My kids may be well past their weaning ages, but if there's one thing I remember vividly it's that weaning was a daunting mountain for me as a first time mum and that the information out there wasn't really in line with what I was looking for. I was concerned with low weight gain, and when presented with having to prepare purees, there was a whole range of vegetables that I'd never cooked in my life. As an almost vegetarian household I also had to make decisions about if, how and when to introduce meat to my child's diet. I remember the patchy information provided by the health visitor team, which effectively presented us with leaflets and 3 purees of varying consistency, and gave an opportunity to buy a masher and puree tool at discount prices.
I'm much more relaxed this time around, but weaning was still a worry. By now I'd heard of baby led weaning and when Snowflake refused the spoon, I didn't worry and just let her eat whatever I was having. She didn't eat much and still doesn't, but she delights in food now and gets utterly excited about the announcement of "dinner time".
In a way I felt a bit let down both times around with the support available at this critical time in a baby's life.
Put it into context, we are experiencing an explosion of childhood obesity, with 30% of primary aged children in Scotland being overweight or obese. It's not just about kids being a bit heavier than they should, obesity leads to shorter lives, and these short lives are not as fun filled (with a family history of obesity and obesity related illnesses, I know this all too well).
So it strikes me that a bit of support and information that makes sense at this crucial stage might be a good idea. I did a bit of research on what's been proven to be the good and the bad in weaning for later life health and found out some interesting facts that even after 5 1/2 years of being a mum were new to me.
The risk of obesity and overweight is increased significantly if a baby is breastfed for less than 4 weeks AND solids are introduced before 16 weeks. This increases the risk of obesity a staggering 6 times. There is also an increased risk of obesity if a baby is formula fed AND solids are introduced after 6 months, though not as pronounced. So for the formula fed infant it's important that solids are introduced no earlier than 17 weeks and no later than 26 weeks. For breastfed babies, there is no significant increase of obesity risk depending on when solids are introduced.
Now we all know the guidelines to introduce solids no earlier than 17 weeks but ideally no earlier than 6 months. However, a whopping 51% of infants in the UK are introduced to solids before they are 16 weeks (this statistic is quite recent, Bolling et al.: 2007). This means that half of our children are put at a six fold risk of obesity from when they are not even 4 months old.
Then there's the interesting subject of protein. I won't go into the details because you'll just get all bored on me, but the bottom line is that a weaning diet rich in protein significantly increases the risk of obesity and overweight. Protein would be dairy and meat. So a diet rich in Carbohydrates is much better, and it's important to keep protein intake below carbs intake (= too much cow's milk can be bad): "Children who were overweight at 5yrs consumed significantly higher protein as a percentage of energy than non overweight children." (Scaglioni et al.: 2000)
Third up is earliest weight gain - which may be linked to protein intake. Infants who cross growth centiles upwards are hat significantly higher risk of obesity and overweight. This is particularly prominent in the first weeks of life, but the effect carries on through the first year: "Emerging evidence therefore strongly supports the first few post-natal weeks as a critical window for programming long-term health in both humans and animals" (Singhal/Lanigan: 2007). Researches aren't clear what causes this upward movement, and as it's observed mainly in formula fed infants, it may be something to do with formula being too rich in protein (although there are another few suggested causes, such as breast milk ingredients keeping insulin receptors happy and formula fed babies not being able to fully self regulate food intake). Anyeay, I wish I'd known this one earlier, it would have spared me all the worry of both my girls moving downwards on their percentiles... All I was concerned about was to get them up as high as I could, and I'm sure this is an instinct most parents share.
I also looked into the approach to weaning and how this may make a difference. There is one small study that indicates that spoon fed babies tend to be at higher risk of obesity than infants who feed themselves (baby led weaning). However the study is so small and the difference between the groups not big enough to allow for any conclusions. At the same time, the results, even if limited, indicate that baby led infants choose carbohydrate rich foods above protein rich foods which may indicate that they make food choices which are healthier for them.
So the bottom line is that it's most important to ensure solids are not introduced before 17 weeks and that most of the energy of the weaning diet comes from carbohydrates and not from protein. For formula fed babies, it's better to introduce solids before 6 months (but no earlier than 17 weeks), while for breastfed babies it doesn't matter.
References:
1.Rebecca Kendall. Weaning: Risk Factors for the Development of Overweight and Obesity in Childhood - A Systematic Review (2011)
2. A. Singhal and J. Lanigan. Breastfeeding, early growth and later obesity (2007)
3. Susanna Huh. "Timing of Solid Food Introduction and Risk of Obesity in Preschool-Aged Children" (2011)
4. E. Townsend and NJ Pitchford. "Baby knows best? The impact of weaning style on food preferences and body mass index in early childhood in a case-controlled sample (2012)
Mummy do that!
Showing posts with label formula feeding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label formula feeding. Show all posts
Thursday, 9 August 2012
Friday, 4 November 2011
Moral superiority gone wrong?
The other day, on a breastfeeding themed facebook page / blog that I follow and admire (Analytical Armadillo), the ethics of the Optigrow Infant Feeding study and the process of recruitment of babies for it was questioned.
I was interested because we took part in this study and I had my own dilemma about whether or not it was a good thing to be part of it. To summarise, the study is based at a University and is testing a formula milk which has a different composition to current formula milks on the market, being higher in protein and lower in fat contents which, in this respect and this respect only, makes its composition closer to that of breastmilk. As feeding formula milk carries a higher risk of development of type 2 diabetes and heart disease in later life, as well as obesity, it is hoped that the development of this new formula may reduce this risk. For the study, babies are recruited in the first 24 hours of life and the criteria are that baby is either exclusively breastfed or exclusively formula fed. If recruited in the second group, baby will get randomly either normal or new type formula for a year. Exclusivity of feeding either breastmilk or formula milk is required for the first 10 days for the purpose of this study.
The thread on the Analytical Armadillo facebook page started out with concern about the ethics of recruitment. I chipped in my own experience - partly because I'd been through the process and partly because I was rather keen to see this topic explored what with my own thought process about the study. The concern in the thread was that someone from the Optigrow study was going around a postnatal ward offering free formula for a year and that this undermined breastfeeding at a very crucial and vulnerable time.
Now, it is no secret that I'd like to see higher breastfeeding rates because there is no question that they are low, and in fact very low in socially deprived areas of the country. I'm also very critical of the marketing strategies of formula companies, which claim that their formula is closest to breastmilk and similar rubbish. I'm also very aware that the discourse around breast is best is misleading, with its wording of "benefits of breastfeeding" rather than "risks of formula feeding" (the former implies that formula feeding is normal and you get a benefit if you breast feed, while the latter implies that breast feeding is normal and the poorer health outcomes in baby and mum when formula feeding are a risk to both).
