The latest buzz in the trenches of the mommy war ( I am being facetious, I don't subscribe to the beleif we are at war, but many do.) is the US govt's advertisements aimed at encouraging mothers to breast-feed.

The ads portray pregnant mothers participating in dangerous activities that could lead to a potential risk to their unborn. Then making the connection that these risks taken during pregnancy are the same as the one to bottle-feed after pregnancy.

Campaign pushes benefits of breast milk
Public health leaders say the scientific evidence for breast-feeding has grown so overwhelming that it is appropriate to recast their message to make clear that it is risky not to breast-feed.

This evidence supports the contention that breast-fed babies are less vulnerable to acute infectious diseases, including respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, experts say. Some studies also suggest breast-fed babies are at lower risk for sudden infant death syndrome and serious chronic diseases later in life, including asthma, diabetes, leukemia and some forms of lymphoma, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The goal of a government health initiative called Healthy People 2010 is to get half of all mothers to continue at least some breast-feeding until a baby is 6 months old.



Is this a role you desire seeing the US govt play in regards to public health?

And do you feel this will be an effective means to encourage women to breast-feed or are there better alternatives?

Oh, my God. This is the type of thing that drives me crazy. Anecdotal story, but 100 percent true. I have a friend who almost killed her baby via breastmilk. The baby had genetic a disorder and couldn't process the proteins in her milk. He eventually went into a coma. She went to the doctors during this time and insisted that there was something wrong with her baby. He always slept, he wasn't awake enough even to eat, he vomited, ect. They told her to keep feeding him her milk. About 24 hours before he would have died they found out the cause. I guess (according to this article) the government thinks there should have been a warning label on the baby's subsequent formula that saved his life.

Breastmilk is better (99.99 percent of the time), and it should be encouraged, but not to the point that mothers who can't breastfeed are considered abusive. Who is going to want to buy a bottle of formula with a warning label on it? Give me a break! Not everyone has a prolific milk supply. That's why they had wetnurses in the old days. Milk supply is directly connected to a woman's emotional wellbeing...stress will choke off the supply. That's why babies often starved during wartime (my mom had to be fed sugar water...HORRORS!). That's why I had to be fed formula when my mom's milk supply ran out due to stress...HORRORS! Let's shame those mothers into breastfeeding! That will really get the milk flowing.

Is this a role you desire seeing the US govt play in regards to public health?
The purported benefits of breast feeding are hyped up at worst, and misunderstood at best by the scientific community itself, so I don't see any value in public health departments taking a stand. Breast milk has a bigger impact on the children of developing nations, where mothers would not have to worry about bacteria in drinking formula and foods.


Do you feel this will be an effective means to encourage women to breast-feed or are there better alternatives?
With an advertisement like this one:

Senator Harkin can shove it.

* And that's one reason why premies are more susceptible to infection.

Lesly:

You are partly correct, however, this one statement from the linked article from Slate is rather misleading:

"Newborn infants get their maternal protection before birth, via an active transport system in the human placenta that carries maternal antibodies from the mother to the fetus."

That statement is true insofar as "circulating" antibodies go. However, breastmilk has multiple types of immunoglobulins. These immunoglobulins operate to form a protective layer along the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts. Which is a good thing, since at birth, one's child swallows some amniotic fluid, some blood, and some urine and feces as well. The amniotic fluid, blood, and urine do not present much of a problem, since those are mostly sterile, but not so with respect to the feces. Another protective factor appears to be that the protective layer of immunoglobulins prevents large foreign proteins from entering the child's system [as it were]. Which probably explains why formula fed infants have a higher rate of cow's milk allergy than do breastfed infants [i.e., the immunoglobulin prevents the foreign protein[s] found in cow's milk from permeating the child's gut]. IgA is the most important immunoglobulin, and there is a reason why it is the most abundant immunoglobulin found in mother's milk [i.e., either God knows what It's doing and so designed moms that way and/or nature/the-environment has selected for abundunt IgA in mother's milk, and who are we, except when necessary, to fool with God and/or Mother Nature].

Mother's milk also contains leukocytes, which absorb dangerous or harmful microbes in the child's gut. Mother's milk also contains macrophages, which manufacture lysozyme, which has the ability to destroy the cell walls of certain bacteria. Your tears also contain lysozyme, which is used, as stated, to break down bacteria. You cannot get these leukocytes and macrophages from formula.

As for you women, breastfeeding helps you lose weight, since you burn calories in making the milk. Nursing otherwise triggers the release of oxytocin, a hormone that helps your uterus return to size and so cuts down on post-partum bleeding. It also appears that oxytocin helps you relax and lowers your blood pressure. And it further appears that breastfeeding reduces your risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. A study published in The Lancet concluded that the number of breast cancer cases in British women would be just half as large if they gave birth to six children and breast-fed them until they were two or three years old. One of the authors of that study also reported that if women were to breast-feed each of their children for an extra six months, that such extra breastfeeding could prevent five percent of breast-cancers each year. And, lastly, then there's the whole bonding thing. For starters, you have body to body contact when breastfeeding, and beyond that, the closeness attending breast feeding most probably allows one's child to become just that much more familiar with her/his mom's characteristic odor.

And for your baby, sucking on your nipple[s] is good for healthy jaw formation and good development/placement of teeth. And hopefully, you'll be glad to know that your nipples are far superior to our own industrially manufactured nipples [and some wonder why us men have such a fondness for women's nipples, i.e., they gave/sustained life itself and gave us a strong and healthy jaw to eat and talk with, oh, and note that when we talk too much, part of that is your "fault", so have some mercy on us].

Now back to the point I made about re God and/or Mother Nature. There are roughly 4,000 species of mammal. Each species makes milk according to its own formula. That ought to tell us all something. Also, there are a veritable multitude of ingredients in mother's milk that are not found in formula.

Lastly, for a much more complete discussion of the importance of mother's milk in fighting disease/pathogens, please see:

http://www.promom.org/bf_info/sci_am.htm

And an interesting item in that work:

"in the Middle East, western South America and northern Africa, women put milk in their infants' eyes to treat infections there. I do not know if this remedy has ever been tested scientifically, but there are theoretical reasons to believe it would work. It probably does work at least some of the time, or the practice would have died out."

And, Lesly, that part of the Slate article that you didn't excerpt:

"Finally, the maternal antibodies in a baby's gut deactivate swallowed bacteria and viruses that might otherwise infect the cells that line the intestine or penetrate the lining. Most often this prevents bacterial or viral gastroenteritis, which presently kills 1.6 million children worldwide a year."

And the part that I object to, the last line, but I will include some prior remarks for accurate context:

"At the same time, I am strongly convinced that there are two kinds of nutrition, physical and psychological, and that both are equally important. This conviction persuades me that it's better for a mother to formula-feed her baby pleasurably than to breast-feed and hate it. Fortunately, the majority of mothers enjoy nursing. But not all. Some women don't like to nurse, and others, even with the best help, find it physically difficult or daunting or intolerably uncomfortable. Sometimes, also, babies just aren't good nursers. In the end, I always encourage a mother to choose the feeding method that is most satisfying to her."

Satisfying, or convenient? And does she hate it because it is truly physically uncomfortable, or because she's rather be out shopping with her friends? Read and listen to the advertising of those producing the formula[s]. To borrow from the title of that certain Dead Kennedys' work, the advertising motto is, as always, Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death...

And the reality, Lesly, is that formula imitates but does not duplicate a mother's milk.

Dr. Spiesal otherwise made a gross error, at least according to this poster:

""=...human babies are born with all the maternal antibodies they will ever have. That's why we don't need to absorb maternal antibodies..." Absolute hogwash.

Holy cow- it boggles my mind that Dr. Spiesel published such a load of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***! As an HIV researcher studying infections in developing countries, I've had plenty of experience testing babies' blood for HIV antibodies. So you can imagine my surprise at Dr. Spiesel's statement that "human babies are NEVER able to absorb maternal antibodies from milk or colostrum into the bloodstream" (caps mine). Um, no. They are there, they are there aplenty, and the article he cites describes it well.

Even if they weren't there in the bloodstream (and it's true that the function of bloodstream antibodies in protecting babies' health is less significant than that of mucosal antibodies), the point of the review article the doc cites (without apparent understanding) is NOT that docs are "wrong" when they describe how maternal antibodies protect babies. What a ridiculous, inflammatory statement. Plenty of docs have a perfectly reasonable understanding of the final sentence of the abstract of the article cited: "In humans, milk excreted antibodies play a major role in protecting infants from infection by pathogens having a mucosal portal of entry." It's not a mystery into which Spiesel alone has some magical insight. I suspect that HE was the one who did not understand this until recently, and he's projecting his knowledge gap onto others.

