Wrong.
Every single time a study like this is published, the same things happen:
1. At least one media outlet will ask whether mothers are put under too much pressure to breastfeed.
2. A steady stream of mothers who did not, or could not, breastfeed for whatever reason feel compelled to explain themselves.
3. Anyone who advocates for breastfeeding is likened to a Nazi.
These things don't irk me per se, they merely indicate that the point has been spectacularly missed. Studies that prove the 'benefits' of breastfeeding are bullshit. In saying that I'm not disputing that there is a direct link between breastfeeding duration and IQ, susceptibility to illness etc - there are, these studies have perfectly valid findings. What I call bullshit on is how they explain them.
None of these studies does a thing to increase our shockingly poor breastfeeding rates. Cultures which show higher breastfeeding rates tend to have better maternity leave, less or no advertising of formula and encourage things that are just normal behaviours in other mammals, like sleeping with their offspring and carrying them (babywearing), both of which make breastfeeding a damn sight easier than having baby sleep in another room or using a pushchair, as long as they're done safely. Schools often mis-teach children that being a mammal means birthing 'live' babies as opposed to laying eggs when, in fact, it means the babies are fed with milk, even if those babies hatch from eggs, as any Duck-Billed Platypus would tell you. Humans are often reminded that we are primates, that we are not that different to apes and monkeys. I think we often forget that we (and they) are also mammals.
None of these studies does a thing to increase our shockingly poor breastfeeding rates. Cultures which show higher breastfeeding rates tend to have better maternity leave, less or no advertising of formula and encourage things that are just normal behaviours in other mammals, like sleeping with their offspring and carrying them (babywearing), both of which make breastfeeding a damn sight easier than having baby sleep in another room or using a pushchair, as long as they're done safely. Schools often mis-teach children that being a mammal means birthing 'live' babies as opposed to laying eggs when, in fact, it means the babies are fed with milk, even if those babies hatch from eggs, as any Duck-Billed Platypus would tell you. Humans are often reminded that we are primates, that we are not that different to apes and monkeys. I think we often forget that we (and they) are also mammals.
Breastfeeding isn't anything exceptional, it's not 'ideal', it's just a biological normality. It's what breasts are for. It's what mammals do: when a women births a baby, hormones are released which stimulate her breasts to make milk. When a baby suckles, it stimulates the breasts to make more milk. Breast milk is tailored to meet the baby's needs, it contains not only the precise level of nutrients they need at each stage of infancy but is packed with antibodies, affording them protection from disease until their own immune system is properly developed. It's impossible to replicate artificially. What substitutes are available are adequate at best, potentially lethal if misused. It therefore follows that a breastfed child cannot have a 'higher' IQ, merely a biologically normal one. But countless news outlets hail this recent study as demonstrating one of the many 'benefits' of breastfeeding. How can something that the body is designed to do have 'benefits'? You might as well argue the 'benefits' of being able bodied, of not having asthma, of having 20-20 vision... but we don't, because that's stupid. Likewise we don't talk about the 'benefits' of not smoking. Oh the subtlety of language.
When a part of our body stops functioning normally, we try to fix it. If someone breaks a leg, for example, it's treated by setting the fracture so it can heal, and the person uses crutches to help them walk, they don't ask for the leg to be amputated first. If someone develops a kidney disease, they're first treated with medication rather than put on dialysis. If someone needs a blood transfusion, they get given human blood rather than an artificial substitute. If a woman's breasts aren't working properly though, the default position seems to be to stop using them, to replace them with something artificial. We don't do this when other parts of our bodies aren't working properly, it seems, only breasts when we're trying to feed our babies.
It seems to me that the vast majority of mothers do want to breastfeed their babies. The reasons why so few manage to keep it up for any significant length of time are many, and I don't wish to be critical of any woman who stopped breastfeeding at any point earlier than I did (my son self-weaned at the age of three) but when I see the same old myths trotted out over and over again by women who did stop breastfeeding very early on, or by women who didn't even start breastfeeding, that does irk me. The difficulty is that it's impossible to tell who is telling the truth and who is just making an excuse, perpetuating a myth. And it doesn't matter. The point is that nobody needs to justify why they did or didn't breastfeed, or why they stopped when they did or carried on to when they did. All that matters is that every woman has the opportunity to breastfeed successfully for as long as they wish. That's bound to include some women who don't want to breastfeed at all and, as long as they're making an informed decision not to do so, then surely that's OK?
