Quit Picking On Moms Who Don't Breast-Feed
Another day, another reason to make moms feel like utter failures if they aren't breast-feeding.
Or should I say udder failures?
This time, it's a study in the journal Pediatrics that calculates that 911 babies die each year because moms are too selfish, lazy or perhaps ill-informed, despite a million public service ad campaigns, to bother to breast-feed. The study attributes these deaths to the babies' getting infections and illnesses they would have been spared via the health benefits of mother's milk. It quietly adds that some of the babies were preemies with pre-existing conditions (possibly including difficulty breast-feeding!), but pay that no mind. The idea is to shock, and the best kind of shock is the kind that lets us loftily loathe someone. In this case: the moms who feed their kids formula.
The study asserts that formula equals death despite the fact it has never been possible to tease out the health benefits of breast-feeding from the health benefits of having a mom so committed to healthy living that one of the things she does is ... breast-feed! As Joan Wolf, assistant professor of women's and gender studies at Texas A&M University and author of the forthcoming book "Is Breast Really Best?" points out: Once a mom is committed to excellent baby care, "if you took out the breast milk, it might have zero impact on the baby's development."
We can't be sure of cause and effect because we can't randomly assign women to breast-feed or not. So the diligent breast-feeders — a minority of American women — are a self-selecting crew. By the way, I was one of them, breast-feeding both my boys because I thought it was best. I just didn't think anyone who chose otherwise was doing the wrong thing. Some of my friends couldn't breast-feed; some chose not to. All of their children are fine.
Ah, but the authors of the study are intent on stirring up outrage. Sick babies aren't bad enough? Let's talk DOLLARS: We could save $13 billion a year in health care costs, they say, if more moms breast-fed and did it longer. That figure comes from assuming each of the deaths costs $10.54 million in health care costs and parents' missed days of work. Ten million dollars each ? Maybe the parents were making $10,000 a day before they had to take time off. But — OK. My point is not just to question the science behind this study or the economics. It's really to question, "Why?"
Why are we so eager to terrify mothers who don't breast-feed? Why don't we terrify the moms AND dads who put their children in cars? Every day, five or six children die in car crashes, even kids in car seats. Yet we don't run national stories that say, "IRRESPONSIBLE PARENTS CONTINUE TO DRIVE THEIR CHILDREN," or, "COUNTRY COULD SAVE BILLIONS IF PARENTS QUIT TRANSPORTING KIDS IN CARS." That's because driving is too important. Everyone understands that if we couldn't drive our kids around, we couldn't do anything. Walk them everywhere? It's impractical. It's impossible. The benefits don't outweigh the costs.
But when it comes to a mother's time, who cares? It's hard to breast-feed? So what. It hurts? So what. It's exceedingly difficult to go back to work and pump and schlep and get up for all the nighttime feedings and still function during the day? What are you, lady, some kind of baby killer?
Wonderful moms breast-feed, and wonderful moms give their kids formula. They are not two different breeds. There is something suspicious about a society focusing so harshly on one single aspect of child rearing — the one that only a mother can provide.
Lenore Skenazy is the author of "Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts with Worry." To find out more about Lenore Skenazy (lskenazy@yahoo.com) and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
13 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
There IS "something suspicious about a society focusing so harshly on one single aspect of child rearing." When you make children more of a burden to take care of and parenting even more difficult and constantly scrutinized, people will have even fewer children. The numbers go down every year. We can thank articles like the one you cite and classes in high schools that strap girls w/ little fragile burdens that crack easily and cry constantly. It's deplorable.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Ruth Robertson
Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:50 AM
|
|
|
|
I find it a little hard to believe that formula feeding moms are put under so much more pressure to breastfeed than breastfeeding moms are put under pressure to keep THAT kind of behavior private. As a breastfeeding mom, I was subjected to all kinds of comments from people in the general public and from in my family because I wanted to breastfeed (and I was using a nursing cover in public). I was made to feel guilty by coworkers who took 4-5 smoke breaks a day for the time I took to pump. I think it's time to stop judging on both sides. If a mom wants to breastfeed, she should be able to without being made to feel crazy. The same goes for a mom who wants to use formula. Personally, I still see the scale being on the formula feeding moms side. You said it yourself, "the diligent breast-feeders — a minority of American women."
But saying that formula feeding is perfectly safe and a fine choice for anyone is also wrong. It's fine for people educated enough to understand about sterilizing bottles and who have access to clean water. What about in third world countries? There is a real problem with formula companies distributing their products to mothers who they know cannot afford their products and do not have reliable access to clean water. Think about the costs to us taxpayers where the WIC program pays for welfare mothers to buy formula, when a little education in breastfeeding could save taxpayers significantly.