Sorry for the ramble, but I feel he's irresponsibly diminishing the role of breastfeeding in maintaining infants' health with the simple goal of tweaking breastfeeding activists, those who would "come after [him] with pitchforks". And his agenda is simply not supported by the evidence he himself provides.

It burns me up that he concedes the role of mucosal antibodies from breastmilk as being, "a huge boon in parts of the world where sanitation is poor and refrigeration nonexistent." Where has the good doc been for the past several decades, when we have come to understand that we here in the developed world are NOT in fact omnipotent against infectious diseases? And why does he not point out the strong indications that infectious agents at mucosal barriers may play important roles in chronic disease development- the "cancer, allergic diseases, Crohn's disease" he himself lists?"

Lesly, you can the read rest [found here: http://daddytypes.com/archive/2006/03/30/s...r_just_soso.php ], since I've got to think about adding this to my post on that other thread wherein I was, before Vermillion fled the scene, discussing the matter of science and agenda.

Oh, and Lesly, here is the work that Dr. Spiesel cites to:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

That work reports, and the above poster is correct in her criticism of Dr. Spiesel:

"Human milk also contains anti-idiotypic antibodies capable of enhancing infant antibody response. Maternal milk antibodies coat infant mucosal surfaces and some have a clear protective role. This has been studied extensively in infectious disease models such as rotavirus, E. coli, poliovirus, and retroviruses. In the rotavirus model, antirotaviral IgA can be detected in stools of breast-fed but not bottle-fed neonates. In a large cohort of lactating women infected with HIV-1 in Rwanda, anti-HIV milk antibodies of the IgG isotype were more frequently detected followed by secretory IgM. Surprisingly, anti-HIV-1 SIgA were less frequently found. The presence of milk SIgA at 15 days as well as the persistence of a SIgM response during the whole lactation period was associated with lower risk of HIV transmission from the mother to the infant. Recently, HIV-1 antibodies from maternal milk have been shown to block transcytosis in vitro in a monolayer enterocyte model. Among these antibodies, those directed against the ELDKWA epitope had higher neutralising activity than serum antibodies. In humans, milk excreted antibodies play a major role in protecting infants from infection by pathogens having a mucosal portal of entry."

So, the good Dr. was apparently not being all that honest in his remarks. But, hey, that's what happens when one has an agenda...oh, and so there can be no mistake, given my position that HIV does not cause AIDS, I'm not relying on the immuno-protection provided against HIV by mother's milk.



bucket:

Yes, someone has to counter the Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death marketing propaganda of those who manufacture formula for profit. Do we need inspire fear? No. We simply report the facts and trust intelligent humans to make the correct choice [in contrast to the global warming ("we'll all be dead in 10 years") and HIV/AIDS ("watch out for that coming pandemic that will consume us all" and the new math is sex = death") fear/scare mongering campaigns].

I don't believe the article or my quote was misleading. The article doesn't go into detail like you did, but it didn't fail to mention the fact that breast milk protects the lining of the intestines, "blocking" bacteria and therefore prohibiting disease from entering the baby's bloodstream. That's why I said breast feeding is a better option in developing countries that still experience problems with diseases like cholera.


Three years ago scientists thought abortion increased our chances of breast cancer. Shortly afterwards they changed their minds, saying the study of abortion and breast cancer patients produced inconclusive results, but the NCI removed this information from their website:


On a similar vein, after professing his love and concern for women before a congressional committee and encouraging Congress to fund more abstinence education and less sexual education to combat HPV, Bush isn't in a hurry to revise his position after a study found condoms can prevent HPV.

If you want to encourage your spouse to act on politically directed health messages, be my guest. I don’t think I should have to fund that message. This is an announcement of my distrust for an administration that doesn’t shy from pseudoscientific initiatives, true, but I can promise you that getting your family doctor’s advice won’t cost you extra.


Mothers don't apply Vaseline to their nipples after nursing because they like greasy nipples. How selfish for some mothers to shirk their nursing duty, I know, but men will just have to live with it.


I'm sure the composition of my breast milk could not be duplicated by another woman. But then formula manufacturers wouldn't be dumb enough to insult half of the population responsible for their success by suggesting they have managed to duplicate breast milk.

Wow. You never know what issue is going to lead to a heated discussion, do you?

I can definitely see the government offering accurate information about breast milk as compared to formula, but this particular campaign seems to be over the top. The comparison between riding a mechanical bull while pregnant (!) and not breastfeeding is foolish, insulting, and isn't going to work. Surely somebody can come up with a better way to encourage breastfeeding.

Warning labels are problematical. The ones proposed by Senator Harkin go too far, I think.



This ignores the fact, as Mrs. Pigpen has pointed out, that breastfeeding is not always possible. There may be a few terrible mothers out there who refuse to breastfeed for selfish reasons, but I doubt that this is very common. There will always be very bad parents, but this is not the norm.

If there has to be a government-mandated label on formula, it should be something like "Infant formula is not identical to natural breast milk. Talk to your pediatrician about which is best for your baby."

On a personal note, let me say that this is yet another reason why I am glad that I don't have children.

(Edited to add: The link supplied by Lesley states this:



This isn't quite the same as saying that it "duplicates" breast milk. The company also admits that breast milk is the "gold standard" for infants.)

Lesly:

First item, women. I wasn't intending to insult all women. I am sure that the vast majority of women would like to breast feed their child[ren]. But the problem is, the people who manufacture the formula are telling women and others that the formula is just as good, and more convenient, than mother's milk. The former claim is patently false, and re the convenient, maybe so, but maybe also convenience takes on a whole new and other meaning when you've been led to believe that the artificial is just as good as mother's very own [it would to me]. Oh, and re the nursing in public, all you women need say is simply, shut up, pal, this is a natural process that has been going on for all of recorded human history and then some and such process is otherwise responsible for the continuing existence of humans on this planet [as an additional option, you can borrow from Bart Simpson and advise the complaining party to get bent; you can also add, as a further or substitute option, some comment re the complaining party's need to grow up, since you prefer men and not little boys who are afraid of the dark]. I am otherwise in favor of making it easy/easier for women to breastfeed their child[ren]. I mean, what self-respecting person could be against that? What was that motto again? That there's nothing more American than mom, apple pie, and Chevrolet? Which is another way of saying that I simply cannot fathom or understand how anyone could have a problem with women breastfeeding. I would advise a slap upside the complaining party's head, but since such would be against the law and I am an officer of the court, well, here we are, and so in this respect I'll have to be mute.

Re the vaseline, yes, life does not come without a cost. And if it helps, please understand that although you pay a greater price for creating and sustaining the life of the child than I do as a male, you will no doubt experience a bond/connection to the child that surpasses the bond/connection that I will experience [or if you prefer, while the bond/connection that I have with respect to the child will be eminently understandable to you, the bond/connection that you experience with respect to the child will simply surpass my feeble powers of comprehension]. I could say that I envy you in this respect, but I won't, as I readily acknowledge the premise that since you pay a greater cost than me, that it's only fair that you enjoy the richer reward [or if you prefer, enjoy, since you've earned it]. And the Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death applies equally to males, and as I believe I discussed with you and some others before, I am one of those males who believes that once a child enters the picture, then being a man (as it were) means being a father to the child and a husband to the mother [since there are two people who now need one's committed love and support]. I am otherwise not opposed and wholly favor a campaign, private and public, to promote that message until it passes through or premeates the hardest of skulls (as it were).

Re breast cancer. One of the reasons why there is more breast cancer now than in the past is simply that your body expects you to be nursing after you give birth and so starts a whole process in motion. When you don't, well, your body has to cut-off a process in midstream and, unfortunately, it appears that in this instance, that such cut-off may have some not so pleasant consequences.

And, Lesly, this partly explains the overly enthusiastic actions on the part of some:

"As the state's policy makers debate whether to ban maternity ward gift bags, a growing number of Massachusetts hospitals are quietly doing away with the formula-filled freebies on their own.
***
The hospitals' action represents a confluence of trends sweeping the healthcare industry. After being stung by revelations showing doctors indulging in expensive meals, gifts, and trips paid for by pharmaceutical companies, hospitals are eager to project a different image.
***
''The message to the mom when she receives the discharge bag is, 'While we're supporting breast-feeding, we also believe formula feeding is OK,'" said Carol Downes, nursing director for maternal newborn services at Melrose-Wakefield Hospital, which recently stopped distributing infant formula gift bags. ''We want the message to be clear and not confused."
***
The gifts date to an era when formula feeding had a seductive cachet, promising convenience and even a sense of propriety for families. The makers of infant formula established a lucrative route directly to new mothers -- via hospital maternity wards.