An informed decision can only be made when you have knowledge of all of the facts. This means pregnant mothers need to be told the truth, they need to understand how breastfeeding actually works, so they don't panic about not having enough milk in those early days when it seems they can only produce a few drops, that babies don't all eat on the same schedule, that newborns have tiny stomachs and wake frequently and that that's normal. They need to be told how much harder it is to sterilise bottles and make up feeds freshly every time a baby is hungry, and what they risk if they don't make up a fresh bottle every time. They need to be told what the health implications of not breastfeeding are for themselves as well as their babies. They need to understand the difference between risk and certainty - that breastfeeding won't prevent them from getting cancer, that it won't make their baby smarter, that not breastfeeding only increases the risk of cancer, that it might mean their child might not reach their full intelligence potential.
It might seem obvious to some that because not breastfeeding has so many risks associated with it, every mother would choose to do it no matter what, but it's not that simple. If women weighed up risks vs convenience every time then we'd never take our babies out in the car, never give them jarred food, never use disposable nappies etc. When we opt for convenience over 'benefit' for our children we aim to do so at minimal risk, but we still take a risk. The issue for me is that most of us are barely aware of the risks of not breastfeeding. Anyone who tries to talk about them gets accused of bullying.
The biggest problem is that not breastfeeding is what's normal now. I remember seeing my cousins being breastfed as a child but, beyond that, I don't remember seeing anyone doing it in my day-to-day life. It's very rare to see film or television babies being breastfed. If breastfeeding is mentioned, it's usually in a comic or derogatory way. It's very rarely portrayed for what it is - just a baby eating. Friend had a baby? You won't find a 'congratulations on your new baby' card depicting breastfeeding. And the only time you'll see breastfeeding in an advert is when it's being used by a formula company to promote their product.
It's illegal to advertise or promote infant formula in the UK. 'Infant' formula being the first stage stuff you give to newborns. If a baby has formula, that's the only kind they need. There's no medical reason for any of the other kinds, the companies only created it to get around the ban on advertising. You might argue that's not fair, that mothers should have the right to compare products and decide which one to give their baby, right? But they're all the same. They have to be by law. There's absolutely no difference between the cheapest and most expensive brands, you're just paying for the name. Paying for them to advertise their other products. Inflating the price of the thing you need to keep your baby alive to pay for people to tell mothers in the developing world that their breast milk isn't good enough for their babies, to provide them with just enough formula to use until their breast milk is gone, forcing them to spend every penny they have to buy more formula which they can't even prepare safely because they have no access to clean water at home, effectively killing their babies. That's what formula companies do. They kill babies. They aren't interested in making their products better, safer, not interested in the health of your baby, they're only interested in profit. When breastfeeding advocates speak negatively about formula, it's usually in reference to these practises, not the product itself.
Infant formula has a legitimate place. Whilst wet-nursing is a possibility, it's a very rare occurrence in the West and carries its own risks - ones we just didn't know about when it was more regularly practised here, like HIV. The same is true of donor milk, unless it is properly screened. But you wouldn't accept a blood transfusion that hadn't been properly screened, would you? Mothers who accept donor milk directly from other mothers choose to take a risk in doing so, but milk banks exist in the same way blood banks do it's just the milk is given to premature or sick babies as a priority. It's not that radical an idea to have milk banks accessible to all, if enough women were willing to donate milk. Since such a system doesn't exist, if a woman cannot or does not breastfeed for whatever reason, there is is formula. It's an adequate substitute. Used properly it has minimal risk. But it's like any other medicine, there are potential side effects. Formula is a medicine, it is artificial and it is, we must be honest, inferior to breast milk. Vastly inferior. But rather than have a go at people like me who keep having to point that out, why aren't people having a go at the people who make it? Why aren't they telling them to make it better? Why aren't they complaining about the mark-up they have to pay and demanding less advertising so the product becomes cheaper? Why have a go at people like me who point out how unethical practises by companies like Nestle cause the deaths of so many babies around the world rather than telling them to stop those unethical practises? That's stupid.
