International expert: Breastfeeding is normal, formula is inferior, and birth makes the difference
By Jeannie Babb Taylor
Tuesday April 1, 2008 10:40:14am


Nurses and lactation consultants from all over the Southeast convened in Dalton last week to hear the latest in breastfeeding technology from renowned expert Diane Weissinger.

According to Weissinger, the “breast is best” tagline is a disservice to women and babies. Such slogans suggest that formula-feeding is the norm and breastfeeding is something better than the norm. Formula companies often state that breastfeeding is “the ideal.” Of course, something that is ideal is lofty but usually unattainable. None of us would claim to be ideal parents, for example. By calling breastfeeding ideal, they suggest that it is a lofty, unattainable goal.

Wiessinger says, “The truth is, breastfeeding is nothing more than normal. Artificial feeding, which is neither the same nor superior, is therefore deficient, incomplete and inferior. These are difficult words, but they have an appropriate place in our vocabulary.”

How often are we reminded that breastfeeding is simply normal? Every mammal species on the planet uses mammary glands to nurture its offspring. This is one of the defining characteristics that classifies humans as mammals. By choosing not to feed our infants in the normal way, we expose them to many known and unknown risks.

Wiessinger says there are about 13,000 studies that show problems with formula feeding. These studies are typically pitched as pro-breastfeeding (as if formula were the norm) rather than anti-formula. Thus, the experts tell us that breastfeeding reduces obesity or respiratory infections or earaches. Instead, they should simply state that formula increases obesity, respiratory infections and earaches. Likewise, breastfeeding does not reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); formula increases the risk of SIDS.

Instead of emphasizing only the benefits of breastfeeding, professionals should stress the risks of artificial feeding. Despite the “more like breastmilk” ads, formula-feeding remains distinctly inferior to formula in every aspect. Formula not only increases the risk of diseases and disorders; it also fails to adequately nurture the brain, resulting in a lower IQ. Further, formula-feeding does not foster the maternal-infant bond the way breastfeeding does, because the hormone cycle is broken.

Breastfeeding is the physiological standard for human babies. Formula-feeding is not even second best. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), formula is only a distant fourth. WHO urges that all babies be breastfed by their mothers. In cases where this is impossible, the second-best alternative is to feed the baby the mother’s pumped milk. As a third-best alternative, babies should be fed breastmilk from another human mother. Only in cases where human milk is impossible or the baby cannot digest breastmilk (such as with galactosemia), should formula even be considered.

If formula feeding is so inferior, why aren’t American doctors and health authorities warning of the dangers? Most will say, “We don’t want to make women feel guilty.” Yet they have no problem making mothers feel guilty for smoking around the baby, or for placing a sleeping baby on his tummy.

Instead of warning parents about the risks of formula feeding, hospitals hand out formula samples, literature and advertising gifts. They receive kickbacks from formula companies in the form of pens, notepads and other items. While hospitals shrug off these gifts as meaningless trinkets that do not affect their work, Diane Weissinger asks why formula companies would spend huge sums of money on this advertising if it did not work.

In return for the goodies and the donuts, the hospital sends the company’s formula marketing literature and samples home with every mother in a logo-branded diaper bag. Even those women who plan to exclusively breastfeed get the bag. The diaper bag and its contents send a clear message that the experts at the hospital approve of formula. This tacit endorsement undermines breastfeeding promotion. Research shows that women who receive the bag are more likely to resort to formula once they get home, and 93 percent select the formula brand associated with the bag. Obviously, the strategy works.

The diaper bags are not the only way the medical community colludes with formula manufacturers. According to Weissinger, the delivery room procedures of most hospitals unwittingly work to undermine breastfeeding long before the baby takes its first breath.

Weissinger stumbled onto the birth-breast connection while studying the nursing behavior of animals. Weissinger was an animal behaviorist before she became a renowned lactation consultant. It was this background that inspired her to put together a talk on the breastfeeding and parenting lessons that can be learned by observing other mammals. Initially she intended to cover topics like how mammal babies find the nipple on their own, how mammal mothers never look at a clock before nursing the babies, and how animals wean naturally with no formal plan.

As Weissinger prepared the material, she was inevitably drawn to the distinctions between mothers who bond with and care for their infants, and those who do not. In every mammal species, she discovered that mothers who are deprived of their chosen place, time and sensations during the birth process have difficulty bonding and breastfeeding. Mammal bonding is adversely affected if birth is too hard — and if birth is too easy. The babies are even at risk if the birth is too clean.

Whether the mammal studied is a terrier, a horse or a rat, any interference with the birth risks the breastfeeding relationship. Interference might include something as benign as the presence of an outsider, or as radical as cesarean delivery. Veterinarians who must surgically remove a baby animal go to great lengths to normalize the experience by allowing as much labor as possible, placing the placenta with the mother she wakes, and leaving the newborns in an untouched state. They understand the risks.

Human beings are mammals. Because we are more intelligent than most other mammals, human parents will usually continue to care for a child no matter how it comes into the world. Yet, according to Diane Weissinger, medical birth is robbing mothers and babies of the easy, instinctive breastfeeding experience that results from normal birth.

