Breastfeeding

I,ll have a search, G2. Something I read recently but I can't remember where.

I googled "does bottle feeding cause health problems". Most of the results on the first page (just scanning, not deep study) seemed to be emphasising the hygiene aspect that one has to bear in mind with bottle feeding, as you would expect.

However, I did find this from a Guardian article in 2010:
The message to parents and to health professionals is that – as long as a baby is healthy and born at full-term – a small infant should not be given extra food. Those who are at the bottom end of the growth chart should stay there, he says. Plump and bouncing babies are not necessarily the ideal.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/30/bottle-feeding-babies-adult-obesity

I think that bit about small babies is tosh. Here's why. DD1 was near "the bottom end of the growth chart" when she was born (6lb 1oz). She was exclusively breast fed on demand and at three and a half weeks she weighed 9lb 10oz so was no longer at the bottom end of the growth chart. She was a plump, bouncing, healthy baby, grew into not plump, neat-figured, bouncing healthy child and adult.

I'll keep looking for the other thing. I breast fed all three of my kids and they were, and are, all healthy, but my mum bottle fed all five of her kids and we were all healthy too. This makes me think that health depends on other things, including most probably, one's genetic make-up, much more than on what one was fed as a baby.

That quote from the Guardian article by some medic on a mission is tosh because it says absolutely nothing useful except perhaps the bit about "extra food" but it isn't clear what he meant by that.

A French woman was interviewed on the radio a couple of days ago. She said in France it is the norm to bottle feed. When she attended an anti natal class in this country she was amazed a) at the number of women who were expecting to breast feed and the social and medical pressure on them to do so and b) the disapproval aimed at those, like herself, who had no intention of breast feeding.

I cannot quite see how this payment can work for all the reasons described. There are some people who really cannot breast feed but a lot of women and particularly younger mothers just find the whole idea disgusting. (Rather like my mother) but I didn't let her put me off.
I cannot help feeling parental mind set is very important here.

Lots of active support by midwives and feeding counsellors is needed. Regular midwife visits don't seem to happen any more.

My DDs local children's centre was very near and they held a breast feeding cafe once a week which offered support and advice. This was in an area of housing where there was quite a degree of deprivation. I doubt if rates there were very high.

I am afraid there is probably a big link between rates of breast feeding, educational attainment and socio economic status.
I don't think it's that bottle feeding causing health problems.

Some studies have suggested that a vaginal birth and early breast feeding appears to make a difference with regard to developing some allergies but I don't know if this evidence is conclusive. Haven't got time to find the studies right now.

As I "failed" twice to have a normal delivery and had an elective C section the second time I did at least feel very pleased I had managed breast feed.

(This was a time when the woman's movement were getting very uptight about intervention in this wonderful natural process. If you could not give birth behind the tree in the garden you were letting down other woman.)

I don't think it's so much that bottle feeding causes health problems as breast milk confers health benefits. There is a difference and there is evidence to support this. In fact when you think about it it's common sense that human milk must be better for babies than modified milk from a different species. That's not to place any guilt on mothers who can't or choose not to breastfeed, and it's not to say that bottle fed babies can't do very well, it's just a fact.

I think Flickety explained the rationale behind this scheme, which is to reach out to lower socioeconomic groups where bottle feeding is the norm and mothers may need an incentive to buck the trend, and to explain to their friends why they are doing it. £200 is a lot of money to these mums but it still won't work without proper support and advice. In my experience midwives and health visitors are not necessarily the best people to offer this, unless they have had specialist training and have time to do it.

£200 per baby spent on other ways of supporting and encouraging mothers trying to breatfeed would have more effect.

The same £200 could also be spent on mothers who can't/don't breastfeed to help them in the difficult first days and weeks. They may be facing other problems too.

Where is the empathy for the first time mother, who, no fault of her own, cannot have a vaginal birth or breastfeed?

She will no doubt have seen the posters at ante natal clinics that 'breast is best' and there the pressure starts, if she can't do this, she has already failed. 'Love is best'

I breastfed with no problems, so count myself very lucky. I agree that there is a lot more pressure on new mums these days to breastfeed - I'm sure a lot of it is down to targets that have to be met - and that this will just add to that pressure for some. I know someone who was given a pamphlet, one of many, by her midwife that emphasised how happy her partner would be if she breastfed because she would get her figure back quickly.

I always liked Hugh Jolly - he talked a lot of commonsense.

If mothers from lower socio economic groups (working class do we mean?) are so desperate for money that they cannot afford to turn down the chance of £200, what happens then?

We may very well end up with a situation where mothers are reluctantly breast feeding whilst feeling resentful and coerced. What effect might that have on the mother/baby bond?