I also hate to bring it up, but as a statistician, taking statistics out of context is a huge pet peeve of mine and you have completely warped the costs associated with formula feeding to support your argument. An argument you can make completely legitimately without having to twist the numbers. They were not saying that those 911 babies who died last year cost the country $13 billion dollars. They were estimating that ALL formula fed babies in the US cost $13 billion in additional health care costs. These numbers are estimates by the authors of the study and are disputable, so dispute them, but willfully misrepresenting them just shows a lack of substance behind your argument.
Comment: #2
Posted by: CL
Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:15 PM
|
|
|
|
An article does not make a person feel like a failure - only they can do it to themselves.
I am fed up with every time a breast feeding study is put out there, people like you take it upon themselves to blast it or find something to criticize about it. How about taking it and finding the good in it, yes, breast feeding is good for babies - more so than formula. Some women cannot or choose not to breastfeed, should they be stigmatized - of course not! But do not mock studies that show how good it is.
Do you know how hard it is to breast feed - I do, I have been through so much pain, and had so many problems, and there are hardly any dr's out there to deal with breastfeeding mums. I had to pay an lc which I could ill afford.
There is formula in dr's offices, free samples given out here and there - do I see coupons off for nursing tops, etc no. Formula is made to be an easy route for mom - how about we get some more help to make breast feeding easier -as lots of moms give up because they are told to supplement, or do not get proper treatment for bf problems.
Instead of making this an us and them - how about highlighting the good, and trying to help instead of pointing the finger.
We need less people criticizing and more people helping...
Comment: #3
Posted by: Sarah
Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:37 PM
|
|
|
|
It is IN. FREAKING. CREDIBLE to me that some people can take a study about saving the lives of almost a thousand children annually and make it all about themselves and their own guilt issues. I actually DON'T think mothers who formula feed are selfish by definition (my own mom was one), but frankly, you're not helping your cause here. I'm behind the concept of "free-ranging" kids in some ways, but this is way off-base.
The way you use the car accident analogy is completely nonsensical. A more apt comparison would be car seats, as beautifully illustrated by The Feminist Breeder recently. When it comes to information about car seat safety, we don't wring our hands with anxiety about making people who don't want to use car seats feel "guilty" - the facts are pure and simple that car seats are safer for children, and we as a society, therefore, ACT ACCORDINGLY. We don't talk all about how our grandparents and even parents didn't use car seats (or even seatbelts) and they turned out Just Fine. We just plain know better now, and we, therefore, ACT ACCORDINGLY.
Besides, I cannot for the life of me understand how formula feeders are this oppressed minority. The very study we are talking about underscores the fact that they are very clearly the majority. By a long shot. YES (we always have to make this disclaimer), there are some women who aren't able to breastfeed exclusively, but they are by far in the minority. Not even close to 86% of all women, as the number of women formula-feeding by 6 months currently stands. And yet, discussing the FACTS still provokes accusations of guilt-mongering.
As wise Tweeter The Noble Savage put it: "Oh my god! A new study says having out own organs is better than having transplants! What a guilt trip. ;-)"
Comment: #4
Posted by: Dou-la-la
Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:38 PM
|
|
|
|
To be clear, the $13 billion mark doesn't refer only to the estimated 911 deaths. (And, to be clearer, the loss of those infants is one that transcends any absolute financial loss.) Rather, the $13 billion estimate also incorporates the cost of the the many illnesses that *could have* been prevented if more infants were breastfed. Just check it out here: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/brfouttp.htm Breastfeeding is associated with a reduction in the incidence of ear infections, asthma in young children, SIDS, necrotizing enterocolitis (among other ailments and diseases) in children. (And it is also associated with a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes and breast and ovarian cancer in women.) Period.
We don't need finger-pointing. We don't need people to undermine good science. We don't need these godforsaken mommy wars.
We just need to make sure that all women get accurate and transparent information about breastfeeding *well* before their babies are born AND that those women who choose to breastfeed receive the best possible breastfeeding support after their babies are born.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Kristen
Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Lenore I am a huge fan of your website and book and read it every day. I agree with you 99% of the time, but not with this one.
The purpose of pointing out the results of the study was NOT to "pick on" formula feeding moms. Or scare them. It was to point out the importance of supporting those women who DO want to breastfeed. Because for those women, the societal and cultural barriers they face are overwhelming.