Furthermore, I'm acutely aware that our culture around parenting favours formula feeding. New mums are expected to be yummy mummies, to continue their pre-baby lifestyle, to demonstrate they take it all in their stride. "Me time" is a big thing that apparently every mum should have every day, and which includes an expectation that mum has a right to spend time away from baby. The expectation is so strong that I felt more than awkward when receiving an invitation for a night out when my youngest was 6 months and I had to decline because there was no way I could have left her at home even for a few hours. Mums are expected to return to work after no more than 9 months of maternity leave (which translates to 7-8 months after birth of baby) and a return to work of course means that many will move over to formula at that point. The demands of being a mother to a newborn are downplayed and there is little recognition of parenting being a full time job in itself. I have elaborated on this because this culture is significant as it favours the bottle. The bottle is freedom from baby, it allows others than mum to take on the feeding and caring aspect more readily and I'm pretty sure that this is the main reason why many new mums who can breastfeed but choose not to from the start do so.
So if we want to improve breastfeeding rates overall, we are up against a culture that makes it difficult to breast feed, we are up against marketing and advertising that sell us formula as the next best thing, and a discourse around breastfeeding that implies that formula feeding is in fact the norm. As a consequence. there are places in Glasgow where breastfeeding rates are as low as 8% at the 6-8 week postnatal appointment. The highest rates I could find were 68% at 6-8 week appointment, in the most affluent areas, which is still low in my view, considering 95% of women can breastfeed (and do in many countries).
This leaves us with between 32% and 92% of new mums who formula feed 8 weeks post birth, and rising the older the infant gets. Anecdotally, of all the parents I know (and I know a lot, as we attend many playgroups and most of my friends have had babies, and almost everyone I know intended to breastfeed) I only know one person who breastfed longer than I did (I stopped at 23 months with my first, falling short of WHO guidelines). The point I'm trying to make is that in reality, a lot of babies are fed on formula milk whether we like it or not.
Considering the facts, improving formula to reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease must be a good thing because it would benefit the long term health of up to 92% of babies in some parts of the country, while we work on changing the culture that makes new mums choose formula over breast.
The response I received to this point was:
I take offence at this statement. I did not sell my baby to anyone. I considered carefully the ethics of the study and decided that from a pragmatic perspective, bearing the health outcomes of babies in mind, it was a good thing to take part in it. I'm not naive or stupid, I made an educated and informed decision.
Secondly, the statement argues that there are deserving babies vs undeserving babies (the "TINY % of" babies where mum can't breastfeed vs the babies of mums who choose not to breastfeed). Nevermind that many mums who end up not breastfeeding didn't choose this but struggled so bloody hard that it became an impossibility for them, the bottom line of this statement is that if you choose not to breastfeed your baby should rightly be exposed to risky formula even if less risky formula exists.
Now, you can argue about the ethics of the study as much as you want, but how about the ethics of this statement? Do we have two classes of babies? It's about the baby's health not the mum-who-chose-not-to-breastfeed's health! (and I reiterate that most mums who choose not to breastfeed didn't do this lightly and that usually there's a very good reason for this choice, ignoring this is plain patronising towards these mums).
At the same time I'm open to discussing the ethics to this study and I'm really keen to find out more. The two points in question are: the ethics of recruitment and the agenda of those who fund the study. Let's start with the second point: It has been mentioned that it's in fact funded by formula producers. It wouldn't surprise me because let's face it, state funding is being cut left right and centre, and a lot of academic studies depend on private investment. And private investment can only be obtained if there is something in it for the investor. So, formula producers are the likely investors. Of course there is a conflict of interest but I would still maintain that for the sake of the greater good (=health of babies) we shouldn't categorically dismiss any study that is funded by formula manufacturers. Instead, we should make sure that the study is scientifically sound, peer reviewed and that in the case of introduction to the market of the new "closer to breastmilk" formula, the marketing of this formula is factual, and that advertisement is controlled.
As to the recruitment, I can only speak for myself. I was approached because I was exclusively breastfeeding. The mum opposite me was mix feeding and did not get approached. When approached I was extremely tired after 3 consecutive sleepness nights (2 spent in labour followed by one with a mucusy post c-section baby). The researcher recognised that this did not constitute an ability to sign a consent form. She noted my interest and insisted on consent from dad, and returned hours later after I had had some sleep. At no point was the fact that there would be free formula mentioned to me. I cannot see therefore that anything in the recruitment process undermined my intention to breastfeed.
Quite the contrary - I was open to mixed feeding due to my previous experience of breastfeeding. The study required exclusive breastfeeding for 10 days. Somehow this gave me some goal to work towards, and once I'd reached it it was going so smoothly that in fact my baby didn't touch a drop of formula. As to the claim that apparently the first 10 days of the life of a baby and how it is fed seem to have a disproportionate influence on the risk of developing obesity, diabetes and heart disease - well, I don't know if this is true, but the study claims that because this is so, they "only" need exclusive breastfeeding for the first 10 days for the baby to qualify for the (breastfed) control group. This statement at no point translated to me as "after 10 days you can give baby a bottle".
To me, this process is good enough. It was made clear that I could leave the study at any time (and I was close to it because the recording of feeds really got on my socks). There are elements in the forms to be completed which I would change (e.g. for recording feeds in a 24 hour period, there are only 10 lines, and a breastfed baby is likely to feed more often than that). It may be that the process was less ethical in other postnatal wards and that clearly needs to be addressed.
The bottom line for me though remains the same. Refusing to allow the development of a healthier formula is patronising and morally wrong. Health inequalities between the richest and the poorest are a rift that divide and blight our society. Anything that can help to improve the health of our future generation is a good thing. Even if formula companies pay for it. We need, however, to hold them accountable and make sure the information gained is used in the best possible way.
I was interested because we took part in this study and I had my own dilemma about whether or not it was a good thing to be part of it. To summarise, the study is based at a University and is testing a formula milk which has a different composition to current formula milks on the market, being higher in protein and lower in fat contents which, in this respect and this respect only, makes its composition closer to that of breastmilk. As feeding formula milk carries a higher risk of development of type 2 diabetes and heart disease in later life, as well as obesity, it is hoped that the development of this new formula may reduce this risk. For the study, babies are recruited in the first 24 hours of life and the criteria are that baby is either exclusively breastfed or exclusively formula fed. If recruited in the second group, baby will get randomly either normal or new type formula for a year. Exclusivity of feeding either breastmilk or formula milk is required for the first 10 days for the purpose of this study.
The thread on the Analytical Armadillo facebook page started out with concern about the ethics of recruitment. I chipped in my own experience - partly because I'd been through the process and partly because I was rather keen to see this topic explored what with my own thought process about the study. The concern in the thread was that someone from the Optigrow study was going around a postnatal ward offering free formula for a year and that this undermined breastfeeding at a very crucial and vulnerable time.
