10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)

Larry wrote:
Gettin paid is NOT a requirement for working. Only in the commercial
environment. You belittle everyone who isn't in the commerical
environment with that comment!

Jeez Larry, I was just kidding. Stay-at-home moms don't get paid in the
sense that they collect a paycheck at the end of the week and they don't
have a boss and co-workers. Brookben was being sarcastic and avoiding
answering the question, so I'm being sarcastic back at her. How are you
paying the bills if you're not working for money?
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

wrote in message
To get breastfeeding more into the mainstream -- allow me to emphasize
that I mean *in America* -- women need to get better maternity leaves.
The reason formula feeding is so prevalent has much to do with the
pitiful leaves women are provided. Forget polarizing the formula versus
breast crowd. Everyone needs to pull together to get new moms some
half-decent paid leave so they can be home to get BF established. The
you can worry about the public health message. American politicians
pull out the "family values" rhetoric at every opportunity. Family
values my ass. You need to get some action from those people.

You can advertise the perils of formula and the advantage of breast all
you want but if a mom has to go back to work after 6 weeks the odds are
firmly stacked against a long term BF relationship.

I'll bet you'd see your BF numbers rise then.

Very good post. That is the crux of the problem, imo. It's not the
advertising of formula. Maternity leave is a problem and so is the lack of
education of doctors. Doctors need to promote breastfeeding and to be more
supportive and more help to moms who have problems. This brow-beating women
and suggesting that formula be a prescription is ludicrous. Definitely not
the way to win people over to breastfeeding. Anyway, something is working
because all the new moms I am in contact with do indeed breastfeed.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

Sue writes:

wrote
You can advertise the perils of formula and the advantage of breast all
you want but if a mom has to go back to work after 6 weeks the odds are
firmly stacked against a long term BF relationship.

I'll bet you'd see your BF numbers rise then.

Very good post. That is the crux of the problem, imo.

It's an appealing theory, I agree - but according to

http://www.lalecheleague.org/cbi/bfstats03.html

the US has does not have strikingly worse proportions of women
breastfeeding, either at initiation or at 4-6 months, than the UK which has
much better maternity leave.

Comparing the figures: Which way round the comparison is depends on exactly
where you look - England and Wales has figures remarkably close to the US's
- 70%-ish initiating breastfeeding and 30%-ish continuing at 4-6 months -
but Scotland (at least for initiation rates) and NI bring the UK figures
down to lower than the US).

UK maternity leave: You're normally entitled to go back to your job after
up to a year off, although much of that time will be without pay and
therefore not available to everyone. Normally people are paid something,
ranging from 90% of salary for the first 6 weeks to 100 pounds/week up to 6
months. I'm simplifying, but basically this is the legal minimum - many
(most?) employers are more generous. Full pay for 3 months is probably
fairly typical. Going back at 6 weeks would be seen as very shocking here,
though it does occasionally happen.

Maybe we can draw some comfort from Scandinavia, which is much better than
either US or UK on both counts, but it's clear the relationship is not
simple.

Sidheag
DS Colin Oct 27 2003

wrote:

[snip]
What if a mum *just doesn't want to breastfeed*.

You cannot just chuck away a woman's right to choose how she uses *HER*
body. We are in the 21st century for goodess sake.

And THAT's where the great divide lies. I think all parties in this
argument are being sympathetic to those who can't breastfeed, whether
because they were ripped off by misinformation, or just don't have boobs
that do that.

But I don't think you're gonna find too many people around here who will
support someone who just doesn't wanna. That's unreasonable, for this
venue.

I've gotta disagree with the "right to choose" thing when it comes to
substances that affect the health of the child. Like pregnancy, it's no
longer just her body. I would equate that with the consideration of
whether a woman who is breastfeeding should smoke, or drink, or take
drugs. It's not just her body, it's the child's, too. Just so, the
decision to use formula shouldn't be based solely on the mother's
preferences.