In a state such as Massachusetts, that gave the companies access each year to tens of thousands of new mothers, who, if they fed their babies formula, could expect to spend $1,000 to $3,000 annually depending on the type used.
***
''People say nobody dies because they weren't breast-fed," said Dr. Lawrence M. Gartner, retired chief of obstetrics at University of Chicago. ''It's not true. Not only do babies get sick because they weren't breast-fed, they die."

Major associations of medical specialists, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have recommended that babies be breast-fed exclusively for at least the first six months of their lives."

See: http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/...ormula_handout/

And, Lesly, it ain't just Dubya, and so, from the Organic Consumers Association [with my correcting the omission of proper spacing in parts]:

"Of particular concern in formula is the ingredient manganese, a neurotoxic chemical found in much higher concentrations in baby formula, particularly soy-based formulas, than in breast milk. According to the EWG, soy-based formulas contain about 80 times as much manganese as mother's milk, while animal-based formulas contain about 30 times more. Elevated manganese levels have been linked to behavioral problems, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) later in life. Babies are not able to absorb and excrete excess manganese during the first year of life, according to the EWG.

Besides the harmful ingredients we know are in baby formula, there are other, less certain risk factors involved with formula feeding, as well. For example, chemical and bacterial contaminants can come into play when bottle feeding infants. Mixing powdered infant formula with water from the tap, or even bottled drinking water, can open the door to numerous water contaminants, including chlorine byproducts, pesticides, lead, solvents, arsenic or nitrates from fertilizer runoff. Similar contaminants may also be found on bottles, nipples or even in the formula itself. Some formulas may contain excessive levels of metals like aluminum, cadmium, lead or worse. The Natural Resources Defense Council reports the following:"In the past, (baby formula) recalls have been ordered because ofcontamination with substances such as broken glass, fragments of metal and salmonella and other bacteria. The fungal toxin aflatoxin has also been detected in some commercial formulas. Although detected levels were very low, this toxin is known to cause cancer and is not present in breast milk." Infant formula is so unhealthy for babies, the Natural Resources Defense Council directly blames aggressive marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped countries for "an epidemic of infant death from malnutrition and diarrheal illness, a result of the contaminated water used to dilute or reconstitute formula."

See: http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_280.cfm

So, Les, it's Dubya, the National Resources Defense Council, and the Organic Consumers Association.

And re the danger[s] in using reconstituted formula:

"CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the use of infant formulas which require reconstitution may present inadvertent lead hazards to young infants. Pediatricians should provide education about these potentially hazardous practices to parents who use these formulas."

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...7&dopt=Abstract

And to Dubya, the NRDC, and the OCA, we can add the Environment News Service:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2002/2002-07-19g.asp

So, if the claim is true, then they give you some free formula, you use it, your milk runs dry, and now what do you do except buy more of their product? Ever hear that saying about being between that proverbial rock and the hard place? As I said, if true, the posited scenario is the living illustration of the proverb.

And, Lesly, what do we make of this:

"Enfacare Lipil Infant Formula Powder Recall
Mead Johnson Nutritionals, in keeping with our commitment to provide safe and healthy nutritional products, is initiating a voluntary recall of 505 cases of EnfaCare LIPIL 12.9 ounce powdered infant formula. The cases and cans are coded BME01 with an expiration date of January 1, 2004 (embossed 1JAN04). This voluntary recall is being initiated because the product is contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii (E. sakazakii).
E. sakazakii, commonly found in the environment, is a food-borne pathogen that can, in rare cases, cause sepsis (bacteria in the blood), meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain) or necrotizing enterocolitis (severe intestinal infection) in newborn infants, particularly premature infants or infants with weakened immune systems. We are unaware of any reports of illness associated with E. sakazakii as a result of feeding infants product from batch BME01; however, product from batch BME01 should not be used.

EnfaCare LIPIL is a formula for infants with conditions such as prematurity. Five hundred and five cases from this batch were shipped to hospitals, retail stores and WIC clinics nationwide during December 2002. No other batches of EnfaCare LIPIL are affected.

Parents who have EnfaCare LIPIL infant formula powder with batch code BME01 embossed on the bottom, as well as consumers or health care professionals with questions regarding this situation, may call the Mead Johnson Consumer Resource Center at 1-888-587-7275. (1-09-03)"

And this:

"Voluntary Recall of Powdered Infant Formula
Wyeth Nutritionals Inc. of Georgia, Vt. is voluntarily recalling infant formula, according to the FDA.

Some lots of infant formula manufactured between July 12 and September 25, 2002, could be contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii, a foodborne pathogen that can, in rare cases, cause sepsis (bacteria in the blood), meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain) or necrotizing enterocolitis (severe intestinal infection) in newborn infants, particularly premature infants or other infants with weakened immune systems. To date, no illnesses have been reported.

The powdered formula was distributed nationwide. The products included in this recall have an expiration date on the bottom of the can that are 07 28 05, 08 28 05 and 09 28 05. The products also can be identified by a six-digit character embossed on the bottom of the cans. The first four characters include: K12N through K19N; L07N through L30N; and N03N through N25N. The products include:

Baby Basics by Albertson's Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
Baby Basics by Albertson's Infant Formula with Iron 1 pound (454 grams)
Baby Basics by Albertson's Soy Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
Baby Basics by Albertson's Soy Infant Formula with Iron 1 pound (454 grams)
Baby Basics by Albertson's Formula for older infants with iron 1 pound, 15.7 ounces (900 grams)
Kozy Kids Infant Formula with Iron 16 ounces (454 grams)
Kozy Kids Soy Infant Formula with Iron 16 ounces (454 grams)
CVS Soy Infant Formula with Iron 16 ounces (454 grams)
Hill Country Fare Infant Formula with Iron 32 ounces (2 pounds) 908 grams
Hill Country Fare Infant Formula with Iron 16 ounces (1 pound) 454 grams
Hill Country Fare Soy Infant Formula with Iron 32 ounces (2 pounds) 908 grams
Hill Country Fare Soy Infant Formula with Iron 16 ounces (1 pound) 454 grams
HEB Baby Infant Formula with Iron 32 ounces (2 pounds) 908 grams
American Fare Little Ones Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
American Fare Little Ones Soy Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
American Fare Little Ones Formula for Older Infants with Iron & Calcium 1 pound 15.7 (900 grams)
HomeBest Soy Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
Safeway Select Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
Safeway Select Infant Formula 2 1 pounds 15.7 ounces (900 grams)
Healthy Baby Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
Healthy Baby Infant Formula with Iron 1 pound (454 grams)
Healthy Baby Soy Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
Healthy Baby Formula for Older Infants with Iron 1 pound, 15.7 ounces (900 grams)
Walgreens Infant Formula with Iron 16 ounces (454 grams)
Parent's Choice Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
Parent's Choice Infant Formula with Iron 16 ounces (454 grams)
Parent's Choice Soy Infant Formula with Iron 2 pounds (908 grams)
Parent's Choice Soy Infant Formula with Iron 35 ounces (1 kilogram)
Parent's Choice 2 Infant Formula with Iron 1 pound, 15.7 ounces (900 grams)
Consumers who have purchased the powdered infant formula are urged to return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Wyeth at 1-888-526-5376. (11-06-02)"

And this [see: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006...ula_recall.html ]:

"A recall is being conducted by Mead Johnson Co. for its GENTLEASE powdered infant formula, lot number: BMJ19, use by 1 Jul 07. This lot was found to contain metal particles of up to 2.7 millimeter in size.

No illnesses have been reported to date. However, in the rare instance that an infant were to inhale the infant formula into the lungs, the presence of these particles could present a serious risk to the infant's respiratory system and throat.
***
The affected products can be identified by the lot number and expiration/use by date embossed on the bottom of the can of BMJ19, use by 1 Jul 07.

Mead Johnson and the Food and Drug Administration are currently investigating how the metal particles got into the infant formula."

And this [ http://babyproducts.about.com/b/a/144683.htm ]:

"Similac Advance Powdered Formula Recall
Recently, the makers of Similac Advance baby formula announced a voluntary recall of one lot of 12.9 oz. cans of Similac Advance with Iron. The recalled products were distributed from mid-September to mid-October 2004, mostly to stores in Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, and the eastern half of the U.S. A manufacturing problem resulted in black plastic particles being found in some cans in this lot. The lot number, 20307RB, can be found on the bottom of the cans. If you have a can of Similac Advance with Iron baby formula that is part of this recall, contact Ross Products Division at 800–986–8884. No serious injuries have been reported with this recall."