Now, it is no secret that I'd like to see higher breastfeeding rates because there is no question that they are low, and in fact very low in socially deprived areas of the country. I'm also very critical of the marketing strategies of formula companies, which claim that their formula is closest to breastmilk and similar rubbish. I'm also very aware that the discourse around breast is best is misleading, with its wording of "benefits of breastfeeding" rather than "risks of formula feeding" (the former implies that formula feeding is normal and you get a benefit if you breast feed, while the latter implies that breast feeding is normal and the poorer health outcomes in baby and mum when formula feeding are a risk to both).
Furthermore, I'm acutely aware that our culture around parenting favours formula feeding. New mums are expected to be yummy mummies, to continue their pre-baby lifestyle, to demonstrate they take it all in their stride. "Me time" is a big thing that apparently every mum should have every day, and which includes an expectation that mum has a right to spend time away from baby. The expectation is so strong that I felt more than awkward when receiving an invitation for a night out when my youngest was 6 months and I had to decline because there was no way I could have left her at home even for a few hours. Mums are expected to return to work after no more than 9 months of maternity leave (which translates to 7-8 months after birth of baby) and a return to work of course means that many will move over to formula at that point. The demands of being a mother to a newborn are downplayed and there is little recognition of parenting being a full time job in itself. I have elaborated on this because this culture is significant as it favours the bottle. The bottle is freedom from baby, it allows others than mum to take on the feeding and caring aspect more readily and I'm pretty sure that this is the main reason why many new mums who can breastfeed but choose not to from the start do so.
So if we want to improve breastfeeding rates overall, we are up against a culture that makes it difficult to breast feed, we are up against marketing and advertising that sell us formula as the next best thing, and a discourse around breastfeeding that implies that formula feeding is in fact the norm. As a consequence. there are places in Glasgow where breastfeeding rates are as low as 8% at the 6-8 week postnatal appointment. The highest rates I could find were 68% at 6-8 week appointment, in the most affluent areas, which is still low in my view, considering 95% of women can breastfeed (and do in many countries).
This leaves us with between 32% and 92% of new mums who formula feed 8 weeks post birth, and rising the older the infant gets. Anecdotally, of all the parents I know (and I know a lot, as we attend many playgroups and most of my friends have had babies, and almost everyone I know intended to breastfeed) I only know one person who breastfed longer than I did (I stopped at 23 months with my first, falling short of WHO guidelines). The point I'm trying to make is that in reality, a lot of babies are fed on formula milk whether we like it or not.
Considering the facts, improving formula to reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease must be a good thing because it would benefit the long term health of up to 92% of babies in some parts of the country, while we work on changing the culture that makes new mums choose formula over breast.
The response I received to this point was:
"Lactating mums need to STOP giving formula manufactures access to their children/milk! Would you give your business information to your rival company? Yes they need to make better formula for the TINY % of babies/women for whom BFing is not a possibility BUT whilst they are aggressively marketing formula as a life style choice and comparing it to BM and violating the WHO code they can do it without help from us!! Grrrrr!"
I take offence at this statement. I did not sell my baby to anyone. I considered carefully the ethics of the study and decided that from a pragmatic perspective, bearing the health outcomes of babies in mind, it was a good thing to take part in it. I'm not naive or stupid, I made an educated and informed decision.
Secondly, the statement argues that there are deserving babies vs undeserving babies (the "TINY % of" babies where mum can't breastfeed vs the babies of mums who choose not to breastfeed). Nevermind that many mums who end up not breastfeeding didn't choose this but struggled so bloody hard that it became an impossibility for them, the bottom line of this statement is that if you choose not to breastfeed your baby should rightly be exposed to risky formula even if less risky formula exists.
Now, you can argue about the ethics of the study as much as you want, but how about the ethics of this statement? Do we have two classes of babies? It's about the baby's health not the mum-who-chose-not-to-breastfeed's health! (and I reiterate that most mums who choose not to breastfeed didn't do this lightly and that usually there's a very good reason for this choice, ignoring this is plain patronising towards these mums).
At the same time I'm open to discussing the ethics to this study and I'm really keen to find out more. The two points in question are: the ethics of recruitment and the agenda of those who fund the study. Let's start with the second point: It has been mentioned that it's in fact funded by formula producers. It wouldn't surprise me because let's face it, state funding is being cut left right and centre, and a lot of academic studies depend on private investment. And private investment can only be obtained if there is something in it for the investor. So, formula producers are the likely investors. Of course there is a conflict of interest but I would still maintain that for the sake of the greater good (=health of babies) we shouldn't categorically dismiss any study that is funded by formula manufacturers. Instead, we should make sure that the study is scientifically sound, peer reviewed and that in the case of introduction to the market of the new "closer to breastmilk" formula, the marketing of this formula is factual, and that advertisement is controlled.
As to the recruitment, I can only speak for myself. I was approached because I was exclusively breastfeeding. The mum opposite me was mix feeding and did not get approached. When approached I was extremely tired after 3 consecutive sleepness nights (2 spent in labour followed by one with a mucusy post c-section baby). The researcher recognised that this did not constitute an ability to sign a consent form. She noted my interest and insisted on consent from dad, and returned hours later after I had had some sleep. At no point was the fact that there would be free formula mentioned to me. I cannot see therefore that anything in the recruitment process undermined my intention to breastfeed.
Quite the contrary - I was open to mixed feeding due to my previous experience of breastfeeding. The study required exclusive breastfeeding for 10 days. Somehow this gave me some goal to work towards, and once I'd reached it it was going so smoothly that in fact my baby didn't touch a drop of formula. As to the claim that apparently the first 10 days of the life of a baby and how it is fed seem to have a disproportionate influence on the risk of developing obesity, diabetes and heart disease - well, I don't know if this is true, but the study claims that because this is so, they "only" need exclusive breastfeeding for the first 10 days for the baby to qualify for the (breastfed) control group. This statement at no point translated to me as "after 10 days you can give baby a bottle".
To me, this process is good enough. It was made clear that I could leave the study at any time (and I was close to it because the recording of feeds really got on my socks). There are elements in the forms to be completed which I would change (e.g. for recording feeds in a 24 hour period, there are only 10 lines, and a breastfed baby is likely to feed more often than that). It may be that the process was less ethical in other postnatal wards and that clearly needs to be addressed.
The bottom line for me though remains the same. Refusing to allow the development of a healthier formula is patronising and morally wrong. Health inequalities between the richest and the poorest are a rift that divide and blight our society. Anything that can help to improve the health of our future generation is a good thing. Even if formula companies pay for it. We need, however, to hold them accountable and make sure the information gained is used in the best possible way.