There's often talk about women being 'pressured' to breastfeed, but I've never witnessed or experienced this. What I do see, all the time, is women who've been given wrong information, bad advice and wholly inadequate support taking the responsibility for other people's failures onto themselves. They feel the need to justify themselves, to 'make excuses', and they seem to take anything said about breastfeeding personally, whether positive or negative. This manifests most often as guilt. Sometimes anger. Almost always directed at the wrong person. Whilst it's true that all the necessary information is out there, not every woman is capable of seeking it out for herself. Many will need guidance and a lot of support. People learn in different ways and that means some women will need to be shown how to breastfeed, just reading about it won't be enough. That means breastfeeding needs to be seen, just for starters.
If something goes wrong with a part of our body, we go to the doctor. The problem is that doctors generally know squat about breastfeeding. They simply don't get taught enough about it. Specialist breastfeeding support isn't readily available everywhere. Women are told to stop breastfeeding because they have to take certain medications all the time, when the reality is that very few medications necessitate this. They're told not to breastfeed after certain medical or dental procedures, when there's no medical need to do so. They're told there's no reason to continue to breastfeed when their baby hits a certain age. It's all bollocks.
We do not need any more studies looking into the 'benefits' of breastfeeding. If I'm honest, we don't really need any studies that look into the risks of not breastfeeding either. What we need is a society that doesn't bat an eyelid when a woman breastfeeds her child, no matter where they are, no matter how old the child is. We need a society that gives parents decent maternity leave, that allows flexibility for mothers who return to work and wish to continue breastfeeding their children. We need a society where people expect breasts to be used for breastfeeding, not just to titillate men, where women are measured by much more than just the pertness of their breasts. We need a society where breastfeeding is just normal. If it were just the normal thing to do, more women would do it. But if we want people to see it as normal, we have to start portraying it as normal.
Where I live there is a programme that aims to support mothers who wish to breastfeed by ensuring they are seen by a trained Breastfeeding Support Worker as soon as possible after their baby is born. Part of this process includes referring them to a breastfeeding group - not for support as such, although the volunteers are trained to offer advice on how to overcome the more common problems women face, but as a means of putting them in touch with other breastfeeding mothers, or women who have breastfed. The women who volunteer for these groups are amazing. They help to normalise breastfeeding. They (pardon the pun) bust myths, they share their stories so new mothers know what's normal and what's not. Often, they have overcome a particular difficulty themselves and breastfed after a traumatic or surgical birth, breastfed multiple babies, premature or very sick babies, breastfed despite their own health problems, breastfed after they returned to work, breastfed older children. They encourage, they inspire, they empower other women. It's easier and more accepted for them to speak about the 'benefits' of breastfeeding - it's seen as gentler, less confrontational. That infuriates me and it's one of several reasons why I had to stop volunteering for one such group. That's not a criticism of the excellent work they continue to do, more an admission of where I stand. The older I get, the more I am becoming attuned to the subtlety of language, the more I see breastfeeding as a political and public health issue, albeit a particularly emotive one. One we seem to be talking about in completely the wrong way. Breastfeeding has no benefits.
What saddens me most about this is I'm not the first person to say it. Diane Wiessinger did almost twenty years ago in her article titled 'Watch Your Language' and very little has changed. I think perhaps she said it much better than I have, but the fact that so little has changed means I'm not going to stop saying it - shouting it if I have to - until they do. Until it stops being news when a woman is asked to cover up or stop breastfeeding. Until it stops being news that science has proven a link between breastfeeding duration and any given desirable health or social outcome. Until an entire generation of women grow up knowing how to breastfeed long before they decide to have children. Until it's just something women do and nobody bats an eyelid.
But until then, Kellymom is perhaps the best available resource on breastfeeding on the Internet, Baby Milk Action the only charity dedicated to protecting all babies whether breast or formula fed from the evil corporations who care more about profits than they do babies and Cradles are just, well, awesome.
When a part of our body stops functioning normally, we try to fix it. If someone breaks a leg, for example, it's treated by setting the fracture so it can heal, and the person uses crutches to help them walk, they don't ask for the leg to be amputated first. If someone develops a kidney disease, they're first treated with medication rather than put on dialysis. If someone needs a blood transfusion, they get given human blood rather than an artificial substitute. If a woman's breasts aren't working properly though, the default position seems to be to stop using them, to replace them with something artificial. We don't do this when other parts of our bodies aren't working properly, it seems, only breasts when we're trying to feed our babies.