And this:

"Mead Johnson Nutritionals is recalling 7,000 cases of infant formula after a labeling error resulted in at least one can of an adult nutritional supplement being mislabeled as the formula. Company officials said the 8-ounce can labeled as ProSobee infant formula actually contained the nutritional supplement Fanilla Sustacal (which contains milk).

The containers of ProSobee are sold in 4-pack fiberboard cartons. The batch being recalled is coded 1NOV99/PROSOB/AKN13 and was shipped to stores late last year.

Consumers with questions about the recall can call the Mead Johnson Customer Resource Center at 1-888-587-7275."

So, lead, metal shavings, black plastic particles, some bacteria, and an adult nutritional supplement masquerading as baby formula. Will you be offended if I give you moms and your milk more credit than those making formula? And if this helps, here's why:

"The testing done by the formula manufacturer, Gerber Products Co., Fremont, Mich., revealed vitamin A levels in a meat base infant formula 20 percent above the maximum allowed by the Infant Formula Act. Gerber also analyzed the premix itself and found it had about 70 percent more vitamin A than stated on the certificate of analysis furnished by the premix manufacturer, Watson Foods Co., Inc., Woodside, N.Y. Gerber began a recall of the affected formula on Feb. 15, 1985, and told FDA. (Gerber has since canceled its account with Watson Foods.)

FDA inspected Watson Foods in February and March, 1985. Investigators easily pinpointed the reason behind the extra helping of vitamin A in the premix sold to Gerber. To speed production, two employees were assigned to the same batch. However, these two employees were apparently unaware of each other's work, so they both added the specified amount of vitamin A. Because Watson's chemist mistakenly prepared the vitamin A standard (a known amount of vitamin A) with twice the vitamin A called for, his comparison of the premix with the standard did not catch the production error."

See: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._v20/ai_4226856

Now, may I share something else. A fellow lawyer, my senior, used to work for a company that manufactures candy and some other items as well. Since I don't wish to defend a lawsuit for demation, I won't name the company. But I will say that the very same machines that manufactured the candy also manufactured pesticides. Upon hearing that, and also hearing about some of the safety practices, or lack thereof, I decided that I would never purchase candy made by that company again. And 15 years later, I still haven't.

And, sorry, but one more, here is why we need teach our Spanish speakers English, or else teach some the basics re quality control:

"EVANSVILLE, IND. - Mead Johnson Nutritionals is recalling certain batches of Nutramigen® 16-oz. powder infant formula and Nutramigen® 32-oz. ready-to-use infant formula because the Spanish-language side of the label for both products gives incorrect preparation instructions. The English-language instructions are correct and the product is safe to use as directed in English. If not properly prepared, Nutramigen® 16-oz. powder infant formula and Nutramigen® 32-oz. ready-to-use infant formula have the potential to cause serious adverse health effects such as seizures, irregular heart beat, renal failure or in extreme cases, death. Symptoms to look for include vomiting, diarrhea, decreased urine output, irritability, decreased activity or sunken eyes."

See: http://www.mass.gov/dph/media/2001/pr0707.htm

Lucky for us, your preparation instructions are built into the operating system [as it were] and have served us well since time immemorial. And, Lesly, we don't call screwing up the instructions getting closer to the "gold standard," we call it rank stupidity and/or reckless disregard for the health of our children [didn't they have some Spanish speaking persons read the darn label (some proof-reading)?].

And, Lesly, they can "get close" but they will likely never achieve being able to put leukocytes, macrophages, etc., into the formula. And those little critters are as important as the nutritional value of the milk or formula. And to the extent that the Enfamil promotional literature that you cited fails to even mention anything more than the nutritional value of the formula it is, in my considered opinion, false, misleading, and otherwise constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice. I would submit that it is this matter that need be addressed by Dubya and some others as well [so if you must criticize the man, then please make such your criticisim]. And, lastly, when you pass metal shavings, black plastic particles, etc., through your nipples, please let me know...

Sorry, one more, Lesly and Victoria, as I said, I don't favor fear/scare mongering. I would also like our government not to treat us like children, so as I said, I simply wish that parents be provided ALL of the relevant information and that we otherwise make it easier for women to breastfeed their children, and if that means nursing in public and more maternity leave and/or more government aid, well, to borrow from Pharoah, so let it be written, so let it be done...

KT, you're all over the place. I don't believe anyone's brought up breast feeding in public. Are you assuming I am, and possibly other posters are, ambivalent about the government's position because some pervert may stop and stare? It’s as if you want to change my mind so badly you cover any objection you think I could mention before the discussion moves in that direction. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

Please, please use quotes, and embed hyperlinks in your text. I’m not sure which link, if any, covers one of the proofs you cited. I’ve found that structuring my posts helps me organize the storyline aspect of my argument, not to mention, makes it easier for others to read my posts. This is helpful at any hour, and especially helpful at 4 A.M.

Agreed, Lesly. He ought to come with a warning label for the next election.

KVHT, my husband just bought a camera that has a long list of warnings on it...."Warning! Don't let this camera drop onto a person's head from 50 feet above, it might cause injury...You might strangle yourself on the cord if you attach it to an immobile source and wrap it around your neck...You could electrocute yourself if you place your finger in the socket while plugging in the battery!"

Even breastfeeding can cause harm, because much of what the woman ingests comes out in her breast milk. If the child has an allergy to wheat, for example, he will have an allergy to his mother's milk if she ingests wheat. If she is taking medication, her milk could be harmful. So, if breastmilk came in a manufactured can it would require a disclaimer, and the occasional recall, too.

Babies who sleep on their stomachs are more likely to have SIDs. This is a fact. However, many people I know still placed their children on their stomachs to sleep. Were they unfit parents? If you have a baby that won't sleep on his back, and turns over when you place him on his side, there really isn't anything else to do. Strangely, 99.9 percent of the time this works out just as well as the back....and the parent is able to sleep too! We all slept on our stomachs, afterall. Back then that was the doctor recommended way to do things...just as formula was.

This is the equivalent of the formula argument to me. Yes, breastmilk is generally better. When I had my children this was driven home to me again and again to the point that I felt if I didn't or couldn't feed my child without supplementing I was an unfit mother. It's a cost to gains equation. Many women simply cannot breastfeed. They don't have enough milk for the babies to thrive, or their baby needs to feed exhaustively and the mother never sleeps...there is nothing wrong with choosing formula, especially when you are at your wits end and have other children to tend to.

Of course in consideration of variables such as rare disorders, mother’s drug use or mental health issues breastfeeding may not represent the better option for that particular situation. But when compared on just the basis alone, bottle or breast, I can’t imagine any logical outcome other than breastfeeding is preferred.


The US gov has taken that stance, as has the WHO. I didn’t think the overwhelming merits and advantages to breastfeeding were still in debate.


I have no desire to debate them, as such tactics to lay claim that what our bodies as women do and provide during pregnancy are of little added value are in my opinion means to devalue the women’s role in the creation and sustaining of life, which ultimately devalues our role in society. It is meant to divide us and then take political advantage of this division. And as we can see here even those who don’t even have children have already been taught to prefer one side of the “debate” over the other.


Fact is breast is better and that less than 20% of American women breastfeed their babies to the recommended age.... 12 mo. source
I think that is not only alarming but it is obvious that we most certainly need to improve this statistic and the US gov does wish to do so, to increase it to 50% by 2010.
I can’t imagine for one moment that 80% of mothers are not breastfeeding because of some rare genetic disorder or other medical issue. There is far greater factors influencing women in America to overwhelmingly not breast feed their children.

So I think focusing on the legitimate reasons women don’t breastfeed is fine but it doesn’t really address this issue well, there are many other reasons women don’t breastfeed. I have heard things like it is gross, some feel it is sexual, others feel to much pressure from peers who have negative opinions of it. Some have to work and their employers only offer them a bathroom stall to pump in (eww), some would like to stay home longer but the federal law for maternity leave does not take breastfeeding into consideration.
We offer little in regards to health education regarding this issue. Hospitals often do not offer very good consultation. Govt health care often will not provide or cover breastfeeding classes. We have no follow up health care for new moms at home like I have experienced in other countries. And there is a huge stigma in our society that goes against breastfeeding.

Personally I have no problem with the government getting involved with this issue as it is a public health concern and our society is not performing well in this arena, but I would say it is all of society that is not doing well, not just the mums. I would rather see a push for more maternity leave, more requirements for employers to recognize the needs of nursing mothers, more pre and post birth medical help and education, more community support, public awareness, and yes desire.

I would prefer that such advertisements focused on the positives of breastfeeding rather than the negatives and I wish we saw more attempts to make the people who scowl at a nursing mum, or force a hungry baby into a public toilet to feel more guilty about their behavior.

