Women Who Don’t Breastfeed are NOT “Bad Mothers”

Ah! The never ending mommy wars. Brace yourselves. The breastfeeding zealots, and the I’m offend collective are about to do battle.

The headline should be “women who don’t breastfeed may or may not be bad mothers”.

WIC provides supplemental food for Women, Infants, and Children. The extra food that you mention for breastfeeding mothers is for the MOTHERS. The infant is not given more food nor are formula fed babies denied anything. Women that formal feed do NOT need extra nutrition for themselves in order to be able to care for their babies. Women that breastfeed DO need to be mindful of their diets.

Otherwise…I agree with everything else.

WOMEN who breast-feed are eligible for WIC for twice as long as women who do not breast-feed, and they get an “enhanced food package,” which includes vouchers for a wider range of more nutritious food. Unlike formula-fed babies, who are eligible only for infant cereal and fruit and vegetable-based baby food, breast-feeding babies also receive meat-based baby food, which is richer in iron. The difference in benefits is intended to create incentives for poor mothers to breast-feed, but withholding food from mothers at nutritional risk, and from their babies, seems more like punishment to me.

If this is true, it seems discriminatory to me. Not all women “choose” not to breast feed, some physically can’t. Why shouldn’t their babies receive the same amount of WIC (time, what’s offered etc) as breast-fed babies?

So…we adopted our kids, and when they were babies I used to love getting involved in those mommy-war discussions about breastfeeding, because someone would inevitably go nuclear with “formula is poison!!11!1!” and it was always a lot of fun to watch them backpedal uncomfortably (“Well…I mean…*of course* it’s fine in *your* situation…”) when I objected. It’s either akin to child abuse or it isn’t; it’s not the most awful thing a mother could possibly do except when you realize you’re being a kind of jerk to those who don’t have a choice in the matter.

(FWIW, I always thought I would breastfeed, and I’m kind of bummed that I never got the chance to try. But it’s a choice, and not everyone would make the same choice I would. I don’t understand why people care so much how other people choose to parent.)

I was so fortunate when I gave birth, far from the madding crowd of judgmental know-it-alls! I was a free range mom, and got to raise my kid just the way I chose. My family was half a continent away, and my friends were childless. I lived in NYC, the Lower East Side, As I met other moms, who were as diverse a lot as one would expect in that setting at that time (1971), I found them to be accepting and generous and easy on each other. we took our kids to Tompkins Square Park among the dirt and derelicts, and let them run free. We fed them as we saw fit. We trusted our guts.

Where have those times gone?

When did we become so judgmental? so self-righteous?

My son survived, by the way.

Breastfeeding is cheaper than formula and a great bonding experience between mother and child, but even so, those who cannot should not be vilified. I fully agree.

Could the difference in baby food provided by WIC be because formula is iron-fortified, but the mother might be low in iron and not providing enough? Obviously not all nursing mothers are iron deficient, but iron-fortified formula can’t be iron deficient. And the fact that nursing mothers on average need more nutrition than non-nursing mothers has already been covered. Providing more nutrition for the mothers IS providing more nutrition for the babies, when you’re talking about breastfeeding.

Government policy rarely favors the natural over the commercial, so I’m very dubious about the idea that the difference in WIC policy is about “punishing” bottle-feeding mothers, regardless of how misguided some aspects of it might be.

I’m all for breast-feeding where possible and practical. I’m also all for non-persecution of those who choose to bottle feed, but I think this article is more axe-grinding than sound research.

Yes, this is good!

Although the WIC portion of the article is a bit misleading. The extra vouchers for breastfeeding families are for adult food for the mothers, as breastfeeding moms have to eat more and also eat nutritious food in order to produce breastmilk for the baby. As one who recieved and was grateful for WIC help, my extra vouchers were for milk, cheese, dried beans, canned tuna, and $10 of produce a month.

Actually, my baby didn’t get any vouchers until 6 months old (a formula fed baby would be getting formula vouchers the whole time), when the vouchers for mommy food reduced. The vouchers for jarred baby food kicked in at 6 months, and then only veggies and a small amount of meat. Oh, and dried cereal and juice.

The vouchers are very, very, very specific as to what types of food can be bought, and they change with time to be age appropriate for the kid.

I saw another editorial on this on another site, and you should have seen the ‘lactivists’ come out – immediately attacking any notion or scientific study that dared to suggest that breastfeeding didn’t cause world peace. It was rather depressing. There is no best way, as long as your kid is fed. I had someone tell me that I didn’t really love my child, because I didn’t stop taking medication so I could breastfeed. Yeah, the medication that keeps my digestive tract from attacking itself is totally optional! And I can absolutely nourish both myself and a baby while starving! Switched medication by the time I got to my second kid, but couldn’t come close to producing enough milk to keep him fed. So thank God for formula!

On the iron issue. I was told shortly after my daughter was born, that iron does a very poor job passing into milk. My breastfeeding support kit from the hospital included a coupon for infant iron supplements. Also the pediatrician told me to start those pretty quick. As I recall I was told something about the kid’s iron reserves attained while in utero depleting, and being really low by the time she is old enough to get iron from food. And they said this wasn’t an issue for formula fed babies because the formulas have a lot more iron than breastmilk does.

Good discussion. A point that I don’t see anywhere, though, is that this is all about the USA and maybe other prosperous first-world countries.

The balance of the argument is quite different in developing countries where clean water and fuel for boiling water (and soap for cleaning bottles) may be expensive or hard to find, and where formula costs much of the family income and is often adulterated because of weak regulation.

In this context, prevention of disease and survival through infancy are the most immediate reasons for promoting breastfeeding.

Being a 59-year-old single male without any children, this is obviously a subject I know absolutely NOTHING about! But just to throw out a few observations here, I see NOTHING wrong with mothers who breastfeed their babies in public which seems to be somewhat controversial. If the mother is wearing a button down blouse and she unbuttons the top few buttons and holds the baby up to her chest allowing the baby to put his mouth around one of her nipples, there is nothing revealing about that as the one breast is covered by the baby’s mouth while the other is covered by the blouse. I remember seeing a mother breastfeed her baby in this same manner at a picnic I attended and I saw nothing shocking about it. Now my niece never breastfeed her baby son in public BUT she would do so in the living room in front of family and friends or around people she knew. Whereas 50 some years ago, my brother in-law absolutely forbid my sister to breastfeed her babies in front of anyone, including family! She had to take the baby inside the bedroom and shut the door.

