3 ms·

I agree overall, but I think we should err on the side of rejecting whatever has corporate or other conflicts-of-interest. Thus, be skeptical of all sorts of s

I agree overall, but I think we should err on the side of rejecting whatever has corporate or other conflicts-of-interest. Thus, be skeptical of all sorts of safety products (especially since they are sold by spreading fear). But we should also be skeptical of those dismissing the significance of breast feeding because the baby formula producers are where the conflict-of-interest lies on that topic there (and that played out massively and horribly in recent history). I'm sure formula is okay overall, and there are so many factors to health and success. But it's also far too easy for formula producers (historically mainly Nestle) to happily support the narrative that breast-feeding is an irrational privilege of the elite. But I find such arguments comparable to those saying that access to natural open space like woods and parks is an elite privilege. That many people lack these privileges isn't an argument that they aren't extremely valuable. It's a grotesque injustice that any kid anywhere grows up without access to a healthy outdoor environment. Somehow we need to tease apart all these things. The hypersensitive shaming of parents (mothers especially) is so awful and wrong, as is the paranoia about perfect safety and reducing all risk. That stuff needs to die. But breastfeeding, play time, outdoor access, the trends toward positive parenting (and not corporal punishment) — those things are positive! So, it's complex.

thrower123 7y ago
> But it's also far too easy for formula producers (historically mainly Nestle) to happily support the narrative that breast-feeding is an irrational privilege of the elite I'm intrigued, and I think I've missed this narrative - from what I understand, aristocrats didn't much bother with breast-feeding their own children, and hired it out to wet-nurses. So common people would have been more apt to breastfeed their own children, particularly since there is at least some contraceptive effect.
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  (you can tell I've looked into this too much :p) you're right about the wet-nurse history, so in some places breast feeding is taken to be culturally lower class (and many of the WHO type materials and studies imo on breast feeding are effectively predicated not on the benefits of breast feeding per se, but on the avoidance of not- breast-feeding substitute risks in a particular context). but then there was a 'formula movement' just as large scale manufacturing of formula was invented and became viable, focusing on the 'sciencism' and benefits of formula (i.e. you can measure and ensure exactly how much baby is drinking, which can't be done as easily with breast). then there was a counter- counter: a movement away from the cold/corporate providers and the science of formula to the warm/maternal side of breast feeding and a new science of breast feeding. breast feeding then became associated in those places with the upper class, typically sharing some aspects/ popularity of attachment parenting, because in those cultures a woman being able to stop work (and spend their entire day breast feeding) is a sign of class. which of these aspects one experiences depends on where one lives, and honestly there's probably even more breast feeding and nursing narratives out there...
  - chrisweekly 7y ago
    > "and many of the WHO type materials and studies imo on breast feeding are effectively predicated not on the benefits of breast feeding per se, but on the avoidance of not- breast-feeding substitute risks in a particular context" Sorry, what? This is... impenetrable.
    - zamfi 7y ago
      Good word choice. I think the GP is trying to say that the studies look at the benefits of avoiding the alternatives to breastfeeding. For example, breastfeeding is a good way to avoid feeding your infant the tainted water required to make formula.
    - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
      Very quick summary, so apologies if my previous sentence or this one isn't sufficient or well put together: most studies tend to be statistical/high-level correlation searches. With something like breast- feeding, an effect-size for breast-feeding must be taken implicitly in the context of what happens when you 'don't breast feed', given that basically everyone is still going to feed the baby, and there can't be a third state of neither breast feeding and not breast feeding. I don't mean just statistical attempts to control for demographics, education, etc, although these also have a complex effect/interaction. I mean here things like 'if you're not breast feeding, you're doing something else', and the mechanics of that something else are not constant throughout the world. So for instance, do you have to earn a wage (be away from baby) to buy formula to feed the baby, does the formula at a shop nearby and within its used-by date, what is the quality of it, do you have maternity leave and is there an inherent opportunity cost between breast feeding and work and providing the baby other things, do you have running and sanitary water, are they in day care/familial care, what foods are you giving baby, etc. All those things effect whether breast feeding will show a statistical positive/negative effect. Even something like "increased/decreased infections" isn't easily straight-forward: for instance, if the number of infections is related to the number of people baby is exposed to, and baby is in day care, then maybe its day care or N family members looking after baby that's the full story. And then even once you've got THAT, there's a real question as to whether the total number of infections a person gets is statistically static over their lifetime. Early day care could substitute infections earlier into the babies life. This too would appear in a basic study as a positive for breast feeding at home, because they don't measure the increase in infections after the breast feeding period ends once the baby starts to socialise. Most studies are not vaguely done at this level of investigating or answering these questions/mechanics around why or how the effects are mechanically operating, so many of the findings are likely reporting on these.
- quadrangle 7y ago
  I don't think there's a shred of evidence that it matters who breastfeeds the kids. Tons of cultures have situations where someone other than the mother does some (sometimes all) the feeding. The physical bonding is surely positive and the milk is the primary thing mammals have evolve to grow up on initially. Here's a source about the whole Nestle history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott The simplistic impression I have is that in many places (U.S. included, but most tragic in poorer countries), there was a strong marketing campaign against breast-feeding in the mid 20th century, driven entirely by formula producers. I personally find this appalling even if formula were equally healthy. I find it comparable to the bottled-water advertising that is about ripping people off by getting them to avoid resources they already have on hand (in the case of bottled water, the resource of clean tap water in all the places that have it). The corporations here are more than happy if communities lose their capacity fo function independently. Dependence on the corporate products is the goal. And that's also the source of some of the safety products and other stuff being pushed through fear now.