It seems to me that the vast majority of mothers do want to breastfeed their babies. The reasons why so few manage to keep it up for any significant length of time are many, and I don't wish to be critical of any woman who stopped breastfeeding at any point earlier than I did (my son self-weaned at the age of three) but when I see the same old myths trotted out over and over again by women who did stop breastfeeding very early on, or by women who didn't even start breastfeeding, that does irk me. The difficulty is that it's impossible to tell who is telling the truth and who is just making an excuse, perpetuating a myth. And it doesn't matter. The point is that nobody needs to justify why they did or didn't breastfeed, or why they stopped when they did or carried on to when they did. All that matters is that every woman has the opportunity to breastfeed successfully for as long as they wish. That's bound to include some women who don't want to breastfeed at all and, as long as they're making an informed decision not to do so, then surely that's OK?
An informed decision can only be made when you have knowledge of all of the facts. This means pregnant mothers need to be told the truth, they need to understand how breastfeeding actually works, so they don't panic about not having enough milk in those early days when it seems they can only produce a few drops, that babies don't all eat on the same schedule, that newborns have tiny stomachs and wake frequently and that that's normal. They need to be told how much harder it is to sterilise bottles and make up feeds freshly every time a baby is hungry, and what they risk if they don't make up a fresh bottle every time. They need to be told what the health implications of not breastfeeding are for themselves as well as their babies. They need to understand the difference between risk and certainty - that breastfeeding won't prevent them from getting cancer, that it won't make their baby smarter, that not breastfeeding only increases the risk of cancer, that it might mean their child might not reach their full intelligence potential.
It might seem obvious to some that because not breastfeeding has so many risks associated with it, every mother would choose to do it no matter what, but it's not that simple. If women weighed up risks vs convenience every time then we'd never take our babies out in the car, never give them jarred food, never use disposable nappies etc. When we opt for convenience over 'benefit' for our children we aim to do so at minimal risk, but we still take a risk. The issue for me is that most of us are barely aware of the risks of not breastfeeding. Anyone who tries to talk about them gets accused of bullying.
The biggest problem is that not breastfeeding is what's normal now. I remember seeing my cousins being breastfed as a child but, beyond that, I don't remember seeing anyone doing it in my day-to-day life. It's very rare to see film or television babies being breastfed. If breastfeeding is mentioned, it's usually in a comic or derogatory way. It's very rarely portrayed for what it is - just a baby eating. Friend had a baby? You won't find a 'congratulations on your new baby' card depicting breastfeeding. And the only time you'll see breastfeeding in an advert is when it's being used by a formula company to promote their product.
It's illegal to advertise or promote infant formula in the UK. 'Infant' formula being the first stage stuff you give to newborns. If a baby has formula, that's the only kind they need. There's no medical reason for any of the other kinds, the companies only created it to get around the ban on advertising. You might argue that's not fair, that mothers should have the right to compare products and decide which one to give their baby, right? But they're all the same. They have to be by law. There's absolutely no difference between the cheapest and most expensive brands, you're just paying for the name. Paying for them to advertise their other products. Inflating the price of the thing you need to keep your baby alive to pay for people to tell mothers in the developing world that their breast milk isn't good enough for their babies, to provide them with just enough formula to use until their breast milk is gone, forcing them to spend every penny they have to buy more formula which they can't even prepare safely because they have no access to clean water at home, effectively killing their babies. That's what formula companies do. They kill babies. They aren't interested in making their products better, safer, not interested in the health of your baby, they're only interested in profit. When breastfeeding advocates speak negatively about formula, it's usually in reference to these practises, not the product itself.
Infant formula has a legitimate place. Whilst wet-nursing is a possibility, it's a very rare occurrence in the West and carries its own risks - ones we just didn't know about when it was more regularly practised here, like HIV. The same is true of donor milk, unless it is properly screened. But you wouldn't accept a blood transfusion that hadn't been properly screened, would you? Mothers who accept donor milk directly from other mothers choose to take a risk in doing so, but milk banks exist in the same way blood banks do it's just the milk is given to premature or sick babies as a priority. It's not that radical an idea to have milk banks accessible to all, if enough women were willing to donate milk. Since such a system doesn't exist, if a woman cannot or does not breastfeed for whatever reason, there is is formula. It's an adequate substitute. Used properly it has minimal risk. But it's like any other medicine, there are potential side effects. Formula is a medicine, it is artificial and it is, we must be honest, inferior to breast milk. Vastly inferior. But rather than have a go at people like me who keep having to point that out, why aren't people having a go at the people who make it? Why aren't they telling them to make it better? Why aren't they complaining about the mark-up they have to pay and demanding less advertising so the product becomes cheaper? Why have a go at people like me who point out how unethical practises by companies like Nestle cause the deaths of so many babies around the world rather than telling them to stop those unethical practises? That's stupid.