That's why oregonchick is such a mighty, mighty hero in my book. She
doesn't just not want to, she hates the whole producing milk thing,
and has a quite legitimate reason for never doing it, and she's done it
anyway, for months.

I think that's the key issue we need to be honest about. That *just
doesn't want to breastfeed* thing should be considered a lifestyle
choice, and subject to the same degree of public comment (coming from a
former smoker) as smoking or doing drugs. We don't tiptoe around the
feelings of smokers, we send 'em out in the rain.
--
Cheri Stryker
mom to DS1 - almost 7!, and DS2 - almost 3 months

Cheri Stryker wrote:

SNIP


I've gotta disagree with the "right to choose" thing when it comes to
substances that affect the health of the child. Like pregnancy, it's no
longer just her body. I would equate that with the consideration of
whether a woman who is breastfeeding should smoke, or drink, or take
drugs. It's not just her body, it's the child's, too. Just so, the
decision to use formula shouldn't be based solely on the mother's
preferences.

I think you're on a slippery slope, and I'm still on the 'right to
choose' thing w/r/t substances that affect the health of a child.
Where does one draw the line -- simply at smoking, alcohol, and drugs?
At eating junk food (soda, candy) or empty calories? At taking pain
meds during labor? At convenience inductions? Drinking coffee?

All of these things affect the health of the child. One could argue
that many of the above are also 'lifestyle choices' -- I'd rather
discreetly sidestep all of this, and rely upon the judgement of Moms to
make educated choices that best fit their situation. I do tiptoe around
the feelings of people who chose to have an induction, or take pain
meds, or consume soda while pregnant -- because I don't believe that my
experience and my body give me the de facto right to make negative
public comments. (And I not-so-secretly empathize with people who just
couldn't give up coffee

Caledonia

Cheri Stryker wrote:

And THAT's where the great divide lies.
snip

I've gotta disagree with the "right to choose" thing when it comes to
substances that affect the health of the child. Like pregnancy, it's no
longer just her body. I would equate that with the consideration of
whether a woman who is breastfeeding should smoke, or drink, or take
drugs. It's not just her body, it's the child's, too. Just so, the
decision to use formula shouldn't be based solely on the mother's
preferences.

Hmmm... Well, I do agree with you to a certain extent. I certainly
agree that when you're pregnant, it's no longer 'just your body' --
which is why I am pro-life. And I also agree (and daresay that
everyone else on this board also agrees) that breastmilk is superior to
formula, and that breastfeeding should be encouraged and normalized and
supported to a far greater extent than it is at present.

BUT, while I acknowledge that formula is sub-optimal for babies, I
*certainly* don't believe that it's bad enough, even in comparison with
breastmilk, to (implicitly) put in on the same level as abortion, in
terms of women's rights and babies' rights!! (Correct me if I'm
misinterpreting what you were saying, Cheri!) Even with its many
documented drawbacks, formula is an acceptable source of nutrition for
most babies.

I agree that we (you know, the great societal we...) should emphasise
the needs/preferences of babies. I also think that the language of
women's rights/'control over my body' can obscure and impede the rights
of babies. However, when it comes to breastfeeding vs. formula
feeding, I don't think we need to be as dogmatic. Parents have to make
choices between what's best for individual family members and what's
best for the family as a whole all the time. I choose to take Micah on
multiple plane trips (he'll have flown over 10 times by his 2nd
birthday) -- even though he frequently gets sick after all the plane
germs, I think the benefits of us seeing family outweighs his health
'preferences,' his nap needs, his sleeping schedule, etc. Obviously,
if he were autoimmune compromised, I'd make a different choice.
Similarly, I think it's much more than just conceivable that many
mothers choose to supplement or totally FF because they've decided the
benefits for their family (which includes the baby!) outweigh the
health benefits of BFing. In this light, I think the (rhetorical?? I
hope!!!) suggestion that formula be prescription-only is pretty
patronizing, if not bordering on facist...