On the other hand, if a mother chooses to NOT breastfeed her babies in public or in private, that’s OK too as far as I’m concerned! Either way, it’s none of mine or anyone else’s business.

Hooray to Lenore for daring to post this. And yes, bonding is from the loving contact of parent and child. Breastfeeding helps but is not the only way. As I told a good friend who was pregnant (I was working as a midwife but not HER care giver), I’d much rather have a happy, loving formula feeding mother/baby dyad over a tense, unhappy (due to abuse issues) unwilling-but-pushed-into-it breastfeeding dyad. She got a LOT of crap about her decision to not breastfeed. This was a woman who couldn’t even let her partner of many years touch her breasts. She bottlefed, and raised 3 wonderful, happy, intelligent boys.

Disclaimer: I breastfed until I had to return to work at 6 weeks. Then breast/bottle fed. Both children are alive, happy, intelligent, productive adults. I don’t think not being fully breastfed hurt them….they KNOW they are loved.

I used to know all these La Leche League gals but I couldn’t take their constant breast feed talk. Why do they keep going to those meetings when their kids are 4 years old? Haven’t they figured it out by then?

Breastfeeding propaganda fits into the idea that parenting is all about acting on your child like he or she is a natural resource, and not a relationship that you build with a human being –like putting kids in a million courses, or restricting their consumption of gluten for no medical reason.

That’s why sensibility on breast versus bottle stirs such vitriol.

When I get pregnant I was stunned to find out I might make milk. You see, I had breast reduction surgery over twenty years ago and was told then I would never be able to breastfeed. Well lo and behold my ducts reconnected and I got a little milk. I was jealous of the moms pumping out 8 ounces, hell three ounces at a clip, but I gave him what I was able to make and substituted with formula. Thank you Target!
Personally, I am a little sick and tired of the self righteous remarks and how breastfeeding passes on so many good antibodies and how if you give formula you are a bad parent. I hate to break it to the lactivists, but I know quite a few breast fed kids with serious allergies. So while I agree breastfeeding is more affordable and a nice way to bond, there is no guarantee a breastfed child won’t end up ill, or with allergies or just normal. You know, just like kids that are given formula. 🙂 I also concur that bonding happens during the feeding process not because you are giving them breast milk. People aggravate the hell out of me.

I guess I’d like to see a link from a reputable source about these chemicals that strengthen bonding between mother and child. I’m unaware of those and always thought that my children and I DID bond.

I tried to breastfeed my first child for 3 weeks. She never latched properly, I got mastitis, and by the end of that 3 weeks when I decided to switch to bottle/formula it had been such a frustrating experience that I think we both hated each other. The relief I felt when I gave her her first bottle was incredible. (I did pump until I went back to work though.) She is now grown up, a productive member of society, has a sunny disposition, and loves her mom.

It is sooooo rare for me to take issue with anything on your fine site. Nor do I want to be the predictable commenter we KNEW would jump on in here to engage in a war.

But, I have to disagree with your statement that women should only breast feed if it’s “easy” and “important” to them.

“Does all this mean that women should stop breast-feeding? No. If you want to, if it’s easy for you, if you are healthy, if your baby is thriving on breast milk, if it’s important to you, then by all means do it.”

There are many things not “easy” about having a newborn. It should be a birthright, barring extenuating circumstances, that new humans be fed the food for which they were biologically intended, and not a concoction of chemicals including but not limited to “corn syrup solids.”

I am a free-range supporter all the way, but I just can’t wrap my head around how it is OK for a mother to “decide” to deny a newborn its intended food source for the sake of articficial chemicals that are “easier.”

The information about WIC is wrong. But who’s going to bother checking it? If you breastfeed, you get food from WIC. If you don’t, the baby gets formula (and food later) and you don’t get any food. Pretty simple.

I don’t like how this article minimizes the benefits of breastfeeding. I have done both, and in my experience, there is no bonding like breastfeeding. However. Sometimes it can be a nightmare and cause more problems if it doesn’t go well. So for the mothers’ mental health, a bottle is the better solution. And the way Americans eat, sometimes there are not a lot of health benefits for baby. Crap in, crap out.

I feel this author has swung the other way (anti-breastfeeding) and is spreading misinformation. But she’s stealthy and glosses over things like antibodies and enzymes and other scientific stuff that proves breastmilk is highly beneficial.

Bottom line: Do you whatever helps you and baby thrive best. Trust your instinct. Don’t judge others for their choice.

“It is surprising that low-income people choose not to breastfeed”

It is not surprising at all. Contrary to sound-bites, the vast majority of low-income mothers work outside the home. They work at low-income, hourly, manual-labor jobs that rarely have the flexibility or facilities necessary to make pumping during the workday even remotely realistic.

Breastfeeding is simply not part of the low-income culture. I’m sure that it is more complicated than work as to why, but the prospects of attempting to pump while working on the line at the poultry plant or as a cashier at Walmart or cook at McDs would certainly put it out of my mind as an option.

I can’t understand at all why so many people are so invested in how other people feed their babies. It seems like a very odd thing to get your knickers in a twist over. Sure if you see someone feeding their children actual poison, it is probably a good idea to step in, but beyond that it is really not your business.

“I just can’t wrap my head around how it is OK for a mother to “decide” to deny a newborn its intended food source for the sake of articficial chemicals that are ‘easier.'”

Can you wrap your head around why someone might actually feed their children store bought bread rather than baking every loaf at home from scratch? Or use store bought flour to bake that bread rather than growing and milling their own? Have you actually managed to do something no other person in the world has done and established the exact food sources intended by nature for optimum human consumption and consume solely those items?

Dear Caroline P.

There were a few things that I wanted to say to you, but I decided not to. The thing that I am going to say to you is something that should be obvious: our “birthright,” as is all mammals, is for many of us to suffer and die as infants or consequently suffer and die as we give birth to infants. And that birthright I reject, and wholly give myself over to yes, modern conveniences, but also to modern technology – which includes the amazing technology to keep infants who otherwise would have died alive.

Our “extenuating circumstances” are that we’re scraping out a living and doing the best by our children that we can. Not just their physical health, but also all of our mental health as well. I think that’s why we’re all here.

As for the “chemicals” in formula – those are vitamins and minerals. “Corn syrup solids” is sugar. Which is what we all run on, plants and animals, including you. In short, you’re being ridiculous and you need to leave good parents alone.