Mrs. Pigpen:

For the first ten (10) years of my career, I practiced in the field of personal injury, so I am aware of the matter of "warnings" and like you, I find the inclusion of some of the warnings to be an absurdity [to use your example, I am presuming that anyone who can read the warning most certainly know that objects dropped on people's heads may cause injury and that one might strangle one's self by securing the cord to an immobile object and then wrapping the cord around one's neck; were I judge and/or juror, in such a circumstance I would simply "rule" that one need not be warned about obvious dangers and so there is no viable claim re a failure to warn]. I otherwise did not say that I agreed with any "warning" re formula now be given or which is otherwise in the works. My comments were simply addressing the "mere" propriety of the government having any role in the discussion/matter at all. But if you want my proposed "general" warning, the same would simply be:

"WARNING: This product is designed as a replacement for breast milk for those mothers and their families who have been advised or recommended to use this product by their personal and/or family physician after appropriate consultation. While serving as a valuable means by which to deliver and supply vital nutrients to developing infants, this product is not an exact substitute for breast milk and does not otherwise supply certain ingredients found in breast milk such as leukocytes and macrophages, which are living immune cells found in breast milk which serve to protect your developing infant from infectious disease, allergy, and other medical conditions. It is strongly recommended that mothers and their families speak with their personal and/or family physican regarding the advisibility of using breast milk prior to use of this product."

Would that be okay as a "general" warning?

I was not otherwise objecting to the use of formula when there is truly some sound reason for doing so. My concern is that, given human nature, the more we paint the artificial as being synonomous with the natural, the more likely it will be that humans will use the artificial in place of the natural and especially so when the artificial is viewed as being more convenient.

And going back to the Enfamil page re the "gold standard", as I said, the same is quite simply false and misleading. Fine, breast milk is the "gold standard." Only problem is, since there is no mention of leukocytes, macrophages, etc., and so no mention of the fact that breast milk contains living cells that help your child fight infectious disease and some other things too, our friends who make Enfamil have falsely defined what the gold standard is [by omission, so call it misrepresentation by omission]. Let me put it this way, if everything else was equal, and it's not, since even Enfamil says that it isn't quite the gold standard yet, but if we assumed that everything else was equal, but one product, breast milk, had living immune cells that would protect your child from infectious disease, while the other product did not, which product would you choose? Remember, all else is equal... So our friends who make Enfamil left out of their promotional literature a very important item, which is that no matter that the formula is "fortified" with protein, iron, what have you, it does not and probably will never contain the noted living immune cells. Why do you think that the makers of Enfamil do not even mention the living immune cells found in breast milk? Is it because they know that if you knew, that you'd then have just that much more reason, and maybe a compelling reason, to use breast milk and not their formula? And not that it matters, but what is the "gold standard"? I ask that because some years ago I read that humans do not even know the exact composition/ingredients in breast milk. If that is still true, then we have just one more reason to label the promo false and misleading since we don't even know what the "gold standard" is.

Lastly, I have never accused any mother of being unfit because she used formula. And that's because such was never my intent. This isn't about defining the good mother, or the proper role of mothers, it's about the health of our children, period, end of story.

Sorry, one more. In addition to any other human failure, one rather glaring one is lack of memory, both institutional and otherwise. More specifically:

"TWO U.S. AIDES RESIGN OVER BABY-FORMULA VOTE

By NADINE BROZAN
Published: May 21, 1981

Two officials of the Agency for International Development in Washington said yesterday that they were resigning in protest against the American vote at the World Health Organization in Geneva opposing the adoption of a code to curtail marketing practices for infant formulas.

The two officials, Dr. Stephen C. Joseph, a pediatrician and the highest ranking medical professional at the agency, and Eugene N. Babb, the deputy assistant administrator for food and nutrition, had threatened to resign if the United States voted against the code.
***
Dr. Joseph and his colleague attended a forum conducted in Washington yesterday by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. The Senator, who said he was looking into the decision to oppose the code, asked:

''Can a product which requires clean water, good sanitation, adequate family income and a literate parent to follow printed instructions be properly and safely used in areas where water is contaminated, sewage runs in the streets, poverty is severe and illiteracy is high?''
***
In another action on Capitol Hill, Representative Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, announced that he would introduce a bill to apply the international code to the United States, despite the Administration's stance. The code recommends that governments adopt laws that would ban the advertising and direct or indirect promotion of baby formula products that could serve as breast-feeding substitutes."

See: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A967948260

And, sorry, but again, I could care less about part of the concern here, at least in certain circumstances:

"Child-rearing experts have long pointed to the benefits of breast-feeding, but critics say the new campaign has taken things too far and will make mothers who cannot breast-feed, or choose not to, feel guilty and inadequate."

Well, that depends on why she chooses not to. If you don't produce enough milk, the baby feeds all the time and you can't sleep, you need take a medication or some such and passing that on to the baby would not be so good, etc., well, those are perfectly fine reasons to not breastfeed and there's no reason that I can see why any warning re breastfeeding being the preferred route ought to make one feel "guilty" and/or "inadequate" [I mean, I doubt that it was the woman's conscious choice to not produce enough milk, to need sufficient sleep, etc.].

And, Mrs. Pigpen [and Lesly], the hypocrisy here is quite simply mind-numbing. I don't hear any women crying about how some men are made to feel "guilty" and "inadequate" because they prematurely ejaculate. As near as I can discern, there otherwise isn't even such a thing as premature ejaculation, which is to say that I am simply not aware of any law of biology, chemistry, physics, etc., that reports that a man must not emit until a certain length of time has passed lest he be found to be a premature ejaculator. Instead, the biological law is simply that everyone did okay so long as he emitted his semen inside of her vagina. Everything beyond that is a wholly artificial construct of the fertile imagination of the human mind and presumably one of those societal norms that homosexuals and some others find greatly offensive. Apparently, we have here a case of what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. As I remarked to Vermillion on some other thread a while ago, philosophical constructs are just that, philosophical constructs, the key lies in having a construct that at least has the grace of being internally consistent with respect to its definition and application.

Men otherwise prematurely ejaculate for a rather likely simple and good reason. It isn't easy being the alpha male, since every Johnny come lately wants his chance to be No. 1. And with the exceptions of sleeping and defecating, there is no more vulnerable moment than when one is engaged in sexual relations with his chosen female. And we don't have a last-a-long-time gene because those who did were either clubbed over the head while engaged in sexual relations or eaten by that lion over there, and in the circumstance of the former, their offspring were likely then either exterminated or banished from the presence of the female population and so did not have occasion to reproduce and pass on that long-time gene. Or as stated here:

"There has even been some speculation by evolutionary biologists that rapid ejaculation may have been selected for during primate evolution, through a "survival of the fastest" process. A male who could ejaculate rapidly would be more likely to reproduce successfully, as there would be less chance of the female escaping, another male interrupting, or a predator attacking before coitus was completed."

See: http://www.whitelotuseast.com/PremEjaculation.htm

The only improvement to the above that I would suggest would be to report, as I did, that the interrupting male may himself be the predator [or maybe even a jealous/protective female who does not want her rivals to have their offspring composed, in part, of his rather fit and studly genes].

And, of course, she likely didn't think of any of this before making the poor soul feel "guilty" and "inadequate." As I said, the hypocrisy here is quite simply mind-numbing.

And then there's mice, who have their own but related concerns:

"In the new work, researchers show that elevating the perceived risk that male house mice will encounter sexual competition causes them to adjust key aspects of their copulatory behavior. When a sexual competitor was present, males thrusted more vigorously during copulation, ejaculated after 50% less penile stimulation, and were nearly twice as likely to ejaculate on a second occasion. In doing so, males may ensure against the loss of insemination opportunities and are likely to increase their paternity share if females copulated with the rival males."

See: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=40920

Hmmm. I'm tempted, in the interest of civility, to avoid adding a comment here. However, I am unable to remain silent.

Perhaps it is simply my own lack of intelligence, but I simply do not follow the point you are trying to make about hypocrisy. There is pretty general agreement here that breastfeeding is a Good Thing, with only some minor disagreements on the best way to encourage it. I'm baffled about how we got from this to an accusation of anti-male bias.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument seems to go something like this. (I have worded it in terms which my simple mind can understand.)

Statement one: "Women should not be made to feel inadequate if they are unable to breastfeed."

Statement two: "It's hypocritical of you to say that, when you are making men feel inadequate if they ejaculate quickly."

It seems to me, with my limited knowledge, that the only proper response to this is "Huh? What the devil are you talking about?"

Let me make a desperate attempt to keep this thread on topic and still address this accusation.

Human beings are, of course, animals with biological functions like breastfeeding and ejaculation. We are not, however, entirely slaves to biology. It is not absolutely pre-determined that we must breastfeed, or that we must ejaculate quickly. We can make, to some extent, informed choices about these things.