Obviously, I think we need better support for breastfeeding, better
maternity leaves, better education, all the suggestions people here
have made. I think the efforts of the formula companies to sabotage
breastfeeding should be illegal (my neighbor just got a formula sample
from her ped, and she's 12 weeks pregnant!! that incensed me). But I
guess I disagree on where Cheri's "great divide" lies. Rather than
between those who privilege mother's preferences over babies' rights
(and isn't THAT a loaded way to describe it??), perhaps it's between
those who think formula is the root of all evil, and those who think
it's not as good, but not the absolute worst thing to be inflicted on
the next generation.

Em
mama to Micah, 11/14/04

Cheri Stryker wrote:

I've gotta disagree with the "right to choose" thing when it comes to
substances that affect the health of the child. Like pregnancy, it's no

yes, to clarify, I am not in any way comparing the "choice" of what to
feed a child, and the choice whether or not to have an abortion. That's
a whole other moral and emotional level, and best not to even touch it
in this discussion.

FWIW, I really don't like the use of "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" jargon,
because using such terms really muddies the issue of what's actually
going on.
--
Cheri Stryker
mom to DS1 - almost 7!, and DS2 - almost 3 months

Caledonia writes:


: I'm no longer in the paid workforce, and didn't feel belittled by Sue's
: comment. I'd like, frankly, to sidestep the whole WOH/SAH thing, except
: to say that it's a lot trickier to make bf work when you're WOH,

Agreed! There are several other interesting posts in this thread on
that subject I have already read.

Let's just say that US employment policies are yet another factor
that works against improving breastfeeding rates.

Larry

Sorry Sue, I missed the smiley!

:-)
Larry

Sue writes:
: Larry wrote:
: Gettin paid is NOT a requirement for working. Only in the commercial
: environment. You belittle everyone who isn't in the commerical
: environment with that comment!

: Jeez Larry, I was just kidding. Stay-at-home moms don't get paid in the
: sense that they collect a paycheck at the end of the week and they don't
: have a boss and co-workers. Brookben was being sarcastic and avoiding
: answering the question, so I'm being sarcastic back at her. How are you
: paying the bills if you're not working for money?
: --
: Sue (mom to three girls)

writes:

: Brookben wrote:

: I think Larry is on to something when he mentioned that formula should
: be prescription only.

: So you think it morally, emotionally and physically ok to *FORCE* women
: who are in GREAT PAIN to continue bf'ing unless they can persuade their
: GP to give them a prescription because all else had FAILED.

What ever makes you think a GP would not immediately write a script if
a mother came to him/her and asked for one. He is NOT going to further
endanger the health of the child by trying to force the mother to feed.
This is a specious argument.

: What if a mum *just doesn't want to breastfeed*.

She gets a script.

: You cannot just chuck away a woman's right to choose how she uses *HER*
: body. We are in the 21st century for goodess sake.

Others in this thread have talked about the right of the mom versus the
right of the baby. I think even framing the question in these terms is
totally unrealistic, because I don't think it would ever get to this
point. I think the more likely possibility is that it would be one
more opportunity to to educate and convince the uncertain mom who
would otherwise run out and buy a tin of formula and compromise her
supply by supplementing because she is afraid her supply is not enough,
although she has no real evidence to that effect.

: At such a *vulnerable* time in a new mum and babies lives I cannot
: believe this idea is even being considered. It's completely bonkers. I
: find the concept completely shocking and I am appalled that so many
: here really truly cannot see how awful it is. With attitudes like that
: there really is no future for me here. I am so so sorry for new bf'ing
: or ff'ing mums who come across you all and are faced with such
: attitudes. You are doing more harm than good but you just cannot see
: it. It's very sad.

I think posing the question as a rights argument is a red herring and
totally ignores the reality of how insidiously formula marketing is
used to make it a replacement to breastfeeding without any concious
thought.

I think that the only forcing that would occur is that it would cause
a woman to make a conscious decision to stop breastfeeding rather than
having it happen as a slippery slope of unconsiously taken actions,
and she would have to take decisive action (asking for the script)
in order to take the actions. I think it would be a vast social
improvement.

: Jeni

Larry