I am disturbed by this article’s interpretation of WIC’s guidelines for breastfeeding vs non-breastfeeding. The inclusion of iron-rich babyfood has nothing to do with “punishing” non-breastfed babies and everything to do with one way in which breast is *not* best–that breastfed babies are slightly more likely to be anemic because iron is not efficiently transferred through breastmilk. And the difference in length of supplementation for Mom is again, not a punishment, but a simple nutritional assessment based on the calorie needs of breastfeeding.

I get frustrated when misinformation is countered…with more misinformation, all of it meant to create further division between parents.

Ugh, I hate these articles. The “new mother issues” she describes in her article don’t just happen with respect to feeding, but also day care, strollers, whether to have a glass of wine during pregnancy, type of car seats, reading to baby during bedtime, letting them cry, so on and so forth. There is an article like this to write about ever single thing a parent chooses to do, it’s not just feeding. Actually there is an article to write like this about everything any of us do, because, well, it’s the internet, it’s infinite and there is a lot of space to fill. So we opine on everything, to an absurd degree.

But let’s talk about breast feeding for a minute, since that’s what she writes about. For many, mostly low income women, breastfeeding actually is beneficial to the child in a way that not breastfeeding is not and in a way that is not applicable to working-, middle- and upper-income families. Because in the case of low income families, it’s not a choice between breast milk or formula, it’s a choice between breast milk and whatever they have in the apartment, which is often not much. I’ve heard stories from CHWs of mothers who fed their babies soda, Hi-C, Carnation Instant Breakfast, Nestle Quik, coffee, pureed rice and beans mixed with water, etc., not because they are bad mothers, but because they are good mothers doing their best and not knowing any better, and not being able to afford formula. I’ve seen a woman give her 2-month-old expired milk that had been sitting on the counter since I got there. In that case, yes, breast milk really can ward of disease and it’s good that these women are encouraged to breastfeed and taught that breastfeeding is, in fact, better than the alternative (i.e., Sprite). But we middle and upper income moms don’t see that side of things, because, for us, breastfeeding is one of two great options, so downplaying breastfeeding has no effect on our children.

Of course, we middle and upper income women make how we feed our child into a validation of our “worth” as mothers, because we have the time to care about that — hence the copious number of blog posts on the subject. But those who don’t have that time? For them the fact that they feed their child at all is a validation of their worth. Query why we middle and upper income women can’t bring themselves to feel the same.

I disagree with the WIC allocation of benefits, but that is a broader problem related to the governments in the US and their unwillingness to do things that are actually beneficial, and rather take half-steps to do things that look good on paper. If Professor Jung thinks that the mothers of formula-fed babies are being punished in this case, she would shudder to see the other ways in which they are punished, regardless of whether they formula feed or breast feed. I wish people would write and care about that. But we don’t, because that’s not our world, and it’s not our problem. But making sure middle and upper class women don’t feel like bad mothers when they have to live with one of two great options — apparently that’s worth a New York Times Op Ed.

Finally, Lenore, has anyone been arrested or had DCFS called on them for feeding their child formula? Maybe they have, and if so we should discuss THAT. If not, I don’t see how this is related to leaving your child in a car for a few minutes or playing outside supervised. This is a debate closer to “public school or private school?” or “let your kid watch TV or not?” or “nanny or day care?” or whatever other ‘first-world’ choices we get to make. I get you are trying to fight off the world where parents aren’t allowed to make any choices with respect to their own children, but I would warn you against leading the way down that slippery slope yourself, which is what your commentary looks like.

(Meanwhile, we don’t seem to notice that, for some, the aforementioned choices look more like “go to school and learn nothing or skip school” and “Star Wars movie or Transformers movie” or “leave them home alone or leave them with auntie, whose husband molested me when I was a kid.”)

It’s a false dichotomy.

Breastfeeding is very good for the baby (in most cases). Formula feeding is good for the baby, maybe even better than breastfeeding in some cases.

It’s “good” vs. “gooder”, not “good” vs. “bad”.

Not feeding baby is bad. Feeding baby plastic popcorn and rat poison is bad. Feeding baby to wild dingoes is bad. Telling baby to get a job and feed herself is bad (unless your baby twins are Mary Kate and Ashley.. that one worked out OK.)

Gah, I hate mummy wars. The problem is that advocacy is aimed at the masses, not the individual – but the individuals take it extremely personally.

I am a breastfeeding advocate, and while going on about high IQs is ridiculous, I think there is no doubt that breastmilk is gold.

Having said that, advocacy happens on a large scale, aimed at the same people who are receiving a heavy dose of advertising from companies that, let’s be real, are primarily interested in making money by selling formula.

On an individual scale I have complete understanding for the reasons why so many women opt for forumal, and the reasons are wide, from medical needs to simply not having the education or support or even desire to continue breastfeeding…

I hate when mums feels that they have to explain there reasons behind switching to formula — the don’t. The advocates (and organisations like the Australian Breastfeeding Association) support the women and the choices that they make, while trying to advocate globally so that in the future women have more support in their journey.

Cassie:

I think there is doubt that breastmilk is gold. This article does a good job of summing up what I found when I also dived into the research:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/the-case-against-breast-feeding/307311/

This thought in particular: “the medical literature looks nothing like the popular literature. It shows that breast-feeding is probably, maybe, a little better; but it is far from the stampede of evidence that Sears describes. More like tiny, unsure baby steps: two forward, two back, with much meandering and bumping into walls. A couple of studies will show fewer allergies, and then the next one will turn up no difference. Same with mother-infant bonding, IQ, leukemia, cholesterol, diabetes. Even where consensus is mounting, the meta studie — reviews of existing studie — consistently complain about biases, missing evidence, and other major flaws in study design. “The studies do not demonstrate a universal phenomenon, in which one method is superior to another in all instances,” concluded one of the first, and still one of the broadest, meta studies, in a 1984 issue of Pediatrics, “and they do not support making a mother feel that she is doing psychological harm to her child if she is unable or unwilling to breastfeed.”

Totally agree with everything that Cassie said including: “The problem is that advocacy is aimed at the masses, not the individual — but the individuals take it extremely personally.”

Even if breastfeeding only has a slight advantage over formula feeding, if you multiply that over masses of people, higher overall rates of breastfeeding do have an impact on public health and healthcare costs.

The point of advocating for breastfeeding should not be to shame women for formula feeding (no matter the reason for their choice, even if the reason is just because they don’t want to breastfeed), but instead to lower the barriers that prevent women who would otherwise breastfeed from doing so.

When women are shamed for breastfeeding in public, it becomes a huge hassle to hide away every time they need to nurse, so they are likely to quit breastfeeding sooner. So making it more socially acceptable and emphasizing the benefits to society as a whole when more mothers breastfeed helps nursing mothers feel more comfortable feeding their babies while going about their day.