Monday, 16 May 2011
This is not a Guilt trip
When the most recent research findings about another outcome difference between breastfeeding versus formula feeding hit the headlines, the reaction was once again predictable. There were those who rejoiced in yet another reason why breastfeeding is good for your baba and those who complained how it guilt tripped parents who didn't/couldn't breastfeed or how breastfeeding is once aspect of parenting and surely so many other parenting choices will have an impact on child behaviour.
There was even voices that pointed out how useless the research was, how it was a waste of money because it wouldn't make a penny of a difference to mums in their choice whether or not to breastfeed.
Now, unlike others who seem to have made up their mind that this piece of research was a waste of money, I believe that as with all research, only time can tell if it was or wasn't good value for money - but hey, that's what research is about! If you questioned every research project in relation to value for money and usefulness, there is a real potential that no research, no progress, would ever happen. It's bad enough that a lot of research has to be funded privately and thus often by people with dubious agendas - but the bottom line is that we need a variety of research to learn, to further ourselves, to progress.
So why is research on impact of infant feeding criticised and always ends up opening a can of worms? Why is there a problem with presenting facts? And, above all, why does anyone feel guilt tripped by the reporting of facts?
It's all about that elusive mad woman in the attic. Guilt. Mother's guilt more precisely because when did a dad last feel guilty about working full time, or his child not being breastfed?
Why do people feel guilty in the first place? Personally, I feel guilty when I've done something knowingly that I shouldn't have done while I had the option of doing something different, i.e. when I chose to do the wrong thing against my conscience.
Now, let's look at the choice between breastfeeding and formula feeding: as far as I can tell, there is a limited number of scenarios and where guilt does or doesn't come in:
a) mum wants to breastfeed, sometimes desperately so, but encounters difficulties, doesn't get the right support and stops. Guilt factor? There shouldn't be one. Mum should be angry about lack of support, and complain.
b) Mum can't breastfeed. This is rare, but for medical conditions or some situations, this might be the case. If you can't breastfeed, why would you feel guilty about it?
c)There is the situation where the mother, in full knowledge of all facts, chooses to formula feed, based on her individual circumstances and with very good reasons.
Guilt? Why? Sometimes life isn't as ideal as we wished it was and we weigh up risks and benefits and come to an informed conclusion that's fine, isn't it? Done, dusted.
d) Mum just doesn't want to breastfeed for one reason or another. Maybe she finds it yucky (yes i've heard that). That is society (culture/peer group) who's given mum that idea, again, mum's not to blame, it's very hard to oppose peer group pressure. Maybe she wants to keep going out/party/continue a life pre-baby or even doesn't want to be tied down to the baby all the time (which admittedly breastfeeding does) - or more likely conforms to peer group pressure to not be seen tied down by baby. Even I feel this pressure to just continue as usual, I see the looks I get when I used a lunch break to feed my baby, the apologetic "she doesn't take a bottle" that I still offer in explanation as if I had to justify myself. It's hard to breast feed exclusively, even if you're in a generally supportive peer group, how hard must it be if you're not? Again, mum shouldn't feel guilty if she gives in to this pressure.
So why do we feel guilty? Why do we read into every presentation of facts that demonstrates why it's better to feed human milk to human babies, rather than modified cow's milk that anyone formula feeding should feel guilty?
Research findings present us with facts. I don't get why fact finding is criticised. To claim that it won't have an impact on infant feeding choices is presumptious in my view - if we had figured out exactly what impacts on infant feeding choices, we wouldn't have those unbelievably low breastfeeding rates in some parts of the UK that I've quoted before (just as a reminder, there are various areas in Glasgow where rates are as low as 8% at the 6-8 week checkup - compare this to 95% in some countries). Now, these rates are too low by any standard and we absolutely need to do something about it. It's not about guilt tripping those who've made their choice - that's done and no research will change those choices or bring back the lack of support or whatever else that led to them, but it's about our future generations, it's about all those mums-to-be out there who are making their choice now and in future.
In a climate where everything non-statutory is being cut, breastfeeding support is waning and becoming more than patchy. And if there's one thing that's needed, it's quality support. It's vital that at least some voice out there keeps the importance of infant feeding on the agenda because there is an established link between low rates of breastfeeding and health inequalities in later life. Of course this is not just due to breastfeeding, and of course other parenting choices impact too (such as quality time spent with child every day, such as healthy weaning diet, such as access to exercise) but we can't exclude breastfeeding just because it doesn't sit well with us and formula has become oh so convenient like ready made meals. And as long as formula companies are allowed to market their product in rather questionable ways, shouldn't information marketing/promoting human milk be welcomed at the very least as a healthy balance? And how about we mums take a stance to market our product, regardless of how we fed our kids? It's cheap, convenient, high quality, no risk and tastier. Nevermind the feel good factor of being able to supply all your child needs. How come it's ok for formula companies to take airspace, advertising space in neonatal packs and the like, when research demonstrating the goodness of human milk is criticised? How come that at prenatal breastfeeding workshops facilitators are accused of being pushy when all they do is provide information and allow debate, and sometimes are even accused of being breastfeeding nazis (Breastapo is the word that I take real issue with. Nothing excuses using the evil of the Nazis in a wordplay on those promoting breastfeeding. Nothing.).
Back to the whole guilt issue. Guilt is a personal feeling. Information doesn't make us feel anything. It's neutral. How we respond is our personal choice. So to everyone who feels guilty, nobody is making you feel guilty or trying to do this, honestly. Unlike the suggestions on many platforms, news media or blogs, the research is not publish to make people feel guilty or to hit them with the breastick. Often, guilt is a sneaky feeling that turns something which should have an outward direction inward towards and against a person. Thus, instead of feeling angry with the lack of support to succeed in breastfeeding, we feel guilty for not managing. It's destructive at worst (PND anyone?) and unproductive at best.
How about we just stopped feeling guilty? How about we replace it with responsibility, knowledge and confidence?
There was even voices that pointed out how useless the research was, how it was a waste of money because it wouldn't make a penny of a difference to mums in their choice whether or not to breastfeed.
Now, unlike others who seem to have made up their mind that this piece of research was a waste of money, I believe that as with all research, only time can tell if it was or wasn't good value for money - but hey, that's what research is about! If you questioned every research project in relation to value for money and usefulness, there is a real potential that no research, no progress, would ever happen. It's bad enough that a lot of research has to be funded privately and thus often by people with dubious agendas - but the bottom line is that we need a variety of research to learn, to further ourselves, to progress.
So why is research on impact of infant feeding criticised and always ends up opening a can of worms? Why is there a problem with presenting facts? And, above all, why does anyone feel guilt tripped by the reporting of facts?
It's all about that elusive mad woman in the attic. Guilt. Mother's guilt more precisely because when did a dad last feel guilty about working full time, or his child not being breastfed?