I don't see any hypocrisy here.

The government has recently gotten into the motherhood issue on several fronts, and Im not sure where they are going with it.
Such as, all women from pregnancy possible puberty to menopause are now by federal guidelines ie: by the CDC and health care workers to be considered 'pre-pregnant' and are designated 'for life' to maintain low body weight, abstain from alchohol and cigarettes, take supplements of folic acid and nutrients and maintain conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control. See: pre-pregnant, Google.
While its a positive thing to have women in control of their health, they are NOT lifetime baby making vessels. I intuitionally feel this is a backlash war on the female, seen as being no other than a baby making and baby sustaining vessel, that she should do no other than see herself as a pre-pregnant person for life. No girls nights out, no martinis for you, no vices.. you are pre-pregnant from puberty to menopause, 40 years at least. The rationale for this is that a woman may get pregnant at a time she does not know it.
Considering there is an ongoing movement to eliminate free access to birth control in this nation as it supposedly encourages sexual freedom, this legislation is a continuation of degrading womens rights to be just people and decide apart, when and how they have babies and live life as free persons. I do not need a link here because if you Google,' the war on birth control' you will get hundreds of entries.

As to breastfeeding, for one part, working mothers cannot feed to 6 months unless they pump their breasts all night long or have their baby at work, which is not always possible. Consequence? Mothers stay out of the workforce, lose position in their careers, take lower salaries and lose status for their inherant biology.

While breastmilk may be the 'best' thing for infants, scare tactics are designed for a completely other reason.
While the United States government is known to care greatly for fetuses, it is also known for having little empathy for born children or the mothers that must raise them. We must always look at the underlying reasons the government is pushing a program.
Lets put it even more clearly. Does anyone really think the Admin cares about breastfeeding as a health concern? They do not care about adult health care, they do not care about infant mortality, they do not care about child poverty, why would breastfeeding be their concern? Because it would keep women at home. Concerned with domestic duties, less muss and fuss, back to basics, out of the power structure, a fence, a biological ceiling. ie: you are hurting your kids, go home and stay there where you belong.

Many of us in the 50's and 60's were raised on formula as breastfeeding was seen as a detriment then. I dont believe we have suffered as a consequence. Keeping a working mother out of the workforce on the other hand has much greater consequences to a family.

In contrast to Bucket who seems to think that this government has our best interest at heart, I would have to disagree and take any government think tank educational theory with more than a grain of salt.
No one theory is good for all, and much is manipulative.

I was going to avoid responding to you because you’ve ignored requests to edit your posts a little bit for readability—if you don’t care whether others read what you have to say, why should I? But I had to respond to this. This is the funniest one-line I’ve read on . Actually, the Women’s Issues forum is like a black hole sucking weird comments in, the unofficial repository holding curious ideas. Has anyone else noticed?

Once more your argument branches off into places no one has visited, let alone considered in this debate, except you. Men are not “forced” to hold it longer any more than women are “forced” to last as long as her marathon lovers. Believe me, they are out there, and at least some men can keep going after ejaculating. Feelings of inadequacy melt like dew when two people reciprocate mutual respect. I don’t care what humiliation single people convince themselves await them. If she’s too vain to consider bringing up the possibility of a vibrator to ease his performance anxiety like a thoughtful lover should, he shouldn’t even bother.

Since you don’t have a problem diverging from the original topic I’ll indulge you and suggest you would have stood a better chance using the “size does matter” complaint, KT. Oh no. No, you wouldn’t have. If I had a dollar for every time I heard “fat chicks need love too... but they have to pay” I could get a free dinner at Red Lobster.


I don’t understand this. How does discussing the properties of breast milk demean women, and how did you think the discussion could be avoided when we are asked to evaluate the government’s position that refusing to breast feed risks the health of your baby? A woman's value doesn’t correspond with her ability to produce milk, or her decision to breast feed or avoid it.


I’ve never understood why people felt the need to tell mothers how to raise their kids. That aside, you’re asking for a lot from employers. Yes, eww, to the bathroom stall, but what alternative is there? A waiting room adjacent to the bathroom would be preferable. At my last job the HR employee had a private room to herself and used the pump there (which we all pitched in for... those things aren't cheap), but while she’s doing that, her baby may be drinking formula elsewhere. 100% breast milk for the first 6 months, which is what the article describes as the government’s goal, is unrealistic unless 50% of employers expand their facilities to include daycare at the office by 2010. Must a woman breast feed exclusively in order for the beneficial properties of her milk to remain in the baby's intestinal tract? We're back to discussing the properties of breast milk.


I agree with you on the federal government’s disinterest in preventing pregnancy. The current thinking, for instance, is that if kids know condoms “don’t” prevent HPV they won’t have sex. Abstinence only education has been promoted from the high school classroom to the university.

Not to take this too off topic but I think the WaPo article only tells part of the story. The CDC guideline encourages access to medical care to women through federal and state programs. It’s the implementation of the guidelines that worry me. This is, once again, a transient concern of mine rooted in ideological goals I disagree with.

For a feminist’s take, read this. One epilepsy sufferer has already been refused certain drugs because her doctor was certain she’d want a baby in spite of the fact that she dropped several pounds on her current medication. How could her situation improve when the CDC did such a terrible job communicating the purpose of the study at a time when politically charged science directives are not the exception?

All day and night that’s an exaggeration or do you think the mother will spend no personal time with her child? Some mothers only breastfeed in the mornings and evenings, which is still a great health benefit for their babies. Also your argument neglects the fact that women also have lower salaries, lower positions in their careers just because they are women.

Your argument seems to be that women who have to work should not expect or even require any accomadations if they are breastfeeding. I know lots of women who have pumped, myself included, it’s not that big of a deal. But I find the fact that when I worked in an office with a staff that was almost exclusively women, except for the management, and my fellow workers who were breast pumping had to go and sit in the stall on a toilet extremely unfair. How is that fair?

If a woman desires to breastfeed after going back to work it is completely possible and I know many women would opt for a little inconvenience in order to do something they feel is best for their child. I am a little offended that you think the action of the pump is what keeps mother’s away, are you saying their desire to give their children the best is that easily persuaded. I think social factors effect this choice far more.

Also 6 weeks maternity leave is only enough time or is based on the thought of it being medical leave, equivalent to what man would require for an equivalent condition. Having a baby medically allows six weeks recovery, but what about the whole baby aspect of it? Are we really on par with men when it comes to what happens after birth? Obviously not men can not breastfeed babies, so if the govt wishes to further encourage such a thing then we should legally be recognized as needing the medical leave or family time to also breastfeed.

I think often in the pursuance of gender balance we have lost aspects in our lives that we need more consideration for.

And no I don’t think the govt always has our interests at heart that is why I made a long list of issues and evidence that I feel the govt could address to promote breastfeeding better but does not address.
Care to comment on these?

The US has the highest rate of infant mortality than any other industrialized nation. Somehow Artemise I doubt you would be slow to point this out or decry it as evidence of our nation’s inferiority. Yet you don’t seem all to interested in taking the much needed social precautions or implementing social programs that could in fact lead to lowering this figure.


You are devaluing the properties of breastmilk, claiming it’s advantage is less of a concern and not all too worthy of greater accommodation's or promotion. That in return lessens the value of the role of a breastfeeding mother, she could just formula feed! What is the big deal? Why stand up for her right to feed in public, or at work, or in home? She is just being difficult...so like a woman.

Acceptance in the workforce is not the only place we as women need to pursue. We shouldn’t have to devalue our roles as mothers in order to fulfill other roles

Because the need is there. Sometimes there are public perceptions that exist that are not healthy or safe. And I am not speaking on behalf of my private concerns, so please don’t make this personal. I am saying this in regards to social issues and what ones the govt has an interest in promoting for public health. Is that such a strange concept to you? It happens in this country all the time..do you think the govt should stop informing parents about child car seats, or bike helmets, hygiene, immunizations, or teaching nutrition in school, or providing sex education?

Why can’t women have a small nursing room, my god is that too much to ask? Many women don’t have the advantage of a nursing room and they should.
I also doubt many babies are exclusive at 6 mo age, I know mine at cereal and naners by then.

I think it is sad that so many women in the US accept the idea that breastfeeding their baby is not possible because they are not given enough maternity leave, or public assistance and education, or accommodations in the workplace, or don’t feel brave enough to go against ignorant, negative opinions. And I find it equally sad that women support these conditions as legitimate grievances and put forth the idea about choice when in reality women are being offered very few choices.

If we as American mothers have a larger population than our counterparts, we then should have a greater political voice than that our counterparts so why are we achieving less politically?