There's often talk about women being 'pressured' to breastfeed, but I've never witnessed or experienced this. What I do see, all the time, is women who've been given wrong information, bad advice and wholly inadequate support taking the responsibility for other people's failures onto themselves. They feel the need to justify themselves, to 'make excuses', and they seem to take anything said about breastfeeding personally, whether positive or negative. This manifests most often as guilt. Sometimes anger. Almost always directed at the wrong person. Whilst it's true that all the necessary information is out there, not every woman is capable of seeking it out for herself. Many will need guidance and a lot of support. People learn in different ways and that means some women will need to be shown how to breastfeed, just reading about it won't be enough. That means breastfeeding needs to be seen, just for starters.
If something goes wrong with a part of our body, we go to the doctor. The problem is that doctors generally know squat about breastfeeding. They simply don't get taught enough about it. Specialist breastfeeding support isn't readily available everywhere. Women are told to stop breastfeeding because they have to take certain medications all the time, when the reality is that very few medications necessitate this. They're told not to breastfeed after certain medical or dental procedures, when there's no medical need to do so. They're told there's no reason to continue to breastfeed when their baby hits a certain age. It's all bollocks.
We do not need any more studies looking into the 'benefits' of breastfeeding. If I'm honest, we don't really need any studies that look into the risks of not breastfeeding either. What we need is a society that doesn't bat an eyelid when a woman breastfeeds her child, no matter where they are, no matter how old the child is. We need a society that gives parents decent maternity leave, that allows flexibility for mothers who return to work and wish to continue breastfeeding their children. We need a society where people expect breasts to be used for breastfeeding, not just to titillate men, where women are measured by much more than just the pertness of their breasts. We need a society where breastfeeding is just normal. If it were just the normal thing to do, more women would do it. But if we want people to see it as normal, we have to start portraying it as normal.
Where I live there is a programme that aims to support mothers who wish to breastfeed by ensuring they are seen by a trained Breastfeeding Support Worker as soon as possible after their baby is born. Part of this process includes referring them to a breastfeeding group - not for support as such, although the volunteers are trained to offer advice on how to overcome the more common problems women face, but as a means of putting them in touch with other breastfeeding mothers, or women who have breastfed. The women who volunteer for these groups are amazing. They help to normalise breastfeeding. They (pardon the pun) bust myths, they share their stories so new mothers know what's normal and what's not. Often, they have overcome a particular difficulty themselves and breastfed after a traumatic or surgical birth, breastfed multiple babies, premature or very sick babies, breastfed despite their own health problems, breastfed after they returned to work, breastfed older children. They encourage, they inspire, they empower other women. It's easier and more accepted for them to speak about the 'benefits' of breastfeeding - it's seen as gentler, less confrontational. That infuriates me and it's one of several reasons why I had to stop volunteering for one such group. That's not a criticism of the excellent work they continue to do, more an admission of where I stand. The older I get, the more I am becoming attuned to the subtlety of language, the more I see breastfeeding as a political and public health issue, albeit a particularly emotive one. One we seem to be talking about in completely the wrong way. Breastfeeding has no benefits.
What saddens me most about this is I'm not the first person to say it. Diane Wiessinger did almost twenty years ago in her article titled 'Watch Your Language' and very little has changed. I think perhaps she said it much better than I have, but the fact that so little has changed means I'm not going to stop saying it - shouting it if I have to - until they do. Until it stops being news when a woman is asked to cover up or stop breastfeeding. Until it stops being news that science has proven a link between breastfeeding duration and any given desirable health or social outcome. Until an entire generation of women grow up knowing how to breastfeed long before they decide to have children. Until it's just something women do and nobody bats an eyelid.
But until then, Kellymom is perhaps the best available resource on breastfeeding on the Internet, Baby Milk Action the only charity dedicated to protecting all babies whether breast or formula fed from the evil corporations who care more about profits than they do babies and Cradles are just, well, awesome.