Why do people feel guilty in the first place? Personally, I feel guilty when I've done something knowingly that I shouldn't have done while I had the option of doing something different, i.e. when I chose to do the wrong thing against my conscience.
Now, let's look at the choice between breastfeeding and formula feeding: as far as I can tell, there is a limited number of scenarios and where guilt does or doesn't come in:
a) mum wants to breastfeed, sometimes desperately so, but encounters difficulties, doesn't get the right support and stops. Guilt factor? There shouldn't be one. Mum should be angry about lack of support, and complain.
b) Mum can't breastfeed. This is rare, but for medical conditions or some situations, this might be the case. If you can't breastfeed, why would you feel guilty about it?
c)There is the situation where the mother, in full knowledge of all facts, chooses to formula feed, based on her individual circumstances and with very good reasons.
Guilt? Why? Sometimes life isn't as ideal as we wished it was and we weigh up risks and benefits and come to an informed conclusion that's fine, isn't it? Done, dusted.
d) Mum just doesn't want to breastfeed for one reason or another. Maybe she finds it yucky (yes i've heard that). That is society (culture/peer group) who's given mum that idea, again, mum's not to blame, it's very hard to oppose peer group pressure. Maybe she wants to keep going out/party/continue a life pre-baby or even doesn't want to be tied down to the baby all the time (which admittedly breastfeeding does) - or more likely conforms to peer group pressure to not be seen tied down by baby. Even I feel this pressure to just continue as usual, I see the looks I get when I used a lunch break to feed my baby, the apologetic "she doesn't take a bottle" that I still offer in explanation as if I had to justify myself. It's hard to breast feed exclusively, even if you're in a generally supportive peer group, how hard must it be if you're not? Again, mum shouldn't feel guilty if she gives in to this pressure.
So why do we feel guilty? Why do we read into every presentation of facts that demonstrates why it's better to feed human milk to human babies, rather than modified cow's milk that anyone formula feeding should feel guilty?
Research findings present us with facts. I don't get why fact finding is criticised. To claim that it won't have an impact on infant feeding choices is presumptious in my view - if we had figured out exactly what impacts on infant feeding choices, we wouldn't have those unbelievably low breastfeeding rates in some parts of the UK that I've quoted before (just as a reminder, there are various areas in Glasgow where rates are as low as 8% at the 6-8 week checkup - compare this to 95% in some countries). Now, these rates are too low by any standard and we absolutely need to do something about it. It's not about guilt tripping those who've made their choice - that's done and no research will change those choices or bring back the lack of support or whatever else that led to them, but it's about our future generations, it's about all those mums-to-be out there who are making their choice now and in future.
In a climate where everything non-statutory is being cut, breastfeeding support is waning and becoming more than patchy. And if there's one thing that's needed, it's quality support. It's vital that at least some voice out there keeps the importance of infant feeding on the agenda because there is an established link between low rates of breastfeeding and health inequalities in later life. Of course this is not just due to breastfeeding, and of course other parenting choices impact too (such as quality time spent with child every day, such as healthy weaning diet, such as access to exercise) but we can't exclude breastfeeding just because it doesn't sit well with us and formula has become oh so convenient like ready made meals. And as long as formula companies are allowed to market their product in rather questionable ways, shouldn't information marketing/promoting human milk be welcomed at the very least as a healthy balance? And how about we mums take a stance to market our product, regardless of how we fed our kids? It's cheap, convenient, high quality, no risk and tastier. Nevermind the feel good factor of being able to supply all your child needs. How come it's ok for formula companies to take airspace, advertising space in neonatal packs and the like, when research demonstrating the goodness of human milk is criticised? How come that at prenatal breastfeeding workshops facilitators are accused of being pushy when all they do is provide information and allow debate, and sometimes are even accused of being breastfeeding nazis (Breastapo is the word that I take real issue with. Nothing excuses using the evil of the Nazis in a wordplay on those promoting breastfeeding. Nothing.).
Back to the whole guilt issue. Guilt is a personal feeling. Information doesn't make us feel anything. It's neutral. How we respond is our personal choice. So to everyone who feels guilty, nobody is making you feel guilty or trying to do this, honestly. Unlike the suggestions on many platforms, news media or blogs, the research is not publish to make people feel guilty or to hit them with the breastick. Often, guilt is a sneaky feeling that turns something which should have an outward direction inward towards and against a person. Thus, instead of feeling angry with the lack of support to succeed in breastfeeding, we feel guilty for not managing. It's destructive at worst (PND anyone?) and unproductive at best.
How about we just stopped feeling guilty? How about we replace it with responsibility, knowledge and confidence?
Thursday, 5 May 2011
It's in the words where normality is created (or denied)
So they found yet another "benefit" of breastfeeding. This time it's all about the child's metabolism: "It could impact your child's metabolism." The article goes on to describe the different behaviour of the metabolism of a breast fed versus a formula fed baby.
What strikes me as wrong about this article is that it talks of "benefit of breastfeeding" and breastfeeding having an effect on the child's metabolism.
This implies that the "normal" way to feed a baby is formula feeding. And if you're brave and breastfeed, hey, you may reap a benefit!
However, it's really formula feeding that impacts on the child's metabolism. This is because in a world where the baseline is breastfeeding (we're mammals, hello?), this does not have an impact but is just the way things are, because human milk is what human babies drink. The research, then, shows that formula feeding has a negative impact on the metabolism of the baby. Yet somehow, this is not the way the media puts it and it leaves me wondering why.
Is it because the media is daft and unwittingly promotes the normality of formula feeding? Or is it out of fear of guilt tripping any formula feeding mums? (NB: the whole guilt tripping thing about formula feeding is another post in the offing, so I leave that unelaborated for now - let me just say that I think nobody should ever feel or be made to feel guilty) Or could it be that they fear the wrath of the baby food industry in the form of being sued?
Am I missing something or is it just me who finds it odd that breastfeeding is labelled as having benefits all the time, but formula feeding is never labelled to have a potential negative impact? As if, by breastfeeding, you're giving your child something extra. When in fact, by giving formula, the child gets something less.
Then there's the invariable comment on the fact that one breast fed child had allergies while a formula fed child didn't. As if anecdotal evidence ever won against scientific facts. My baby had pneumococcal meningitis, which is linked to formula feeding, yet she hasn't had a drop of formula so far. You know what? There are no guarantees. If you breastfeed you have no guarantee your child will never have allergies or will not fall ill with a tummy bug or be forever healthy. And of course there will be lots of formula fed children who won't get allergies, who won't have tummy bugs. Yet it's still true that formula feeding increases the risk and that every parent should know that formula feeding carries these risks - and then make an informed choice between the two. And not end up topping up like I did without knowing that this innocent little bottle of formula destroyed a virgin gut at 12 weeks, and again at 20 weeks when told to do so by a German pediatrician. (I don't feel guilty about this because at the time I didn't know. Now I do and wouldn't do it again).