Being pro-woman and caring about issues that affect women includes a lot more than just abortion rights.

It isn’t as great a concern for U.S. women. Our population doesn’t face the same challenges noncommunicable diseases present in developing countries. We don’t have any single factor contributing to over half the infant mortality rate experienced in Latin America and the Caribbean.


I would argue, rather, that pointing out disparities in the quality between the U.S. and developing countries would help us make an informed decision, and you’re engaged in supposition.


I haven’t commented on public feeding. Frankly I don’t care. There’s nothing extraordinary or mystical about a woman breastfeeding. Breastfeeding at work isn’t the issue for me, it’s providing access to her baby that presents a financial problem to the employer. Should we require private employers with x many employees to provide for the creation and maintenance of a baby care facility? Who picks up the tab? What if, after this facility is created, or rented or whatever, there is a period of low usage? I think it’d be a better idea to arrange an understanding with a private sitter and asking the employer to make accommodations so you can be with your baby.

As for “so like a woman,” please Bucket, your attempt at sarcasm would pan out better with a male. If you want equal footing don’t play the spurned victim.


I agree with this. It amazes me how often policymakers don’t take modernization into account when “addressing” low birth rates by attacking contraception.


There is a very real possibility that the result of not funding education for those health concerns will lead to death, injury, and communicable diseases. U.S. infants aren’t dropping dead because 70% of mothers use formula (per Mrs. P’s link).

I’m not arguing for minimal government participation in health concerns because that in itself can lead to death, injury, and the spread of communicable diseases. But you are juxtaposing public opinion against a female function (ew, breastfeeding!) and therefore women in general, with the need for a public health campaign that isn’t there, and finally failing to address how we should financially support that need. Government funds towards health policies should be used to prevent/alleviate health problems and address public opinion related to risky behavior—not to tell you that it’s okay to breastfeed and those people giving you looks are jerks, you’re not a bad man if you ejaculate prematurely, you don’t need to look like Cindy Crawford and God knows what else.


I don’t think this is a huge accommodation, but a lot of business owners rent a location, so setting up a nursing room involves land owners and construction companies, not just employers.


And talking about breastfeeding rights without addressing the details at the employment level serves the purpose of announcing your support for breastfeeding rights and little else. Tell me who sounds like accommodating mothers is impossible again?

KVHT, rest assured, I am ALSO against a government warning label on contraceptives indicating the "optimal time for a man to perform intercourse is X minutes. Anything less is substandard."




Bucket, in the link you provided, it says that 36 percent of mothers breastfeed up to the 6 month time frame.

That is corresponds pretty much with the levels in Germany that I found here

I will try to find the results to that report, and I haven't been able to come up with better hard numbers for EU breastfeeding stats, which I'd like to...but I think it's likely NOT inhibition or related cultural factors in Germany that have led to levels comparible to the US. Maybe it's something else? Maybe, primarily, breastfeeding is simply a lot harder than many of the mothers thought it would be? It was for me, I started supplementing after the first 6 weeks. Difficulties with breastfeeding are hardly rare, it's pretty standard for those who give up early on (speaking entirely anecdotally, I admit).

Edited to add: I found a good site for statistics
Country % of mothers who start and % who continue 6 months or longer

Sweden: 98 percent started 53 percent continued to 6 months

Norway: 98 percent started 50 percent continued to 6 months

Poland: 93 percent started, 10 percent continued to 6 months

Canada: 80 percent started, 24 percent continued to 6 months

Netherlands: 68 percent started, 25 percent continued to 6 months

Britain: 63 percent started, 21 percent continued to 6 months

Although the US lags behind a bit (with the exception of Poland) Seems to be a dramatic drop off for all countries listed.

Edited again to add: Here is a more comprehensive list of countries and the stats show the same trend. One that really surprised me was Italy...85 percent start and only 19 percent are still breastfeeding 6 months later (it's a very breastfeed friendly society, I had my second there).

I’ve been following this thread and after some thought decided to add my two cents.

Lesley:

I think most – but not all – of KT’s comments are relevant. I think you are upset with him because he challenged your claim that the benefits of breastfeeding are hyped up. He refuted it and now I see you are making ad hominem comments (focuses on the character or physical aspects of a person, rather that the claims he makes – this is a diversionary tactic when one can’t refute an argument). Assuming I am interpreting your comments accurately – and I realize I may not – making fun of his penis size to me was a comment in poor taste (ad hominem) and you seem to be the one who’s comments rest on questionable elements of reasoning. To this end, some of your comments are well-thought out, but I found the comment that he would not argue for the (size does matter) to be implicitly stating he has a smaller one. Not cool. If I have interpreted this wrongly, please clarify you intentions.

All others:

Overall, here is my two cents on the question at hand. Breastfeeding is a much healthier option than bottle-feeding. To me, the argument that at times breastfeeding can be problematic (e.g., Mrs. Pigpen) is a straw man fallacy comment – it falsely augments an extremely low percentage behavior. It would be like a person who smokes three packs of cigarettes a day highlighting that his/her grandparent lived into his nineties while smoking and did die of cancer. Usually, these comments are used to protect one’s poor lifestyle choices.

Although I do not agree with all aspects of the warning signs I think the Federal government should be more active in educating people about the healthier benefits of breast feeding. I also COMPLELEY agree with the statement that KT made in that the health industry (and pharmaceutical industry) advertise complete lies in that they prey on female (and male) emotions and state that formula is the same, or even better or more convenient, to breast milk – and nothing is done after these false statements are made into the media (for a reference regarding health and pharmaceutical lies see two great books -- Dr. Marcia Angell’s “The truth about drug companies” and Dr. David Healy’s book “Let them eat Prozac”).

However, the delicate aspect of this debate is to not make women feel bad if they can’t (not won’t) breastfeed. And, I know there are some women who can’t due to no fault of their own and they should not be hating themselves – this includes both emotional and physical reasons. On the other side, I do think there are some women that do not want to be bothered with breast-feeding and it’s not due to physical or emotional issues. Those women, in my mind, need to overcome their issues and breastfeed.

My overall thinking is this. When possible, breast milk should be the first option and father can support their wives (or dating partner) in the process (e.g., using a bottle to feed breast milk that has been pumped and stored, burping the baby after feeding, etc.). I also feel that if a woman has honestly tried to breast-feed and can’t, she should (1) move to formula, and (2) not beat up on her. Although breast milk is a much better health choice, formula does work and is an option if a woman can’t breastfeed.

I’m not “upset” with him. I wish he would focus on his presentation so others wouldn’t have to squint to separate what he says from what he’s quoting, for one thing. I saw the part where he challenged my claim that the benefits of breastfeeding are hyped up, but I don’t want to spend the time making heads or tails out of his post. If you want to rephrase it for him, feel free.


Quite frankly RBB, I thought bringing up (no pun intended) pre-ejaculation into the debate was a diversionary tactic. That comment caught my eye after I read Victoria’s post. You’re assuming I’m speaking of his penis size, when that’s the last thing on my mind. I was speaking in hypothetical, since I assumed he was speaking in hypothetical about pre-ejaculation as well.


By making them feel guilty about their choice by saying they’re putting their babies’ lives at risk? I find it extremely hypocritical to argue women shouldn't feel bad about breastfeeding in public by making them feel bad for choosing not to breast feed. It’s the same old tactic with a new face.

Victoria:

First, never be afraid to comment on my posts, since as I've said before, all ideas are open to challenge. That being said, the one article that was linked-to contained a report that critics of campaign might cause some women, to feel "guilty" and "inadequate." I appreciate the concern and was simply and otherwise only attempting to raise the matter of whether these same critics use that same mental prism when they view the matter of premature ejaculation.

And now for the invited correction, yes, you are wrong. Or should I say that to me, it appeared that the critics were claiming that we should not have any campaign at all, and never mind the particulars, since any campaign would run the risk of making one or more women feel "guilty" and "inadequate." I drew that conclusion since the critics pointed to those woman who cannot breastfeed and also those women who choose not to, and never mind with respect to the latter, why that choice was made. If my reading is correct, then the hypocrisy is mind-numbing. And that was what I was taking about. I would otherwise not like anyone to feel guilty or inadequate unless they truly need feel guilty and inadequate. And some informed choices are appropriate and some are not. The man who murdered that other human probably made an informed choice, as did the serial rapist and that serial child abuser over there. But thanks for stating my point. My point is, as I said, not to make anyone feel guilty or inadequate, but instead, to ensure that each of us has the necessary information in order to make that informed choice [I believe that some would call the ideal: a free choice made according to "perfect information"].

