing is very important but things cannot be phrased in such a way that is not supported by the research.

In the 60s and 70s there was a big push towards using formula (with up to 75% of babies formula-fed rather than breast-fed), which partially mirrored the rising rates of mothers in the non-home workforce. In the later 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s there’s thankfully been a large push back towards breastfeeding, although we still only have 12% of babies exclusively breastfed (i.e., no formula used) for the 1st 6 months of life. At 2 months of age, 60% of American babies receive at least some formula. People who make less money (lower socioeconomic status) tend to use more formula (likely in part because it’s provided for free or cheaply by government subsidies).

The point is that the vast majority of mothers in the U.S. do not stick to the “biological norm.” If we start to say, “NOT breastfeeding *increases* the risk of mothers and babies developing a variety of health problems, from cancers to digestive disorders, reduced cognitive function and impaired immune responses” then are we implying that not breastfeeding is child abuse? Is NOT breastfeeding wanton neglect of children? Should mothers who don’t breastfeed be punished?

My point is that it’s better to phrase things in a positive manner (“breastfeeding is associated with better brain development early in life and at least into adolescence as well as is associated with higher IQ scores and better performance on cognitive tasks”) when dealing with issues (breastfeeding) that have huge societal implications. For example, does increasing breastfeeding require removing more women from the workforce? Does it require mandating longer maternity leaves (e.g., 6 months or more)? Does it require ending subsidies for formula (and thus “attacking” – to use how it would inevitably be termed by politicians and lobbyists – the poor)? Does it require extra taxes on formula manufacturers?

Language is important and we have to be careful that what is said was actually demonstrated and supported by the research.

In the first months & years of life, youngsters require significant external stimulation in order that the dendrites proliferate. So raising youngsters in stimulating enviroments is also critical.

Rich

Would you say “not smoking reduces your risk of developing oral and respiratory cancers?” Or would you say “smoking increases the risk if developing oral and respiratory cancers”?

So why do we say breastfeeding reduces the risk of X, Y and Z? Breastfeeding is the biological norm. Breastfeeding allows for optimal growth, development and long term health. NOT breastfeeding *increases* the risk of mothers and babies developing a variety of health problems, from cancers to digestive disorders, reduced cognitive function and impaired immune responses.

Please, can we start wording this the right way around. Breast is not best, it’s the biological norm. Artificial feeding is inferior and increases health risks. Breastfeeding does not give extra protection against anything, but artificial feeding makes babies and mothers vulnerable and more probe to illness, both long and short term.