Modern hospital birth generally involves an epidural. Wiessinger equates a long epidural to drinking 14 cans of soda. Excess fluid swells the woman’s tissues, including her breasts and nipples, which makes latching on more difficult. The epidural also slows down her milk, increasing the risk of jaundice and early supplements for the baby — two responses that increase the risk of early weaning.

The epidural drugs affect the baby as well as the mother. Since breastfeeding is primarily the baby’s job, newborns need to be awake and aware. Drugged babies have more difficulty recognizing and attaching to the breast, more sucking problems, and more bonding problems. Poor initial sucking may result in nipple damage – which is not a nice event in a place filled with unfamiliar and sometimes antibiotic-resistant germs.

Wiessinger says, “Mothers in our culture haven’t given birth since the early part of the 20th century. And no mammal who has birth taken from her goes on to nurse easily, or even to mother easily. It’s not the breastfeeding that’s the problem. It’s the birth!”

Jeannie Babb Taylor may be contacted at jeannie@babb.com, or you can leave a public comment on her blog at JeannieBabbTaylor.com.


[permalink]
Post a comment: You must be logged in order to comment.

 
IrishRed
Comments: 593
Joined: 01/19/2007
04/10/2008 10:07:08 AM
I breast fed my two sons and took no medication when they were delivered. Dr. told me it could slow down the progress and I wanted to get it over. A personal choice as breast feeding is. It worked for me and my kids were healthy.

 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 1272
Joined: 07/13/2007
04/02/2008 01:26:10 PM
Maggie, I guess the dead horse has been beat enough, and now it's time to kick it a little. lol.

Seriously though...the word NORMAL is whatever society defines, therefore, the standard is ever changing.

Perhaps it would be more effective as well as more sensable to use the word "NATURAL" rather than "NORMAL" when discussing what is BEST for moms and babies. Society has made formula feeding "normal" and that's a fact regardless of how you want to look at it. But society will never make it "natural."


I've never thought, not one time, that because "breast is best" it was also unattainable. If I thought that, I would have never tried it. It just happened to be unattainable for me. I'm grateful for the formula, else my baby would have been malnourished. I would have loved to been able to provide that nourishment myself. But was not able to.
And in my opinion, anything that is "ideal" is also a goal to strive for. Actually we should strive to be more than just "ideal." I believe that this renowned "expert" is not giving us women enough credit. We don't really need to be psychoanalized, not all of us, anyway. Something "ideal" does not look "unattainable." And while I may never become an "ideal" parent, it does not stop me from trying. Perhaps someday I can surpass "IDEAL."

Seriously, where do people get this stuff?

Dead horses do eventually begin to stink. - so that's all I have to say concerning this topic.

 
familymom
Comments: 281
Joined: 11/29/2007
04/01/2008 09:50:23 PM
Forgot: The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for 6mos and breastfeeding for at least a year and below is a more detailed statement from the AAP.


Human milk is uniquely superior for infant feeding and is species-specific; all substitute feeding options differ markedly from it. The breastfed infant is the reference or normative model against which all alternative feeding methods must be measured with regard to growth, health, development, and all other short- and long-term outcomes.

Epidemiologic research shows that human milk and breastfeeding of infants provide advantages with regard to general health, growth, and development, while significantly decreasing risk for a large number of acute and chronic diseases. Research in the United States, Canada, Europe, and other developed countries, among predominantly middle-class populations, provides strong evidence that human milk feeding decreases the incidence and/or severity of diarrhea,1-5 lower respiratory infection,6-9 otitis media,3,10-14 bacteremia,15,16 bacterial meningitis,15,17 botulism,18 urinary tract infection,19 and necrotizing enterocolitis.20,21 There are a number of studies that show a possible protective effect of human milk feeding against sudden infant death syndrome,22-24 insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,25-27 Crohn's disease,28,29 ulcerative colitis,29 lymphoma,30,31 allergic diseases,32-34 and other chronic digestive diseases.35-37 Breastfeeding has also been related to possible enhancement of cognitive development.38,39



 
familymom
Comments: 281
Joined: 11/29/2007
04/01/2008 09:27:43 PM
I happen to disagree with JBT on almost anything political, but she is not a mean person. She has strong opinions and I respect her for that fact. All editorials lean in one direction. Nobody ever writes in a "fair and balanced" manner.....that would be boring anyway.

 
familymom
Comments: 281
Joined: 11/29/2007
04/01/2008 09:24:27 PM
Nobody disputes that it is a mom's choice. It should ideally be an informed choice, that's all. Nobody is saying that babies who are bottle fed cannot bond or be smart or be thin and healthy. Studies just show an increased chance with breastfeeding. What children consume their first 3 years of life can affect their health for their entire lives.
Like everything in the health field there are many experts on this topic and lactation consultants perform an important service, whether any of us have ever needed them or not. Many tax dollars support formula recipents who are on WIC, it would be nice if more could or would nurse instead. Also, healthcare dollars could be saved if even half of babies could nurse and be spared a few illnesse as a result.
Formula companies make billions of dollars, sometimes in an unethical manner, and especially in poor countries such as Africa.
You are also correct that some moms do not produce milk well, though true cases of this are rare. Some moms have difficulties because of breast reduction surgery too. As for medications, this is an area where informed choice is neglected. Very few drugs pass through to milk and cause any problems. Dr. Thomas Hale is the ultimate authority on this topic and publishes a yearly book with every drug available and its afect on breastmilk tranfer.
Don't take this article as an attack on mom's who do not nurse. JBT is not that kind of person, she is passing along info that was shared at the conference and it is imortant information, especially for healthcare providers.