For the record, I was formula fed, I do have allergies and a tendency towards weight gain. There may be a link, but who can tell? It might be just in my genes. I don't blame my mother at all - she was told she couldn't breastfeed (though I doubt that this was really the case) and at the time this was not questioned and formula was considered to be as good. She did as best as she knew. Today we know better and there should be sufficient and quality support to help everyone to successfully breastfeed who wants to breastfeed, and information for every parent to be that doesn't just talk about the "benefits" of breastfeeding but also the risks of formula feeding, so that they know the facts and don't find out, like me, after well over 2 years of breastfeeding. And all of this without the guilt tripping of course.
What strikes me as wrong about this article is that it talks of "benefit of breastfeeding" and breastfeeding having an effect on the child's metabolism.
This implies that the "normal" way to feed a baby is formula feeding. And if you're brave and breastfeed, hey, you may reap a benefit!
However, it's really formula feeding that impacts on the child's metabolism. This is because in a world where the baseline is breastfeeding (we're mammals, hello?), this does not have an impact but is just the way things are, because human milk is what human babies drink. The research, then, shows that formula feeding has a negative impact on the metabolism of the baby. Yet somehow, this is not the way the media puts it and it leaves me wondering why.
Is it because the media is daft and unwittingly promotes the normality of formula feeding? Or is it out of fear of guilt tripping any formula feeding mums? (NB: the whole guilt tripping thing about formula feeding is another post in the offing, so I leave that unelaborated for now - let me just say that I think nobody should ever feel or be made to feel guilty) Or could it be that they fear the wrath of the baby food industry in the form of being sued?
Am I missing something or is it just me who finds it odd that breastfeeding is labelled as having benefits all the time, but formula feeding is never labelled to have a potential negative impact? As if, by breastfeeding, you're giving your child something extra. When in fact, by giving formula, the child gets something less.
Then there's the invariable comment on the fact that one breast fed child had allergies while a formula fed child didn't. As if anecdotal evidence ever won against scientific facts. My baby had pneumococcal meningitis, which is linked to formula feeding, yet she hasn't had a drop of formula so far. You know what? There are no guarantees. If you breastfeed you have no guarantee your child will never have allergies or will not fall ill with a tummy bug or be forever healthy. And of course there will be lots of formula fed children who won't get allergies, who won't have tummy bugs. Yet it's still true that formula feeding increases the risk and that every parent should know that formula feeding carries these risks - and then make an informed choice between the two. And not end up topping up like I did without knowing that this innocent little bottle of formula destroyed a virgin gut at 12 weeks, and again at 20 weeks when told to do so by a German pediatrician. (I don't feel guilty about this because at the time I didn't know. Now I do and wouldn't do it again).
For the record, I was formula fed, I do have allergies and a tendency towards weight gain. There may be a link, but who can tell? It might be just in my genes. I don't blame my mother at all - she was told she couldn't breastfeed (though I doubt that this was really the case) and at the time this was not questioned and formula was considered to be as good. She did as best as she knew. Today we know better and there should be sufficient and quality support to help everyone to successfully breastfeed who wants to breastfeed, and information for every parent to be that doesn't just talk about the "benefits" of breastfeeding but also the risks of formula feeding, so that they know the facts and don't find out, like me, after well over 2 years of breastfeeding. And all of this without the guilt tripping of course.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Child's food or how not to become obese
As parents, the learning curve is steep and it doesn't stop when you think you may start to have it sussed out, like 4 years in or something like that. Recently, food has been very much on the agenda, and three very different trains of thought seem to be converging.
There is an interesting contradiction in the whole business of feeding children. If you're a breastfeeding mum, all your parents' eyes are on weight gain and you are damning yourself (even if health professionals don't) if it doesn't follow a chart. Oh the worry I had with Cubling. So much so, that once we started solids, I made sure it was a very high calorie version and she went from skinny to very chubby in just 3 months.
Then there's the whole debate of increasing levels of childhood obesity, so much so that a recent topic on Call Kaye was a debate on whether gastric band operations should be offered to children as young as 14. An interesting point was made by a caller who deplored that weight gain in children was no longer checked regularly, so that obesity is often caught when severely bad eating habits are very strongly established and exercise is becoming less of an option to tackle the surplus energy the body is given.
There are many reasons for childhood obesity, and while some are known (we all know what foods are good and which ones aren't, don't we?), some others are more elusive.
Reason 1: This is one that I only found out about recently, due to taking part in the Optigrow Infant Feeding Study. Apparently, baby's metabolism is set in the first 10 days of life. If fed on formula, the risk of later obesity is much higher than if fed on breast milk. What annoys me is that nobody ever informed me about this. All the breastfeeding information I got from the NHS was summarised into benefits, which were all nice but not very convincing.
When you decide which way you would like to feed your baby, it's presented as a choice where you weigh up pros and cons. The thing is though that many reasons to breastfeed are not really explained in detail. I usually don't trust reasons that don't give me an explanation. The "why" is important to me and convinces me. I'm still finding out more about the benefits of breastfeeding, and realise more and more that there are two reasons why people do not breastfeed: New mothers often don't know enough about the benefits and make an uninformed choice, or they do not get enough support. Then there's the group who does get all the information and support and makes an informed choice - which is fine. It's just a shame if breastfeeding isn't happening for lack of information and/or support.
Now there's a new "urge" to breastfeed to reduce levels of obesity, which have long term health impact and also cost the NHS money. Low breastfeeding rates translate to health inequalities in later life. In principle, this is all good and well, surely there's room for higher levels of breastfeeding (in some parts of Glasgow less than 10% of mothers breastfeed at the 6-8 week appointment) - but it takes more than an "urge". I saw a request on Netmums for a young mum to be for baby stuff, including bottles. I responded and offered a few things (including bottles) but also said that breastfeeding would be cheaper. The response by the friend was, oh she's only 17, she doesn't have a clue. I understand that, I didn't have a clue really at more than twice the age and the NHS breastfeeding workshop at 38 weeks of pregnancy was much too late to really have an impact on feeding choices (and the support to tackle my breastfeeding problems was well meaning but didn't actually improve things). I just feel that nobody should feel they don't have a clue about what should be the normal way to feed a baby, and I'm still mad that even with all the information I did get, I didn't know enough when I first became a mum.
Then there's the issue that breastfeeding support workers and initiatives are getting their funding cut. Urging to breastfeed without the support is simply not enough. I won't happen. Without the support I had, I would have given in after 2 weeks. I didn't have great support, but it kept me going at least. Cut that, and your breastfeeding rates will plummet.