This emphasis on breast feeding is a culturally determined thing. As I said in a previous post, French women are much more likely to bottle feed.

Why can't people just do what they want to do and let other do the same?

Cash would be better used employing more (some?) health visitors!

I had two healthy babies and count myself lucky.

I agree with petallus and lilygran

I agree, nightowl, that it's the benefits of breast feeding that make the difference. However, I'm not sure the benefits are so huge that we need this kind of 'campaign' and pressure on young mothers. I used to think the benefits were huge. Now I'm not so sure though I do know there are some. That's why I breast fed my babies. That and the fact that for me it was easy. It isn't easy for everyone.

I too used to think the benefits were huge, thatbags. Looking back, I was probably a very smug breastfeeder. But although there are certainly advantages, bottle feeding has some too. The baby's father can take his turn, probably leading to a closer relationship with the little one. Mothers can go back to work if they want/need to. Even being able to go to the pictures or out with friends occasionally must be a boon to new parents. Even shopping without a baby in tow. Expressing never worked for me and I fed on demand. I don't think I had a night out for around 4 years!

My doctor said that breast milk was best because the cat couldn`t get at it! Seriously though, I enjoyed breast feeding all five of mine, albeit it for only 3 or 4 months.

I enjoyed breast feeding too and found it easier on a cold night to get the baby plugged in than to hang about waiting for a bottle to heat. Also DH decided that as he could sleep at night, he would bring me a morning cup of coffee, and that went on until the youngest DC was at secondary school, so was a good bargain, I think! However, I was bottle fed myself as my mother couldn't get breast feeding established, and I feel quite healthy, touch wood. One DGC was vaginally delivered and breast fed and has multiple allergies, so might muck up somebody's study. Can we join your family in wrecking the data, J52?

I think this campaign is intended to influence mothers who from the start have absolutely no intention of breast feeding.

There must be many reasons for not wanting to even try.
Perhaps the support workers trying to encourage mums to breast feed really should try to find out exactly what it is that stops women from doing so.
Just to say "I do not want to" without being able to explain why suggests that they may have not actually thought hard about why they feel like this.

I wonder if any researcher has looked in detail at the reasons that are given. This might lead to the chance to discuss with groups of the more reluctant mums and young mums. It could be done in a way that would appeal to younger mums and challenge opinions. All done sensitively of course.
I wonder how much reluctance is due to feeling it is disgusting or have family who pass on that attitude. Or is it embarrassment at being seen to do it or that a younger mothers might feel ridiculed my her friends for breast feeding. Any ex health visitors, midwives breast feeding counsellors out there.
Lilygran put your hand up please, you might have an answer.

I wouldn't have thought in this day of political correctness that it would be possible to say if you breast feed you get money and if you don't tough. There are millions of women (me included) who would have loved to breastfeed their children but couldn't and no amount of money would make it happen. This is some form of bullying or exclusion and it should not happen. Yes some mothers might be encouraged to breastfeed but lots more will feel even worse than they do already. There are many mothers who would welcome this sum of money to help with all the costs of a newborn and it should be available to all.

Yes, it's bullying (or at least coercion) and usually goes from those who think they know better to others lower down the social scale who are thought to need enlightening.

Didn't the upper classes employ wet nurses years ago? Probably many still do. I don't suppose they were/are subject to these pressures.

Thank you for the vote of confidence, Nelliemoser! I can't add anything really conclusive to the debate about why women don't breast feed. There are so many reasons. Some women struggle to produce enough milk for a hungry baby, others have funny shaped nipples or uncooperative babies, some get infections or really badly cracked nipples, others find their OH or their mother or MiL isn't very supportive. The factors that make it easier seem to be good support in the early days - someone who knows what they're talking about, family members who give help and support and some experience of breast feeding sisters, aunts, mothers, MiLs and friends. You've got an uphill struggle if the baby howls all the time, the grandmother(s) keep saying, poor lamb, he/she's hungry, no-one else in your social circle is breast feeding and your OH wants you to get rid of the nursing bra and come out on the town.

"Probably many still do"

No! No way!!!

(petallus' post down there)

I know of several young mothers that have determined right from the start that they wouldn't breast feed because it's 'gross' . I think that's the attitude that the campaign wants to stop. When animals are orphaned they have to have special formulas made for them so why can human babies just have cows milk [albeit altered in some way]? It is rotten for mothers that want to breast feed and can't though, but I don't think this initiative should stop because of that, as they'd be the first people to understand the importance of it.

But how is paying those mothers £200 going to stop them from thinking that breastfeeding is 'gross'?

Because £200 might help them overcome their 'aversion' to it. Bit like telling a small child that if they eat one sprout they can have pudding afterwards .