When doctors lack education in breastfeeding (most only have 0-3 hours total training in it), they can give bad advice about it that discourages mothers from continuing to breastfeed (for example most of the weight gain charts are based on formula-fed babies which can lead to a mistaken belief that a breastfed baby is not thriving. Also, milk usually doesn’t come in at the hospital, the first few days are collostrum which is nutrient and antibody dense and newborns only need about a pea size of it to meet their needs, so a mother told she won’t be able to nurse because her milk didn’t come in might actually be getting bad information). So helping educate women about breastfeeding and providing support from experts can actually make them *more* educated about breastfeeding than the doctors and prevent them from succumbing to bad advice.

When employers have no facilities for new moms to pump, they have no choice but to stop breastfeeding. Lobbying for legal protections so working women can pump allows women to continue breastfeeding after returning to work.

Making it easier for moms who want to breastfeed to be able to do so raises the overall rates of breastfeeding which is good when averaged over a large mass of people. But that doesn’t mean that those who choose not to breastfeed should be stigmatized or punished for their choice.

To say that “Breast is Best” is not saying that formula is toxic poison. Best is a comparison word, and compared to formula, breast is a little better. That’s why formula companies are always trying to improve their recipe to get even closer to breastmilk. Scientists are always discovering new things about breastmilk, which then allows them to further improve the formula for all formula-fed babies too. For instance, a recent study discovered that when nursing from the breast, babies backwash a little back into the mother’s body which allows her body to produce a “made-to-order” cocktail of antibodies for the next nursing session. It’s pretty cool what the body can do.

Also, understanding the effect of breastfeeding/not breastfeeding on the mother can help support formula feeding moms too. Moms who formula feed have a higher rate of post-partum depression. It’s not just that society is pressuring them to breastfeed and making them feel bad for formula feeding. But on a biological level, it’s only recently in human history that there are other options for feeding a baby other than breastmilk, so in the past if you didn’t breastfeed, that meant your baby died. So on a biological level your hormones and body can feel the “loss” of your baby even as your baby is healthy and thriving on formula. So formula feeding moms may need even more support as their body adjusts to being a mom who is not breastfeeding.

Just want to make it clear to JKP and Cassie that I am NOT saying that breast isn’t a little better. That is clear, and it’s good if you can do it. But language like “breast milk is gold” really overstates the advantages and DOES shame women, whether you think that’s the intention or not. It’s not the type of thing to lose your mind over as a mother, and it’s definitely not the kind of thing to lose your mind over as a stranger sitting next to a mother feeding her child at the park, which is why it’s here.

I’m a mom of three, and yes, I’m a breastfeeding advocate and encourage every woman to try if she is able. That said, it is incredibly encouraging in this day and age that women have the choice of formula available to them as there are a multitude of reasons why a woman can’t or doesn’t want to breastfeed. That she has the choice is awesome. I’ve seen some incredible mothers who can’t breastfeed. They are just as committed to their children as those who can.

@JKP

I don’t think you mean this, but your analogy is pretty offensive. Texting and driving is actually risky and potentially deadly behavior. Formula feeding is not. It is one of two excellent ways to nourish an infant, each of which have benefits and drawbacks and both of which have good outcomes. It’s possible that Liz’s situation is as you describe, but we can’t know this. And the actual research makes conjecture shaky at best.

I can sort of understand the WIC program trying to encourage women to breastfeed. Using formula is a *lot* more expensive, and if you’re using WIC then you’re doing it on the government’s (i.e. the taxpayers’) dime. So there’s definitely some incentive to get women to nurse if at all possible. Obviously not everybody can, and many women might be the family’s sole provider and unable to pump at work so they simply can’t, but it does make sense that they’d push it.

Furthermore, baby formula is iron-fortified. So it makes sense that the iron-rich meat baby foods would be encouraged for babies being breastfed, but not deemed as necessary for babies who are already getting their iron through formula. I do think that some of the difference, though, is that the breastfed mother is getting the foods she needs to eat herself in order to breastfeed, whereas the formula mother is getting foods to feed directly to the baby.

JKP,

“When employers have no facilities for new moms to pump, they have no choice but to stop breastfeeding. Lobbying for legal protections so working women can pump allows women to continue breastfeeding after returning to work.”.

Sorry, but I get sick and tired of personal choices turning into things that employers/businesses have to construct, maintain and fund. I have heard arguments being made for more employer daycare centers, more family washrooms, more breastfeeding rooms to now pumping time. Sorry, but what happened to the good old days when people went to work to uhhhhhh………………..WORK.

Oh and if you really want to pump at work, do it on your breaks, or lose that hour or so of pay.

this is a breastfeeding story but the comparison of ignorance is off the topic

Uganda mothers with AIDS are given formula so that they don’t give their healthy babies AIDS. However some of them breastfeed instead as they don’t trust formula. They give their baby AIDS because they are ‘protecting them’. (a much worse fate)

This is the same as parents that believe that the best way to protect children is to pump as much fear and anxiety as they can in them. They think its better to pump them full of self doubt, nil self esteem and nil self worth to prevent them from a possible kidnapping.

Jenny Islander,

And that is the employer’s problem how? And why should they be on the financial hook for the personal choices of their employees?

Like I said, if one has to pump, don’t expect to be paid for that time. Just like others don’t expect to be paid to meet with a realtor, go to the bank, and so on. Personal time is personal time.

JKP,
Another analogy fail.
Personal choice to breastfeed does not equal a medical condition. And bluntly, if they had a medical condition before they applied for the job, that would interfere with the performance of their duties………they wouldn’t get hired.

I don’t think the law requires extra breaks beyond other breaks for pumping. If an employer doesn’t provide breaks normally, they’d have to provide breaks for pumping. But if an employer already gives breaks, well, they followed the legal requirement to provide pumping time.

Emily Morris,

Here there are laws that govern employee breaks. Basically paid morning and afternoon breaks, and an unpaid lunch break. That is the minimum.

People think that even if you are not paying someone for their pumping time, that it doesn’t cost. Well it does. Because when mom is not doing her job, someone else has to cover, taking time away from theirs.