And let me put the matter this way, going back the remark in question, if my reading of the remark was correct, then we ought not have Ron Bacardi put a warning on its "151" to the effect that: "Warning: Excessive consumption of this product during pregnancy may adversely the health of your child in utero. It is strongly recommended that expectant mothers consult with their physician before consuming this product."

As I said, if I read the comment right, then we can't give that warning, because that may cause some woman who drank a whole case of Ronnie B 151 in a single day while pregnant to feel "guilty" and/or "inadequate" and/or "unfit." May I simply ask where it all ends?

Lastly, I otherwise understand that we can deal with our biology, but please, google yourself silly re premature ejaculation. There are more inane and, well, I had better not say, but there are more inane ideas and views re premature ejaculation than there appears to be ideas and views, in total, for any other topic that we might choose to discuss. And while I posited one reason why it might be survival of the fastest, how about my now positing what might be the simplest reason why such might be so, to wit, re that female escaping, and no meaning no, then maybe if she finishes first [as it were], she calls an end to the matter and there he is left holding the, well, again, I had better not say. Since the biological purpose of sex is to procreate, then you can see why it might be good and/or otherwise of selective advantage for the male to finish first, and never mind notions of "sexual inadequacy".



Lesly:

According to the nearly universal reports, premature ejaculation appears to primarily be a phenomenon involving the younger male. Why might that be? Might it be because the younger male perceives that he has sexual rivals, since she hasn't put on that ring and made that commitment? In contrast, the older guy, well, he's been with his babe for years now, and there's no sign or indication of any indiscretion and/or infidelity on her part, so maybe he does not perceive that he has any sexual rivals and so, on and on he goes, long into that good night. If such is so, I don't know what good your vibrator will accomplish and maybe the effort would be better spent in convincing him that you are his forever. In any event, as I suggested to Victoria, please google yourself silly, since according to the overwhelming majority of internet reports, premature ejaculation [whatever that is] is THE No. 1 sexual problem afflicting the modern human male. And the reason why I chose premature ejaculation is rather simple, since it appears that the same "often leads to feelings of self-doubt, inadequacy and guilt". And maybe both you and Artemise will appreciate this next comment:

"The quest for that perfect technique has taken many turns. One of the oldest was it was the female's "duty" to provide relief for her man. For those unfortunate ladies, premature ejaculation was probably a blessing."

So what happened to the good old days, when our finishing early was a blessing? Hopefully, that got a laugh.

Now on to the matter of your making my case for me. In addressing the matter of premature ejaculation, you posited the ideal scenario. Thank you. Since in advocating breastfeeding, some of us are merely positing the ideal scenario. If none should feel guilty or inadequate with respect to the former ideal situation then why should one feel so with respect to the latter ideal situation, or if you prefer, why should such even be an issue? As I said, the hypocrisy is quite simply mind-numbing.

And, no, I don't support the bull-riding equates to not breastfeeding scenario. As I said, I do however support all concerned providing all concerned with the information necessary for one to make an informed choice. As I said, the Enfamil promo hardly seeks to accomplish that result and maybe in light of such conduct, some others need to disseminate some more correct information re just what there is to be gained should one have the ability, time, etc., to breastfeed.



Artemise:

Scare tactics? I see. Can you kindly report to Ted Danson that it was singularly inappropriate for him to report that we'll all be dead in 10 years owing to global warming? Or how about my own government, and yours as well, re that coming pandemic resulting from the HIV? It's been nearly 10 years, and I'm still here, and if I had to mark my scorecard, the report would be that the posited pandemic has packed less punch than "Iron" Mike Tyson did during his last comeback bout.

Re the pre-pregnant, I don't think that anyone is trying to claim that you are a lifetime baby maker. Instead, I think that the concern is twofold. First, as you yourself reported, there is the matter of unintended pregnancy, and so maybe it might be wise to not be exposing one's self to certain things when there exists the possibility that such exposure might impact on the health of that unintended child [or so such might be claimed with respect to the circumstance of the sexually active human female].

The second concern is simply that it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, which is to say that the longer one continues engaging in certain conduct then the better chance there is that such conduct will become something more than merely engaging in certain conduct, as such might instead become that thing that we call habit. And as we say, not only is it hard to teach an old dog new tricks, but so too, old habits are indeed hard to break. So the apparent assumption is that most of you women will probably have at least one child and will otherwise be sexually active for any number of years. And the thought is apparently that if you adopt the healthy lifestyle as soon as circumstances reasonably permit and adhere to the same so long as circumstances reasonably permit, then you won't be one of those moms who wasn't intending to get pregnant but did, and who now has to worry about whether her consumption of alcohol and/or drugs, or some other thing, or some other activity, has had some deleterious effect on the child in utero [and you know how this one plays out, going back to feelings of guilt, since the poor woman did not know that she was pregnant at the time, and she and all the rest know that she never would have done what she did if she had known that she was pregnant, but alas, she still feels guilty nevertheless and we've been singularly unpersuasive in convincing her otherwise]. And that is what some might be trying to avoid.

Pregnancy otherwise already has enough of its own consequences [morning sickness, mood swings leading from laughing one moment to crying the next, etc.] and so maybe some are thinking that if you adopt the healthy lifestyle now, then you won't have to concern yourself with such later, and so you will have just one less thing to worry about when it comes time for that morning sickness and those mood swings.

But, true, there may be some who want to enslave you, but there are probably some others who simply see the proverbial handwriting on the wall and who otherwise want to see you have it easier when it comes time for you to attempt to cross the sea [using the English translation of the applicable Khmer phrase concerning pregnancy and the childbirth process, i.e., crossing the sea, which, if I might add, is a wholly fitting description; my use of "attempt" is otherwise wholly intentional, since both shiphands and women know that not all who try successfully cross the sea, and so please don't fear any loss of status on that account, as some of us know the risk you assumed before making the journey and will treat you accordingly].

Now, you can solve very nearly the entire problem if you can develop a method of birth control that is 100% effective and otherwise ensure its continued use.

Lastly, while I won't say for certain that a martini or two won't hurt, since I can't say that, since there are no guarantees, the odds are pretty good that an occasional drink or two is not going to harm your child. I doubt that anyone otherwise expects you to never have a martini or two from puberty until menopause.

I have tried fixing the links, for some reason it keeps adding a second http://

Informed decision on what? What are you informing us? That breast milk isn’t all that more important than formula, just like I argued in my last post you are devaluing the “quality” of this variable in raising a child. You have made claims that the perceived benefits are not all that great of a factor and you have also claimed that the time and money spent for the advocation of breastfeeding, publicly and in the workplace, exceeds the benefits of breastfeeding. The main basis of your argument is the devaluation breastfeeding.

And me and my supposition, yeah as a mother my life is one big event of supposition. I have based my life and how I raise my children on a huge array of things I suppose will afford my children a better life. You think the govt should be excluded from such supposition too...why?

You keep using the third world nations as an example to encourage the need for public awareness on the benefits for breastfeeding and claim that this no longer applies to us. Yes true our society is more advanced and our public health no longer is so focused on things like bad drinking water but we still need to advocate good health and primarily whole health. And even if we are no longer in the constant dilemma of life and death, we still face issues that affect our quality of life. As an advanced society our concerns for breastfeeding can focus more on the emotional issues, or the nutritional or physical benefits, we have this luxury to advance what we believe to be important to our health beyond just life and death.
I never argued we had to advocate breastfeeding based on what issues third world nations face, you did.

Lesly you are aware that breast milk is far nutritiously superior for a baby than formula? There are many advantages to breastfeeding than just the concern for immunity to disease.

Maybe we should no longer educate the public on healthy diets and good nutrition for children. Mums who feed their kids chicken nuggets, moutain dew and coco puffs then won’t have to feel guilty or like they might not be taking the best advantage of their child’s health.

Or perhaps end the advocation of breastfeeding as one of the possible and mother controlled factors in SIDS, along with educating on a public level the proper sleeping attire and sleeping positions for an infant.

All above actions are based on supposition, what is wrong with a little positive supposing?



I don’t want you to care or be amazed about the issues breastfeeding mothers face. All I want is you to recognize and support their needs. Why is that so difficult? Breastfeeding mothers are not treated fairly in public on this issue and it is one of the cited reasons mother’s mention for not opting to breastfeed or to continue it. Women have been asked to leave public places, been told to stop feeding their children, they have even had the police called on them. Does this happen to mothers who formula feed?

Also do you use the same argument above regarding the added costs to business for the accommodation's made under the ADA?

You don’t understand my argument at all, I don’t want equal standing. I am a woman not a man. I want maternity leave for women that also takes into account a nursing mother’s needs.
I don’t want indecent and public lewdness laws to apply to a breastfeedi