The bottom line is our culture SUCKS at supporting breastfeeding moms. And breastfeeding IS important to society as a whole. No one is saying to take the feeding choice away from moms, or to criticize bottle - feeding moms. We simply need to step up and support those moms who do want to breastfeed, break down the barriers that they face so that more women can succeed at it.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Shelly
Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Oh, Lenore. This is immensely disappointing. I love your free-range concept, and I read your site regularly. I have come to think of you as a voice of reason, someone who's got my back.
But this is slipshod thinking. You've got to do some more reading on this topic. It's not about "guilting" mothers (I am, frankly, surprised that you, of all people, would buy into that line of "reasoning"); it's about a society that so undervalues mothers and babies as to make the basic act of breastfeeding a Herculean feat, and a sub-standard alternative, i.e. artificial feeding, the norm. It's about mothers being duped, it's about corporations triumphing over families, it's about the dire failure to understand that the good of the individual is irrevocably intertwined with the good of the many, it's about industry being more important to people. So many of these issues are bound up with the work you are trying to do.
Please read the book The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer. This is a far bigger issue than I could possibly hope to cover in a blog comment, but Palmer does an admirable job of laying it out in her volume.
I hope to be hearing from you again soon, with a much more scrupulous response to this matter.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Meg
Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Please, PLEASE, as a mom who speaks to other moms I beg of you, DO YOUR RESEARCH! To say that breastfeeding benefits can't be proven because you can't do an experiemental study is absolutely deplorable. Don't you know that breastmilk is a living substance with anitbodies that can't be found or replicated in ANY formula??? Do you know what that means to all newborns but especially to preemies?!
It's medically proven to reduce the risks of many childhood cancers not to mention recent research shows that it's great for mom too, it's PROVEN that breastfeeding moms risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, heart disease & osteoporosis goes down with every child she breastfeeds. This isn't because she happens to be a more "committed" mom, it's because of medical reasons like that the calcium from her breastmilk is redeposited in her bones.
And trust me, as someone who works in the newborn baby unit at the hospital the majority of new moms ARE not informed as to all the benefits of breastfeeding and articles like this are a wonderful step in the right direction of letting women know so they can choose to give their babies the absolute best.
Your words make me very sad, sad to see someone who is completely missing the point & has no idea the harm she is doing. Instead of feeling guilty about making misinformed decisions how about formula feeding moms have an open mind about MEDICAL RESEARCH & choose to support informing future moms so they can make better decisions.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Natasha
Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:49 PM
|
|
|
|
One more fan of your blog who is not a fan of this post. Did you read the article? It's not about mothers who fail to try hard enough. It's about providing "support and infrastructure" for breastfeeding mothers so there's less need to try hard.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Jamie
Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:12 PM
|
|
|
|
I'm not surprised that you got bashed for writing this, but the guilt-tripping of mothers that don't breastfeed is still very real.
Comment: #10
Posted by: KC
Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:15 PM
|
|
|
|
I"m a mom of twins who really wanted to breastfeed, gave it my best shot but was unable to due to a number of medical issues - mine and theirs. It's a long story, but I did everything I could including taking prescription drugs to help with milk production and nothing worked. So, I ended up a formula mom. I felt hugely guilty about it and ridiculous studies like these didn't help matters. I kept worrying that if they got a cold (which they didn't until they were almost a year old) or didn't meet a milestone "on schedule" that it would be my fault because I wasn't breastfeeding them. Luckily I've gained a bit more perspective and now realize that my kids are beautiful, healthy, happy and not scarred in the least because of my "non-nutritive breasts" (as I call them). In the end, the only real downside to formula was the cost - and, oh yeah, the guilt.
This whole issue has become hugely politicized, one-sided and, yes, obviously designed to make moms feel guilty if they don't breastfeed. But, then, again I think all these child-rearing studies have somewhat of the same effect - every time one comes out I read it with baited breath wondering if I'll be on the good side or the bad side of it. I can feel comfortably smug if I come out on the right side and a little guilty if I don't. Those of you who commented on this post - do you feel just a teensy bit smug and self-righteous whenever a pro-breastfeeding study comes out?