@Havva – I’m not sure if you just have outdated info (can’t remember how old your children are) or if they just gave you really, really, bad info (for what we know now). While there is less iron in breastmilk it is in a form far better absorbed than the iron in formula – and for many infants there is “too much” iron in formula – thus the issues with constipation, which is exceedingly rare in exclusively breastfed infants. The reason that infants are at risk of anemia is because of premature clamping of the umbilical cord (i.e. right after birth). We now realize that the baby actually needs all of the blood circulating between their placenta and their circulatory system and current recommendations are to delay cord clamping for at least 1 minute following birth (there are other reasons as well). Non of that is neither here not there regarding choices in infant feeding, but whatever we decide we should at least have the most up-to-date info 🙂

@Donald – that’s not exactly how that has been working out. Many mothers in those desperately poor situations are given a little bit of formula – but certainly not enough to cover the first year of the baby’s life. And they have difficulty finding access to the safe water sources for preparation or clean-up of the formula. Research actually shows that an exclusively breastfed baby has a fairly low rate if cross-transmission of HIV. The risk comes when other foods (such as formula are added in). So when moms are given this woefully inadequate formula substitute (given their situation) and then breastfeed to fill in the gaps (or prevent other illnesses from unsafe water sources) it is actually the formula that put them at risk of HIV transmission, not the breastfeeding. The WHO’s recommendations under such conditions are exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months and then abrupt weaning.

Another heart-wrenching example is the Syrian refugee crisis. There has been a strong anti-breastfeeding campaign going in in Syria for decades (think the US in the mid 20th century) and breastfeeding rates are abominably low. How do you think all of these formula dependent babies are faring at the moment?

Again – not reflecting on any given mother’s personal decision, but there are big picture issues to consider as well.

Jenny Islander,

So you are saying that it is my best interest, when given the choice between two equally qualified applicants, that I should choose the one that will be least productive? Not going to happen. And I doubt any other employer will see it your way.

And I never said that employers should not allow the time for pumping. I stated that employers should not be paying for that time, nor should they have to provide, at their cost, facilities for that activity.

Let’s just say for the sake of it, that one needs an extra 1.5 hours per day to pump. Now for just 6 months. That is works out to 180 hours. Divide that by a 40 hr week, and it is 4.5 weeks or one month. That is a lot of money lost by the employee, but it is also one month of lost productivity lost to the company. Not due to an illness, not due to an injury, not due to unanticipated events. Due to a personal choice of an employee. Over a year it is two months and so on. That is a lot to expect out of an employer.

Warren – “If I have two people, equally qualified. One is healthy, the other has medical issues, there is not a law in the world that says I can’t choose based on that final detail.”

Except that there is a law that says it’s illegal for you to ask if they have medical issues. Also illegal to ask if they have children. And people savvy enough to realize employers might pass them over for those reasons are not going to voluntarily disclose that they have a medical condition requiring accommodation, nor whether they have a baby they are currently breastfeeding at home. So if you do happen to hire someone who needs accommodation (or if the circumstances of a current employee change), you are legally required to accommodate them. And if you fire them after discovering they need a reasonable accommodation protected by law (such as breaks to pump breastmilk), you can be sued for discrimination. And if such a future employee found a post like the one above spouting off about how you have an actual plan to discriminate, they would likely win (possibly with a pro-bono or contingency lawyer so it wouldn’t cost them a cent to sue you).

Fun fact: It’s relatively well-known that kosher laws prohibit eating milk and meat together (among many other things, of course). It’s much less well-known that kosher laws consider human breast milk to be parve (neither meat nor dairy). I’ve heard more than one orthodox Jew discuss the idea of opening a restaurant with kosher cheeseburgers and such…

JKP,

Nice try. We are allowed to ask if an applicant is physically able to do the job, as set out in the job description. Two things to keep in mind. Within the first 3 months, considered the probationary period, we are free to terminate employment at any time. Even more so if the applicant lies about their ability to physically do the job.
You see, in our line of work, there are physical demands that above and beyond most lines of work. And by law that goes both ways. We have to be open and honest of what is expected, and the applicant must be open and honest about their abilities.

And again, I never said that employers should not allow or penalize someone for breastfeeding. I just said it is a lot to ask of an employer, because it is a choice and not a medical problem. I also said that an employer should not have to bear the cost of a facility just for pumping and breastfeeding. Don’t like that, well that it your problem. And just for you…………..all our hiring procedures are reviewed on a regular basis, and we are well within our rights and the law.

Warren – I actually worked in HR for a few years where we were hired to consult for other companies (like yours) who had gotten themselves into trouble by breaking laws in hiring and firing (and sexual harrassment, etc). While it can vary state by state, and by size of company etc, you should definitely check what applies to your business before you get yourself into trouble.

“We are allowed to ask if an applicant is physically able to do the job”

And if an applicant knows that they can do the job with the reasonable accommodation protected by law, they can tell you that they can do the job without disclosing to you the reasonable accommodation.

http://disabilityrightsiowa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FAQ-About-Disability-Disclosure-under-the-ADA.pdf
“Pre-Employment: Any question that may elicit disability-related information is prohibited. Whether a reasonable accommodation is needed would be protected information.”

“Within the first 3 months, considered the probationary period, we are free to terminate employment at any time.”

Actually if the reason you are firing them is that they need a reasonable accommodation as protected by the ADA, then that would be considered discrimination and could get you into trouble. I’m not trying to start a fight with you, but having witnessed a few small business owners such as yourself go through painful discrimination lawsuits, I wouldn’t wish it on you. Sometimes the employee was just a terrible employee rightfully terminated, but then pulled the discrimination card to get back at their employer and even when the employer won, it still cost them a lot of money in attorney and consultant fees.

“I just said it is a lot to ask of an employer, because it is a choice and not a medical problem.”

So you are saying that you would FORCE a mother to formula feed against her will, thereby effectively making the choice for her? Because that is in essence what employers do when they don’t provide reasonable accommodation for pumping. That makes it not a choice anymore then, doesn’t it? And what employers are being asked is not such a huge burden: a private room that’s not a bathroom to pump in and unpaid breaks to pump. You’re not being asked to outfit a whole specialized lactation room built out special for that purpose. Any company with more than 50 employees should be able to find a storage room or empty office they can put a lock on and designate as a lactation room. It can still be used for other things when not in use for pumping.

The point Jennifer made a few posts earlier is that it is a civic responsibility for our society to support moms who want to breastfeed to be able to do so. Giving women a free choice, not pressured to breastfeed if they don’t want to, but likewise not prevented from breastfeeding if they do want to, because even if you think there are only slight benefits to breastfeeding over formula feeding, when you add them up over the aggregate, it benefits our society as a whole to have higher breastfeeding numbers. That’s why it is a public health issue. When someone has a child, we don’t make them bear the full cost of educating that child simply because it was their choice to have a child in the first place.