Reason 2: There is an ever growing availability of unhealthy and cheap fast food, particularly in the poorer areas. When I started weaning, everyone told me that making your own baby food was way cheaper than jars. I still doubt that. I also doubt that I can make a dinner for the price of a ready made meal. Convenience food, unhealthy snacks, fast food, are all over the place, ever in your face and it's hard to say "no" even if you are health conscious. My suggestion to tackle the problem: tax the nasty ingredients. There is currently no tax on sugar, making sugary foods very cheap. The only thing that keeps me from buying yet another chocolate bar (and eating it within seconds) is price. I know I wouldn't buy it if it doubled in price. Same goes for ready made meals and the like.
Reason 3: People have lost the skill to cook. When I was a child, my mother cooked most things from scratch. I was fortunate to learn some skills from her, though I didn't show much of an interest and could have learned so much more. Later I learned from my au pair families and thanks to a great hall of residence where we cooked together occasionally. Yet still I'm not particularly confident that I can cook from scratch. Which is why I'm all in favour of basic cooking skills being taught at school - not as an elective subject but for everyone. Because really, what better life skill can there be than being able to feed yourself?
Reason 4: And this is where I got caught in the act: Creating negative food associations. Call it the battle of the dinner table. For months, nay, years, we've been battling at dinner time. Cubling takes forever to eat, and only threats or promises of desert will make her finish her dinner. This is with food she likes and with food she doesn't. She's not a particularly fussy eater (apart from refusing to eat fruit), she just won't feed herself. We've tried it all. Or have we? I once read that the principle of feeding kids should be that the parent controls WHAT comes on the plate, and the child controls HOW MUCH they eat. On Call Kaye it was pointed out that children don't actually overeat on decent food, they only do so if sweat/fatty food is offered and also if the parents insist on the child finishing the plate. Oh I'm so guilty of the latter. I hate wasting food. I still have that growth chart worry from her breastfeeding days. The comment also firmly put me into Cubling's shoes: How did I feel when coerced into eating food? I had to finish my plate too, made to eat meat, and what good did it do? I'm an overweight, chocoholic vegetarian now! How did it happen that I just copied the food politics that I hated when I was a child?
By age 4 apparently, bad food habits are created. But we can change, can't we, after all, she's only just 4. So it's back to basics: I offer, she eats or leaves. All without coercion, with calm and fun. Hopefully we can still patch the bad start, and do it all so much better with Snowflake...
How about you? Is your dinner table a battlefield?
And what do you think is the best way to tackle rising levels of childhood obesity?
(Brownie Point if you spot the movie reference in the title ;) )
There is an interesting contradiction in the whole business of feeding children. If you're a breastfeeding mum, all your parents' eyes are on weight gain and you are damning yourself (even if health professionals don't) if it doesn't follow a chart. Oh the worry I had with Cubling. So much so, that once we started solids, I made sure it was a very high calorie version and she went from skinny to very chubby in just 3 months.
Then there's the whole debate of increasing levels of childhood obesity, so much so that a recent topic on Call Kaye was a debate on whether gastric band operations should be offered to children as young as 14. An interesting point was made by a caller who deplored that weight gain in children was no longer checked regularly, so that obesity is often caught when severely bad eating habits are very strongly established and exercise is becoming less of an option to tackle the surplus energy the body is given.
There are many reasons for childhood obesity, and while some are known (we all know what foods are good and which ones aren't, don't we?), some others are more elusive.
Reason 1: This is one that I only found out about recently, due to taking part in the Optigrow Infant Feeding Study. Apparently, baby's metabolism is set in the first 10 days of life. If fed on formula, the risk of later obesity is much higher than if fed on breast milk. What annoys me is that nobody ever informed me about this. All the breastfeeding information I got from the NHS was summarised into benefits, which were all nice but not very convincing.
When you decide which way you would like to feed your baby, it's presented as a choice where you weigh up pros and cons. The thing is though that many reasons to breastfeed are not really explained in detail. I usually don't trust reasons that don't give me an explanation. The "why" is important to me and convinces me. I'm still finding out more about the benefits of breastfeeding, and realise more and more that there are two reasons why people do not breastfeed: New mothers often don't know enough about the benefits and make an uninformed choice, or they do not get enough support. Then there's the group who does get all the information and support and makes an informed choice - which is fine. It's just a shame if breastfeeding isn't happening for lack of information and/or support.
Now there's a new "urge" to breastfeed to reduce levels of obesity, which have long term health impact and also cost the NHS money. Low breastfeeding rates translate to health inequalities in later life. In principle, this is all good and well, surely there's room for higher levels of breastfeeding (in some parts of Glasgow less than 10% of mothers breastfeed at the 6-8 week appointment) - but it takes more than an "urge". I saw a request on Netmums for a young mum to be for baby stuff, including bottles. I responded and offered a few things (including bottles) but also said that breastfeeding would be cheaper. The response by the friend was, oh she's only 17, she doesn't have a clue. I understand that, I didn't have a clue really at more than twice the age and the NHS breastfeeding workshop at 38 weeks of pregnancy was much too late to really have an impact on feeding choices (and the support to tackle my breastfeeding problems was well meaning but didn't actually improve things). I just feel that nobody should feel they don't have a clue about what should be the normal way to feed a baby, and I'm still mad that even with all the information I did get, I didn't know enough when I first became a mum.
Then there's the issue that breastfeeding support workers and initiatives are getting their funding cut. Urging to breastfeed without the support is simply not enough. I won't happen. Without the support I had, I would have given in after 2 weeks. I didn't have great support, but it kept me going at least. Cut that, and your breastfeeding rates will plummet.
Reason 2: There is an ever growing availability of unhealthy and cheap fast food, particularly in the poorer areas. When I started weaning, everyone told me that making your own baby food was way cheaper than jars. I still doubt that. I also doubt that I can make a dinner for the price of a ready made meal. Convenience food, unhealthy snacks, fast food, are all over the place, ever in your face and it's hard to say "no" even if you are health conscious. My suggestion to tackle the problem: tax the nasty ingredients. There is currently no tax on sugar, making sugary foods very cheap. The only thing that keeps me from buying yet another chocolate bar (and eating it within seconds) is price. I know I wouldn't buy it if it doubled in price. Same goes for ready made meals and the like.
Reason 3: People have lost the skill to cook. When I was a child, my mother cooked most things from scratch. I was fortunate to learn some skills from her, though I didn't show much of an interest and could have learned so much more. Later I learned from my au pair families and thanks to a great hall of residence where we cooked together occasionally. Yet still I'm not particularly confident that I can cook from scratch. Which is why I'm all in favour of basic cooking skills being taught at school - not as an elective subject but for everyone. Because really, what better life skill can there be than being able to feed yourself?