thrower123 7y ago

> But it's also far too easy for formula producers (historically mainly Nestle) to happily support the narrative that breast-feeding is an irrational privilege of the elite I'm intrigued, and I think I've missed this narrative - from what I understand, aristocrats didn't much bother with breast-feeding their own children, and hired it out to wet-nurses. So common people would have been more apt to breastfeed their own children, particularly since there is at least some contraceptive effect.

ACow_Adonis 7y ago
(you can tell I've looked into this too much :p) you're right about the wet-nurse history, so in some places breast feeding is taken to be culturally lower class (and many of the WHO type materials and studies imo on breast feeding are effectively predicated not on the benefits of breast feeding per se, but on the avoidance of not- breast-feeding substitute risks in a particular context). but then there was a 'formula movement' just as large scale manufacturing of formula was invented and became viable, focusing on the 'sciencism' and benefits of formula (i.e. you can measure and ensure exactly how much baby is drinking, which can't be done as easily with breast). then there was a counter- counter: a movement away from the cold/corporate providers and the science of formula to the warm/maternal side of breast feeding and a new science of breast feeding. breast feeding then became associated in those places with the upper class, typically sharing some aspects/ popularity of attachment parenting, because in those cultures a woman being able to stop work (and spend their entire day breast feeding) is a sign of class. which of these aspects one experiences depends on where one lives, and honestly there's probably even more breast feeding and nursing narratives out there...
- chrisweekly 7y ago
  > "and many of the WHO type materials and studies imo on breast feeding are effectively predicated not on the benefits of breast feeding per se, but on the avoidance of not- breast-feeding substitute risks in a particular context" Sorry, what? This is... impenetrable.
  - zamfi 7y ago
    Good word choice. I think the GP is trying to say that the studies look at the benefits of avoiding the alternatives to breastfeeding. For example, breastfeeding is a good way to avoid feeding your infant the tainted water required to make formula.
  - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
    Very quick summary, so apologies if my previous sentence or this one isn't sufficient or well put together: most studies tend to be statistical/high-level correlation searches. With something like breast- feeding, an effect-size for breast-feeding must be taken implicitly in the context of what happens when you 'don't breast feed', given that basically everyone is still going to feed the baby, and there can't be a third state of neither breast feeding and not breast feeding. I don't mean just statistical attempts to control for demographics, education, etc, although these also have a complex effect/interaction. I mean here things like 'if you're not breast feeding, you're doing something else', and the mechanics of that something else are not constant throughout the world. So for instance, do you have to earn a wage (be away from baby) to buy formula to feed the baby, does the formula at a shop nearby and within its used-by date, what is the quality of it, do you have maternity leave and is there an inherent opportunity cost between breast feeding and work and providing the baby other things, do you have running and sanitary water, are they in day care/familial care, what foods are you giving baby, etc. All those things effect whether breast feeding will show a statistical positive/negative effect. Even something like "increased/decreased infections" isn't easily straight-forward: for instance, if the number of infections is related to the number of people baby is exposed to, and baby is in day care, then maybe its day care or N family members looking after baby that's the full story. And then even once you've got THAT, there's a real question as to whether the total number of infections a person gets is statistically static over their lifetime. Early day care could substitute infections earlier into the babies life. This too would appear in a basic study as a positive for breast feeding at home, because they don't measure the increase in infections after the breast feeding period ends once the baby starts to socialise. Most studies are not vaguely done at this level of investigating or answering these questions/mechanics around why or how the effects are mechanically operating, so many of the findings are likely reporting on these.
quadrangle 7y ago
I don't think there's a shred of evidence that it matters who breastfeeds the kids. Tons of cultures have situations where someone other than the mother does some (sometimes all) the feeding. The physical bonding is surely positive and the milk is the primary thing mammals have evolve to grow up on initially. Here's a source about the whole Nestle history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott The simplistic impression I have is that in many places (U.S. included, but most tragic in poorer countries), there was a strong marketing campaign against breast-feeding in the mid 20th century, driven entirely by formula producers. I personally find this appalling even if formula were equally healthy. I find it comparable to the bottled-water advertising that is about ripping people off by getting them to avoid resources they already have on hand (in the case of bottled water, the resource of clean tap water in all the places that have it). The corporations here are more than happy if communities lose their capacity fo function independently. Dependence on the corporate products is the goal. And that's also the source of some of the safety products and other stuff being pushed through fear now.