James piss off. Only speak when spoken to. You couldn’t cut it as a lawyer or teacher so just shut up.

JKP,
For the hard of hearing. …..I never said I would force anyone to do anything. All I said was having an employee take one month out of six off just to pump is a lot to ask.

And considering the many health and safety factors in our business and the fact that an applicants lie or omissions could endanger others, their fitness to perform is a condition of employment. We are not the only employers that require it. If you don’t like it then you tell me what accommodations can be made to a job that requires lifting over 120 lbs. on a regular basis. He’ll the impact gun we use runs 75 lbs. And then torque wrench 50. And we torque to 500 lbs. All day long, all night and all weather.
So tell me what kind of accommodations do you think should be made?

This is a topic that bothers me, the breast feeders vs. The bottle feeders. It seems to me that I have seen so many breast feeders posting pictures of themselves breastfeeding their babies on social media with hashtags like:

“because I love my baby”, “I actually care”, “breast is best”, “doing it right” ect

I gotta say I have never seen the same type of quotes or even posting a picture of a bottle feeding parent feeding their baby a bottle just for the sake of showing the method. Its sad how its almost like bragging, no it is bragging. I’m not saying every breast feeder lives with breast out on a soap box. But it seems even those who claim no biggie, no judgments, end with a p.s. Breast feeding is better.

I’ve witnessed a breast feeding coach try to pressure a new mom who had planned with her dr. Not to breast feed. Why? Because she did not want too. (uh oh ya, not she couldn’t, she did not want too)

It is insulting to have one group tell you, an adult how wrong you are if you dont breast feed. And even more so strangers.

For such a bonding & intimate thing, people, strangers, sure give opinions freely, wanna get deep into your personal details as to why you arnt breast feeding, share pictures of bonding time, use this natural act to put others down, to brag, and to validate themselves. And the best of all, pretend not to judge but in the same sentence do just that. Get over yourselves, no one in particular, you arnt special because you breast fed. And because you made that choice that does not make you the all knowing trusted guide in the matter.

How about who cares as long as the baby is getting fed?

“””People think that even if you are not paying someone for their pumping time, that it doesn’t cost. Well it does. Because when mom is not doing her job, someone else has to cover, taking time away from theirs.”””

But if the mom is just using the break time you already gave her, the same break all your other employees get, what’s the big deal? Is she suddenly less productive because she is pumping instead of smoking or checking Facebook?

Of course, bottle-feeders aren’t “bad” mothers, but anybody who soft-peddles the benefits of breastfeeding should sign a “No conflict of interest” disclaimer, and that includes the AMA and the American Pediatric Association. Virtually all of the money spent on medical research comes from Big Pharma, and they’re not doing it out of altruism. There are US$30 billion in annual sales of infant bottle formula worldwide, and countless infant deaths and serious injuries are attributable to the attempts to sell various breast milk substitutes over the past 50+ years, not to mention outright fraud and dirty tricks nowadays tolerated as “innocent fraud.” Bottle-feeding mothers aren’t “bad,” but they are definitely in need of some voluntary guidance. Read Gabrielle Palmer’s great book “The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business (3rd ed.)”

“Voluntary guidance.” Sounds suspiciously Orwellian.

@Coccinelle

I used to hang out on a message board where a woman told the story that when she had twins, but could not produce milk. A nurse at the hospital did try to get CPS involved because she “chose” not to breastfeed and was not doing what was best for her child.

“The article is from the NYT (an American paper), discussing WIC (another American program), citing the surgeon general and the American Academy of Pediatrics (more American references) calling breastfeeding a public health issue (in America).”

OK. And? At which point did I say that the NYT isn’t an American paper, that WIC isn’t an American program, or suggest that either the surgeon general or the AAP aren’t American? In fact, at which point did I make reference to any of them at all?

I’d agree that if it takes one longer to pump, then other things must be considered. I don’t mean to base every woman off of myself, but myself and plenty of others I know can sufficiently pump during 15 minutes and can arrange our pumping schedule to the regular breaks of the day.

And doesn’t a business under 50 employees still have to prove unreasonable hardship to be exempt under the law?

OK so my mom was a working mom (full time), and she breastfed her youngest 2 kids until age 2. She never pumped (she had tried it with one of the older kids and found it too painful and cumbersome). Breastfeeding doesn’t have to be exclusive. If a woman is on assistance and also working, she probably has some times in her day when she can feed her baby and/or pump if she wants to. Also, work conditions have nothing to do with the fact that many unemployed women, and women employed in more flexible jobs, also choose not to breastfeed. Making it about working conditions and penalizing employers for things they can’t control is not logical. And telling moms that they can’t breastfeed if they don’t pump is unfair to them and their babies.

At my last job (an office environment), we had a room dedicated to pumping. However, nobody used it. The sole female partner stated “I am not a cow” when a friend asked if she was going to breastfeed. Alrighty then. (My mom is not a “cow” either.) Our workplace was flexible enough that if anyone had wanted to pump, she could have. Given a realistic choice, the choice is still “no” for many women. Fine and dandy, but let’s be honest about it.

Even as a breastfeeding mom and La Leche League aficionado, I refuse to participate in this mommy war, (or go into too much detail over the author’s cherry-picked evidence 😉 ).

All I ask is that when you hear from mothers and health care providers enthusiastic about the benefits of breastfeeding, please understand the difference between the accusation that you’re a Bad Mommy ,. , , , versus your own perception that somebody is pointing an avocado at you: http://momastery.com/blog/2013/06/21/quit-pointing-your-avocado-at-me/

Largely, these so-called Mommy Wars are created by our own projections and sensitivities.

My point is, if a woman can sufficiently pump during a normal break time given to everyone, be it lunch or whatever, and of course wants to pump, and let’s say doesn’t mind pumping in something besides some vague official pumping room, is it really so hard on the employer to allow this? What kind of employer is that fussy and makes every employee turn in plans on what they’re going to do on their lunch break?

I wish the post-and-runners would come back. I’d love to hear Caroline P’s response to Donna’s question about baking bread with flour she’s grown and milled on her own, and Miriam’s link to that chemical in mother’s milk that makes for far better bonding than bottle feeding.

That_Susan and Emily Morris,

Nobody is asking people not to use their own breaks to pump if that is what they want to do. The controversy is over whether employers should be forced to make extra accommodations such as a private pumping room, longer paid breaks, or redistribution of responsibilities to non-breastfeeding employees.

Employees aren’t generally told what they can and can’t do during breaks, be it smoking, pumping, reading, or napping. Have you heard otherwise?