Reason 4: And this is where I got caught in the act: Creating negative food associations. Call it the battle of the dinner table. For months, nay, years, we've been battling at dinner time. Cubling takes forever to eat, and only threats or promises of desert will make her finish her dinner. This is with food she likes and with food she doesn't. She's not a particularly fussy eater (apart from refusing to eat fruit), she just won't feed herself. We've tried it all. Or have we? I once read that the principle of feeding kids should be that the parent controls WHAT comes on the plate, and the child controls HOW MUCH they eat. On Call Kaye it was pointed out that children don't actually overeat on decent food, they only do so if sweat/fatty food is offered and also if the parents insist on the child finishing the plate. Oh I'm so guilty of the latter. I hate wasting food. I still have that growth chart worry from her breastfeeding days. The comment also firmly put me into Cubling's shoes: How did I feel when coerced into eating food? I had to finish my plate too, made to eat meat, and what good did it do? I'm an overweight, chocoholic vegetarian now! How did it happen that I just copied the food politics that I hated when I was a child?
By age 4 apparently, bad food habits are created. But we can change, can't we, after all, she's only just 4. So it's back to basics: I offer, she eats or leaves. All without coercion, with calm and fun. Hopefully we can still patch the bad start, and do it all so much better with Snowflake...
How about you? Is your dinner table a battlefield?
And what do you think is the best way to tackle rising levels of childhood obesity?
(Brownie Point if you spot the movie reference in the title ;) )
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
The Normality of Breastfeeding
I live in a place where breastfeeding is the exception rather than the norm. It came as a surprise to me when I was first presented with this fact, about 10 years ago, when a friend of mine had a baby and was the only new mum in the 13 bed ward who was breastfeeding. I also remember being asked in a questionnaire why I chose to breastfeed - and that my reason (because it's the normal way of feeding a newborn) was not an option.
It makes me wonder if the low breastfeeding rates in certain places may be related with formula feeding being perceived as the norm, and if re-establishing breastfeeding as the norm may lead to improved breastfeeding rates.
One example where formula feeding was established as the norm was when someone decided to base the growth charts on formula fed babies. This has since been changed - so this time around, Snowflake is measured against growth charts of breastfed babies (and following her line spot on) while Cubling was measured against formula fed babies (and kept dropping as time went on, giving me a lot of worry if I was doing the right thing). Although these charts gave me worry with Cubling, I never questioned them. But now that I'm more relaxed about weight gain, and can see my own different attitude and how the new chart gives me confidence that things are going well, I realise how crucial this change is. Hopefully it will give confidence to many breastfeeding mums, and more than that, demonstrate that the norm against which baby growth is measured is that of a breastfed baby.
At nursery, Cubling has been learning all about babies. It's been a great theme, just at the right time. She comes home and continues the role play with her favourite teddy (she's not into dolls as such, her teddy is her baby, it's a girl and her name is Snowflakes middle name). She tells me all about why babies cry, that they can't walk yet, that they visited the baby room and how proud she is that she has a real baby at home. She'll change nappies, wipes teddy bums, dresses teddy for bed and outdoors. And she's filling up bottles to give milk to teddy.
Mummy cringes. All my nursing and my daughter at 3 years already fills up bottles (of the breast pump at least, but bottles they are nonetheless).
I cringe even more because when I dropped Cubling off at nursery one day, and Snowflake was crying (I didn't get the timing of feeds right), a nursery teacher passed and asked Cubling if her baby sister needed a bottle.
Bless Cubling, she just retorted by saying "no!" and pointing to her breast.
What it shows though is that at nursery, the message given out to our youngest is that the normality of baby feeding is the bottle (filled with formula, why else would you measure milk?) - possibly out of a false sense of prudishness (I'm guessing). It's an opportunity lost, an opportunity to re-establish the normality of breastfeeding in an area of Glasgow where the rates are bound to be doddling around the 10% mark.
And I'm particularly disappointed because this is a nursery that prides itself in its eco status, it's environmental awareness and does generally so well in these areas. Shouldn't this not also translate into some gentle encouragement of the message that breastfeeding is normal? It's not about promoting breastfeeding, just about treating it as the norm, to which there will always be exceptions.
Have you experienced situations where breastfeeding wasn't/isn't treated as the norm? Should I take this up with the nursery?
It makes me wonder if the low breastfeeding rates in certain places may be related with formula feeding being perceived as the norm, and if re-establishing breastfeeding as the norm may lead to improved breastfeeding rates.
One example where formula feeding was established as the norm was when someone decided to base the growth charts on formula fed babies. This has since been changed - so this time around, Snowflake is measured against growth charts of breastfed babies (and following her line spot on) while Cubling was measured against formula fed babies (and kept dropping as time went on, giving me a lot of worry if I was doing the right thing). Although these charts gave me worry with Cubling, I never questioned them. But now that I'm more relaxed about weight gain, and can see my own different attitude and how the new chart gives me confidence that things are going well, I realise how crucial this change is. Hopefully it will give confidence to many breastfeeding mums, and more than that, demonstrate that the norm against which baby growth is measured is that of a breastfed baby.
At nursery, Cubling has been learning all about babies. It's been a great theme, just at the right time. She comes home and continues the role play with her favourite teddy (she's not into dolls as such, her teddy is her baby, it's a girl and her name is Snowflakes middle name). She tells me all about why babies cry, that they can't walk yet, that they visited the baby room and how proud she is that she has a real baby at home. She'll change nappies, wipes teddy bums, dresses teddy for bed and outdoors. And she's filling up bottles to give milk to teddy.
Mummy cringes. All my nursing and my daughter at 3 years already fills up bottles (of the breast pump at least, but bottles they are nonetheless).
I cringe even more because when I dropped Cubling off at nursery one day, and Snowflake was crying (I didn't get the timing of feeds right), a nursery teacher passed and asked Cubling if her baby sister needed a bottle.
Bless Cubling, she just retorted by saying "no!" and pointing to her breast.
What it shows though is that at nursery, the message given out to our youngest is that the normality of baby feeding is the bottle (filled with formula, why else would you measure milk?) - possibly out of a false sense of prudishness (I'm guessing). It's an opportunity lost, an opportunity to re-establish the normality of breastfeeding in an area of Glasgow where the rates are bound to be doddling around the 10% mark.
And I'm particularly disappointed because this is a nursery that prides itself in its eco status, it's environmental awareness and does generally so well in these areas. Shouldn't this not also translate into some gentle encouragement of the message that breastfeeding is normal? It's not about promoting breastfeeding, just about treating it as the norm, to which there will always be exceptions.
Have you experienced situations where breastfeeding wasn't/isn't treated as the norm? Should I take this up with the nursery?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