 
BigShiggy
Comments: 494
Joined: 01/19/2006
04/01/2008 08:06:32 PM
The American Academy of Pediatrics has never taken a real stand and made any kind of recommendation about formula feeding, except you shouldn't use a low-iron infant formula and to say that breastfeeding is preferred over formula.

Fact: Some mothers cannot produce sufficient amounts of milk, concerns about medicine/drug cross-over to the milk, or it is very painful for them. I see maggie's post on an infant's refusal to nurse.


I heard a report about Jose Manuel Lobos arrested March 27th, 2008 after 942 cans of baby formula found in a vehicle bust on I-75 in Bradley County, TN near Cleveland. Lobos was stopped for tailgating, or following another vehicle to closely.
An estimated street value of around $14,000.00.

Ever notice that baby formula is under lock and key now at stores?

Wonder what reason Formula companies would be pushing these types of products than for a parent's "convenience" or for profit for themselves besides the above mentioned reasons?





 
maggie
Comments: 1542
Joined: 01/08/2006
04/01/2008 07:30:58 PM
Oh good grief, haven't we already beat this dead horse??? First of all, where and on whom were these studies conducted?? Second, I totally believe in and support breastfeeding, but that is my personal choice. In this day and time it is a choice. I nursed all of my babies and I don't think they were any smarter then their peers who were bottle fed. In fact, my youngest grandson was bottle fed, he absolutely refused to nurse and wouldn't even take the bottles that are suppose to be more like mother, and he is several grade levels ahead in most of his academics. Also, breastfeeding is less likely to cause obesity and ear infections, well have to disagree again. My daughter has struggled most of her life with her weight and she and one of her brothers both had a lot of problems with ear infections. Of course, I didn't have them hanging on to me nursing until they were three or four, so maybe that is the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I beg your pardon, Ms. Wiessinger, I most certainly did give birth to my children, all of them natural except for the last and he was premature and I had a placenta previa, so had to have a C-section and kind of hard to do that without drugs.

As for the bonding issue, I guess then, that adoptive mothers who don't give birth to their children don't bond with them. I don't guess I bonded with my youngest either, since according to you I didn't give birth and he was taken immediately to NICU, where he spent the next seven weeks. Although, I pumped my milk and at seven weeks, he learned how to nurse and I successfully nursed him for 13 months, but who am I, just a mother.

By the way, just how many children does this renowned expert have?????

I also wanted to add, I was a bottle fed baby, think I made pretty good grades in school, wasn't overweight as a child or for most of my adult life and didn't have problems with ear infections. Darn, guess I could have been just about perfect if my mother had nursed me!!!!!!!!

 
Sarah27728
Comments: 126
Joined: 10/23/2007
04/01/2008 03:46:04 PM
First you had the article about staying at home to give birth, and now you have this article about how breastfeeding is so much better. What gives? Do you think since back in the day we didnt have other options that the original option is the best one? Forgive me, but breastfeeding is a CHOICE just like any other choice we might be given concerning our kids. I believe that breastmilk is great for babies! i'm no idiot, it's worked like that since the beginning of time. But i dont believe it's the ""BEST"" option. It's just an option. Formula isnt going to make a child less smart or less able then kids who were breastfed.

I dont care what some silly 'study' said.. my son's IQ is not dependant upon whether he was breastfed or not. I dont believe that at all. My son will get his intelligence from my being able to show him how to learn different ways and find the way that works best for him. Along w/ so many other things. Not how i got him his nutrients as an infant.

I dont know.. I just dont like your views and opinions on these things. I suppose that's my problem and i can stop reading this junk. But i dont agree at all.

 
familymom
Comments: 281
Joined: 11/29/2007
04/01/2008 12:21:35 PM
JBT,

You are so right! When I was in LLL it always frustrated me because a Leader can't state the truth that formula is inferior. I remember Dr. Jack Newman, years ago in Chattanooga, making that statement and it just amazed me that he would risk offending any mothers. He also pointed out how cruel a person would be viewed if they separated pups from the mother dog right after birth...but we do that to human mothers and babies everyday. We make parents feel bad if they spank, smoke, drink, eat junk food, take medicine while pregnant, never read to their kids, etc....but we NEVER want to tell them that breastfeeding is a normal way to feed.
And it amazes me that OBs have women avoid medicines for 9 months only to "drug them up" on delivery day when babies need to be alert.

<< < Prev - Next > >>