SKL and Donna, you failed to make clear your distinction. So far, the conversation has failed to talk about the extra accomodations, just the dislike of employers not wanting someone pumping. I’m simply asking if it’s such a big deal. If you want to argue about extra accommodations, let’s do that.

Emily, I never said anything about employers disliking the idea of pumping. I have always been talking about economic concerns. Why do people believe any employer cares how its employees’ babies get fed?

” I have always been talking about economic concerns. Why do people believe any employer cares how its employees’ babies get fed?”

Because the way the babies get fed can have an economic impact on the employer. Societally, however, we’ve decided that the interests of protecting women’s right to employment overcomes some complaints of economic nature from employers.

SKL, I was responding to your following statement:

“I think my employer should give me time off to farm so that my kids can eat the food I organically produce for them until they are 18yo. Because there’s nothing quite as good as home-grown.

For that matter, I think employers should have to accommodate employees who choose to homeschool. They should be able to do what’s best for their kids at the employer’s expense. Why shouldn’t they? Don’t we care about kids’ education in this country?”

But you’ve explained it more clearly here: “The controversy is over whether employers should be forced to make extra accommodations such as a private pumping room, longer paid breaks, or redistribution of responsibilities to non-breastfeeding employees.”

I sure don’t see any need for a private pumping room — but I’m also one of “those” breastfeeding mothers who never saw any need to look for a private place to breastfeed. It should be fine to pump in the general break room; just do what you need to do and assume that your coworkers are capable of coping, and they will most likely prove you right. I’ve got no problem encouraging breastfeeding moms to grow some balls and do what’s right for their kids without needing a special room to do it in.

I have no experience with pumping as I was not working at that time and was always able to take my babies with me everywhere, but if a mother needs more than the allotted amount of break time, I’d think that she and her employer could work out some kind of arrangement, such as her either being paid for less time or finding a way to make up the time that satisfies her employer.

“

“I’d think that she and her employer could work out some kind of arrangement, such as her either being paid for less time or finding a way to make up the time that satisfies her employer.”

There seems to be some mistaken belief that everyone works a job that just has independent tasks that they complete during the day and it doesn’t really matter when they do them.

The reality is that few jobs are like that. If I am running a restaurant and I schedule 4 people to wait tables, it is because I need 4 waiters during that time and not because I really only need 3, but am paying a 4th for kicks and giggles. If one of those waiters is off pumping, either I can’t seat people in her section (upsetting customers who now have to wait for a table some of whom might go elsewhere rather than wait) or someone else has to do her job while she is gone. Docking her pay the 30 minutes or her agreeing to stay an extra 30 minutes to make up the time, doesn’t solve the problem of what to do while she is gone. And what about the person who comes in after her? Does she lose 30 minutes of time because pumper has to work an extra 30 minutes and how is that fair to her? Or am I now paying both of them to be there when I really only need one of them?

Donna, then why does the law already provide exceptions to places of fewer than 50 employees who can prove causes undue hardship? Why the complaining? If it’s such a problem for small businesses, why don’t they j ust enact their rights and prove allowing time to pump causes undue hardship instead of everyone bellyaching about it? The law is alreay there. You’re right, I misunderstood what people are saying.

@Warren – OK, am going to show my extreme ‘oldfashionedness’ but do you actually employ women in the field as tire techs…..or whatever the term is? I just can’t fathom a very pregnant woman being able to handle very heavy equipment without popping something.

And before we launch into laws about employing women, the disabled, older people etc, it is easy to come up with another excuse for why you didn’t employ someone .

@Beth. Links for breastfeeding releasing chemicals:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1036151/Breast-feeding-DOES-help-mothers-bond-babies–releases-love-hormone.html “…A study out today has discovered that the action of a baby suckling actually changes how the mother’s brain behaves. This results in a massive rush of the ‘love hormone’ oxytocin in women’s brains.”

http://www.breastfeeding-problems.com/breastfeeding-hormones.html “The production of Oxytocin is also caused by an infant’s suckling,”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding “Breastfeeding releases beneficial hormones into the mother’s body.[73] Oxytocin and prolactin hormones relax the mother and increase her nurturing response.”

Thank you. I will read those with an open mind, but I still find it disturbing to learn that non-breast-feeding moms do not bond with their babies. Is the theory really that when you hold, cuddle, and talk to your baby it’s all for naught because it’s a bottle, not a breast?

@Beth

With regard to hormones produce by mum and bub… I believe it is skin-to-skin contact that causes this. By breastfeeding 8-12 times per day the mum and bub get very regularly and prolonged skin-to-skin contact.

Easily replicated by mums using other methods (ie formula or pumping), and it works for dads as well! Really you don’t need to be feeding to do it, but because feeding happens so frequently that it serves a dual purpose of providing regular skin-to-skin contact as well.

Wouldn’t it be great if part of learning to be a parent involved us being advised to open our shirts and rest the baby right against the skin every time they had a feed… Use feeding as a good reminded of the importance of this contact and the way it increases ‘happy hormones’ in the body.

If you want to test it out… give your partner as skin-to-skin cuddle…You will feel the hormones in your own body, you will naturally relax… it is quite amazing.

I breastfeed my daughter, and I struggled with low supply (due to my son’s undiagnosed tongue-tie) and had to formula supplement with my son. And while it would never be my choice to formula feed unless I had to, guess what? It’s none of my business what others do. It’s none of my business whether other moms use a baby carrier vs a stroller, or do baby-led weaning, or cry-it-out, or co-sleep, or cloth diaper vs disposables.

We all do the best we can with what works for us and our own kids/families, and anybody who criticizes another’s style (short of actual harm/abuse) should just STFU.

Donna, I’m aware that every job is different, and I only had a short two-month experience of working as a waitress — years ago, long before even having babies. But I think Emily gave a really good explanation about the exception in the law for smaller businesses. I imagine most restaurants are small businesses.

I don’t think you completely understand how this exception thing works. There is not some exception fairy that flies around the country to various businesses deeming them as having an undue hardship and therefore exempt without a business having to do anything. What happens is that you fail to provide an accommodation and this works just fine until someone challenges you. Then you have to expend time, effort and money to prove that you are exempt.

