The blog “rational moms” is a welcome antidote to the tendency of the Internet and blogging to foster uncritical thinking. “Julie” – a “diehard breast feeder” – writes:
On an intuitive level, it seems obvious that the best food for baby humans is human milk. But the prevailing sentiment that all women can breast feed, if only given enough “support,” is counterintuitive. Some women do have low supply, and that’s that. And some women cannot keep up with pumping when they return to work. Even with things going swimmingly, nursing is a hell of a commitment. After doing it a few months, I was somewhat amazed that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breastfeeding for a year. I mean, really? A year? That seems quite intense. And they’re not even going all the way. World Health Organization recommends two years.
Although I never questioned that breast milk is optimal, facing a year of nursing made me wonder: how optimal are we talking here? I read the AAP’s statement on breastfeeding, which claims that breast feeding can reduce illnesses and may reduce the incidence of SIDS as well as provide a host of other long term health benefits. However, becoming more of a critical thinker means that I can’t accept the ubiquitous phrase, “Studies have shown,” without asking some key questions about the studies. What kind of studies were they? Were confounding factors taken into account in these studies?
As STATS has pointed out (in an investigation written by three scientists all of whom breast fed their children), when you look at what the data really says, the credibility gap between data and health policy can be hard to swallow.
November 12, 2008 at 9:25 pm |
If I’m not mistaken, the WHO recommends breast-feeding for up to two years because of the prevalence of infant malnutrition in many parts of the world (emphasis on World in WHO). When in doubt, they’re recommending a mother breast-feed.
I’m reminded of comments made by Michael Pollan in his book In Defense of Food, in which he criticizes manufactured food and “nutritionism” (losing sight of the forest for the trees, if you will) by the tragic mistakes made in the development of infant formula. Of course, infant formula has come a long way, but at what point do we accept a manufactured substitute to breast milk (on which our species evolved)? At what point do accept manufactured substitutes to food in general (based on what criteria and evidence)?
I agree with the Rational Mom, but would remind her of the importance of also verifying, and being equally critical of, claims that infant formula is equivalent or “good enough” compared to breast milk (and when evaluating current research, remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
I would be interested to see risk assessments on this issue (from the FDA or EFSA, for example), if they exist. It’s one thing to criticize research results, but it’s quite another to perform a risk assessment on something this complicated.