Taking a bigger perspective - I wonder, too, if breastfeeding is such a huge factor in health - why over the last century did life expectancy increase as formula feeding increased? Why have allergies - one of the main health benefits cited for breastfeeding - increased as breastfeeding has increased in the past decade? (breastfeeding rates increased 10% between 1999 and 2006 and allergy rates increased 18% in the same time frame). Seems to me that the long-term health correlation between breast feeding and over all health is at best probably a pretty small one. I'm just putting this idea out there to say that maybe it's not as huge a health factor as many breastfeeding advocates want us to think. I can hear all you breastfeeding folks shuddering in horror - sorry if I made you spill your fenugreek tea.
Anyways, in the end, we all just do what we can and do what we think is best for us and our families. Somehow our kids will probably all end up pretty much okay anyways.
Kristen - FYI - the scientific research is now pointing towards breastfeeding actually increasing the risk of asthma. (Hmm, I wonder why this research is never publicized in the media?) Here's the article from the American Academy of Pediatrics: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;121/1/183. Here's an excerpt from the article "Breastfeeding for more than 4 weeks significantly increased the risk of developing asthma at 9 years". So, if your kid gets asthma, maybe should you feel guilty that you breastfed?
Oh yeah - and I would guess that an infant being in a group daycare is a much bigger factor in health, cost to society and even maternal bonding than whether or not the child is breastfed or formula fed, but I never see studies or even many conversations about this. If we're going to guilt trip formula feeding moms, how about guilt tripping daycare moms (especially since I'm a stay at home mom and am on the "right" side of this one).
Comment: #11
Posted by: S
Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: S Here's the thing, though: The aim of the study wasn't AT ALL to make moms who fed with formula feel guilty. It's the media's hype (like this article, for example) of it that spreads this sentiment. Here's another thing: moms seem to be hard-wired to feel guilty about something, and while guilt can be fueled by outside influences, it starts from within. The argument that most formula-fed babies will turn out alright is fine (I was one, and I'm pretty good), but this study demonstrates that some formula-fed babies don't turn out alright, and if there's any way (like actual support for moms who want to and can breastfeed) to increase breastfeeding rates in order to decrease formula-related problems, then that is money well spent. I'm not trying to say that moms who formula-feed need less emotional support than breastfeeding moms. What I do think is very true is that moms who plan to breastfeed need more logistical support and fewer barriers to breastfeeding.
Re: Ms. Skenazy. Yeah, this is pretty disappointing coming from you. I've been a huge fan of your blog and even got my book club (of mostly moms) to read your book. But I think you're way off on this, and that you've fallen into the same thing that you accuse the kidnapping-hypers and fear-mongers of. You've taken this study, which has nothing to do with picking on moms who don't breastfeed, which has everything to do with moms who want to breastfeed needing support, and you've helped turn it into another useless mommy war. I don't think the authors of the study are intent on stirring up outrage...it seems to me that you are. You say, "Some of my friends couldn't breast-feed; some chose not to. All of their children are fine." But what do you say to the mother who wants to breastfeed but whose employer doesn't give her adequate time or space to pump, and her supply doesn't keep up, and she has to give her baby formula, and that baby turns out not to be fine? That's a preventable situation. I'm not saying formula=poor health. But sometimes it does. And when it does, and when the mother wanted to breastfeed but didn't get the support she needed, I think we've failed her and her baby.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Brooke
Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:54 AM
|
|
|
|
"There is something suspicious about a society focusing so harshly on one single aspect of child rearing — THE ONE THAT ONLY A MOTHER CAN PROVIDE."
I think that is the real issue here. Breastfeeding has benefits over formula, but as long as a mother is committed to her children's health in most other areas, it's not going to make that much of a difference, really. Mothers now are bombarded with so much pressure to every little thing absolutely right and to have absolutely the very best kids possible. So many young mothers I know just completely lose their sense of SELF in becoming a MOTHER. Didn't we have Feminism so that we could be the directors of our own lives? I find it offensive that I must be a milk cow for my baby or I'm not a good mother. How about the fact that I'm showing my sons the value of a productive successful woman? The choices we make as mothers are complex and widely varied. I work night shift so my kids don't go to day care, and I breastfed only initially and stopped well before going back to work. Am I better than a mother who breastfeeds but whose children are in daycare 50 hours a week? Or is she better than me? Who cares? Life is not perfect and people are not going to be able to do the very best thing all the time. There are a million perfectly valid reasons that people give up breastfeeding. We need to realize that the big picture is important and not focus on one thing as the gauge for a good mother. Babies are not malnourished or vitamin deficient or developmentally delayed from drinking formula, it is good enough, especially since most formulas now add DHA. Usually just good enough really is that- good enough.
Emily, RN, BSN CNRN
Comment: #13
Posted by: emily
Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Author’s Podcast
|