Further, I’m not sure why you think the hardship only applies to small businesses. No business, no matter the size, schedules excess people to just have some ready in the wings. I worked at Kroger – the country’s biggest grocery store chain – all through college and there were many times that getting cashiers minimal breaks was a struggle. Not just overly busy times, but also the regular occurrence of being down registers because people called in sick, quit, were fired or schedules got messed up. If I am opening or closing (essentially accounting) and need to go onto a register for a half hour to cover for someone pumping then I am going to pull a half hour of overtime because I can’t leave until the accounting job is done. Now the store may not be paying you to pump, but they are essentially paying me time and a half to allow you to pump.

The simple fact is that you generally can’t have it all … at least not all at the same time. If you choose to have babies while working certain jobs, you may not be able to pump during the workday. This is not because employers are anti-breastfeeding or anti-mother, but because the job is not conducive to pumping. This is not a tragedy and there is no reason that employers should have to be compromised so that you can try to have it all.

I am not pro-business in general. In fact, I am usually quite the opposite. This is just part of the general trend of people trying to create a world in which they don’t have to accept the notion that every choice we make brings some form of loss. They want to make whatever choices that they want and then demand that other people accommodate them so that they have to feel as little negative effect from those choices as possible.

Donna,

Wouldn’t most judges grant you a recess every time you needed to pump?

When it comes right down to it, there are probably more jobs that are not pump friendly than are.

It has been stated that even though time off to pump is unpaid, it still cost’s the employer, in time, money and productivity. Why should your choice to breastfeed be an expense for your employer? Why should your personal choice cost anyone but you? One of the problems is that people think, well I am not being paid for it, so it is not costing the company anything. That is wrong. It always costs the company, and a lot of times more.

@Beth

Not really that hard to get. Skin-to-skin contact increases oxytocin levels, which is the ‘love hormone’. It is not something that is exclusive to mums and newborns. It is something a person will experience with a partner, with a sibling, with a parent/child.

There is no need for a ‘transferance’ of this hormone from one person to the other, it affects the way that you feel about the other person… and vice versa, the other person (be they newborn, partner, sibling, friend) is also experiencing a surge in oxytocin making them feel much closer to you.

Why this is important for bonding is because of the need in any close relationship (parent/newborn, partner/partner) to use this reaction to strengthen the relationship.

It is why a cuddle, or sex is such a healing part of a healthy adult relationship, and it is why cuddles, and skin-to-skin contact are important parts of child/parent relationships.

I think at this point, mature people have had the opportunity to see for themselves what breastfeeding does and doesn’t do. I do think there is a window of opportunity to educate young parents so they can make an informed choice. There is a “now or never” aspect to breastfeeding that doesn’t exist with formula. Also, even if a mom stops breastfeeding (or cuts the number of feedings from the breast), there are specific benefits to having breastfed in the earliest days. I think we’d get better, happier outcomes if people could stop trying to make this a black or white issue.

Oh SHEEZ guys. No one said that there is NO bonding between mom and formula-fed baby, just that there’s more with skin-to-skin contact.

Oh look, every other comment doesn’t have a white background. Clearly that MUST mean they’re black, right? Amazing how we can still see the text…

@Beth.

Are you commenting on my posts? Please re-read them. I am certainly not saying that that bonding can’t happen while a child is fed in alternate ways to breastfeeding (ie pumping or formula), in fact I already mentioned that.

I detest mummy wars, I think I have wrongly assumed that you were interested in the subject of oxytocin and its effects on bonding. It is hard to tell on forums.

Please re-read my post. Skin-to-skin contact can be done anywhere anytime. The bonus of breastfeeding is that it is an inherent part of the act, so the child gets regularly and prolonged skin-to-skin contact with the mother. In my first response to you I mentioned that and commented on how wonderful it would be if these effects were explained to all care-givers so that they could use these tools. I don’t mean a once per day naked cuddle, but what if we were all taught to use feeding time (regardles of method) as a regularly cue to initiate skin-to-skin contact with baby. What if regardless of method we habitually undid our tops (mum or dad, bottle or breast) and fed the child snuggled in that way. It doesn’t need to be done at feed times or only at feed times of course, but feed times are a great cue.

I mean, we are all told about ‘tummy time’ and every mum knows that they must do that… what if that same attitude was applied to skin-to-skin contact and we taught mums (and other caregivers) to use feed times as a cue, and how important regular and prolonged contact during the day is.

Again, if you are reading any judgement into anything I have said then please re-read until you can see that none was intended.

I had to ask the doctor to write on my babies charts that they are allergic to formula. I had so much pressure from the nurses to give formula, because it fits a schedule for all the other formula fed babies. That way they could bring all the babies for feedings to the mothers at the same time! The hospital tried to give me containers of formula and coupons and bags etc.
The one thing I never got anywhere in the USA ( not at the hospital, schools or Doctor) was information about how this government can destroy your family for letting your child play outside or leaving them in the car for a few minutes. If only the same amount of advertising, brochures and money will be spent by the government to inform parents that they have no rights and thus have to protect themselves and kids from government prosecution. We might even then have a family protection group established since the rules and regulations will be easy to see for families. If only parents had a right to protect themselves and kids in the USA. Then we can believe in the word freedom that the USA is suppose to stand for. Parents are treated as criminals and kids are destroyed in the process.

How do you find out just after giving birth, while you’re still in the hospital, that your baby is allergic to formula? I’m not being a dick, I’m genuinely curious. With routine deliveries moms are barely in the hospital for two days, which seems really quick to determine an allergy in a newborn.

What woman do you want to strangle? Neither Lenore nor anyone she quoted is on the militant breast-is-best bandwagon. That was the whole point of the post.

I love having adopted kids.

Having your kids spend the first 6 months of their lives in a 3rd world country, where you have no control whatsoever over what they eat, drink, hear, touch, feel, etc. really gives you perspective on the resilience of little humans. My older son has some spots on his teeth that indicate poor prenatal nutrition. He was 5 lb 4 oz when he was born. Somehow, he survived, we bonded, and other than a complete lack of desire to do homework, he’s a perfectly normal teenager. His little brother had surgery at 1 month old, in a third world country, needed extremely expensive hypoallergenic formula, and again, managed to bond with me and survive to teenagerhood. Whether they survive beyond that depends on whether or not they pick up their bloody clothes off the bathroom floor.

As long as the kids get enough food of some kind and SOMEONE takes care of them in a loving way, they will be fine. Really. It doesn’t have to be that complicated.

@Dirge “I did read about someone who claimed that.
But her story may have been complete rubbish.”

That I’ll totally believe. People love hyperbole, especially when it means they can play the victim.

But to again point out the reason that moms who wish to breastfeed need public support and protection in a way different from moms who don’t..
http://boingboing.net/2015/10/23/cop-bravely-attempts-to-stop-m.html