Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiImagine if today, scientists discovered a drug that could save 13 per cent of all the babies who currently die. Now imagine that drug also made your baby cleverer -- and dramatically slashed her chances of developing heart disease, diabetes, leukaemia, asthma or obesity as an adult. Oh: and imagine it was free.
The "drug" exists. It is called breast milk. Yet in the developed world, we often stigmatise women who give it to their babies as "creepy". In the developing world, we allow corporations to tug babies from their mother's nipple, and put them on to powders that bring more profit -- and more death.
I come at this from a strange perspective. My mother breastfed me until I was nearly three; she only stopped the day I wrote her a note saying I expected to be breastfed that afternoon. Today, whenever I have a success, she clutches her breasts and exclaims: "It's thanks to these!" Whenever my bottle-fed brother and sister have a failing in life, she howls: "Think what you could have been if I'd given you the tit." (Whenever she gets a bit too self-congratulatory, I remind her she also smoked 40 cigarettes a day. "Ach," she says, "it's stressful having a little bastard suckin' at you all the time.")
It's the best thing you can do for your baby -- without it I'd be even fatter and more disease-ridden. It's good for you too, significantly reducing a mother's risk of osteoporosis and cancer of the ovary. Yet my mum was made to feel like a flasher. She was glared at in public places, and asked to leave restaurants, parks and even buses. Unsurprisingly, Britain today has the worst record on breastfeeding in the developed world, after Belgium. Some 24 per cent of our babies never taste breast milk at all -- and by six weeks, a majority have shifted entirely to formula.
Why? Why do we hobble our babies, and our country? Let's rule out some of the more glib explanations. The number of women who physically can't breastfeed with the right support is negligibly small: the World Health Organisation (WHO) puts it at 1 per cent. Nor is it because women prefer the "liberation" of the bottle. A Department of Health study found that 90 per cent of mothers who stopped feeding at six weeks said they wanted to carry on, while 40 per cent of those who stopped at six months felt the same.
The most primal reason belongs to an old, old story: women are conditioned to find their own bodies disgusting, except when they can be used to entice men. A get-your-tits-out-for-the-lads culture doesn't want you to get your tits out for your baby: they're for titillation, not nurture. This week, one of the Government's best ministers -- Harriet Harman -- has succeeded in peeling this back, by including the legal right to breastfeed your baby in public into the new Equalities Bill.
But the biggest reason most women give for reluctantly pushing their baby on to the bottle is their need to return to work. How do we change that? For clues, look at the country where breastfeeding rates are still 90 per cent at six months: Norway. They give mothers a year off with 80 per cent pay, and give state employees breastfeeding breaks when they do come back. Yes, this costs businesses some money up front - but it saves a fortune further down the line, because you have a cleverer workforce that pays more tax and puts less pressure on the health service. If British babies were breastfed at Norwegian rates for just three months, the NHS would save £50m annually in the treatment of one disease alone - gastroenteritis.
That leaves another dark explanation for the fall-off: the role of unchecked corporate power. There is no profit to be made from a mother's milk, so at the turn of the last century corporations tried to find a way to divert babies from nestling at their mother's breast to Nestlé-ing at the corporate teat. They invented "baby formula" and marketed it as the classier, cleaner alternative. Cow & Gate powder was sold with a crown on the tin, bragging the Windsor children used it. (Look how that turned out.)
Gradually, in the democratic world, the corporations were restrained from making the most blatantly bogus claims about breast milk -- but they keep slipping the leash. In Britain, they are banned from marketing baby formula to those younger than six months old. But instead they market "follow-up formulas" for older kids with exactly the same logo, covered with claims that it is "closer than ever to breast milk".
This has produced a situation of startling public ignorance, where a third of mums think baby formula is "as good" or even "better" than breast milk. The poorest women know least and shift to formula first -- adding another milky layer of inequality to our island. This dodgy marketing needs to be banned today.
But this breast-con swells to a 52DD scandal in the developing world. I recently visited Bangladesh, where mothers are routinely told to abandon their healthy breast milk and spend great swaths of their income on formula. I think of all the dead and dying babies I saw, and wonder how many could have been saved by a substance that was there, free, all along. WHO calculates that 1.3 million babies die every year because they are not breastfed. That's a World Trade Centre-full a day.
Nestlé are still the most notorious offenders, controlling a near-majority of the world market. In Botswana, Nestlé has distributed a pamphlet claiming if you give your baby its "acidified" formula, "diarrhoea and its side effects are counteracted". In reality, babies who use this rather than breast milk are more likely to contract diarrhoea -- and die. Public health campaigns can hardly fight back: the corporation's annual marketing budget is bigger than the entire annual budget of the world's 28 poorest countries.
Nestlé says they consistently promote breastfeeding as the first, best option -- but in 1999, a British Advertising Standards Authority studied the evidence and ruled they had to remove from their advertising the claim they sold their formula "ethically and responsibly". It is only tight, binding international regulation -- here, and abroad -- that will tame corporations from milking the poorest with misinformation. To join the campaign to make it happen, visit www.babymilkaction.org.
And yet, for all the evidence, it still seems like an implausible story. Can a powder mix of misogyny and unregulated corporate power really induce women against their will to harm their own children? It does, baby, every day. These are still shockingly powerful forces. Now suck on that -- or fight back.
--Johann Hari
©independent.co.uk
22 Comments so far
Show AllCan anyone say "over the top?"
DD : go back to your love-in with your "across-the-board" Dems . When you can write as informatively , personally and humourously as Johann Hari has done then come back and we will consider your critique . Count them , he wrote 15 paragraphs of breast-feeding facts and one paragraph , "nutty" as you call it on conversations that probably didn't take place . Will readers remember that Norwegian mothers breastfeed the most and Norwegians are among the healthiest Europeans ? Who knows ? But I will . The bit about the "note to mother" is just a harmless bit of fluff . Now if you want some really good documentation on benefits of breast-feeding without "nuttiness" , spend a week reading all the research papers found in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition at the Library of Congress or any medical school without falling asleep . When you're finished , start on AMA and the rest of the health journals from around the world . Remember Johann Hari's nativeland , England and Norway and France ...is way ahead of USA in life-expectancy and infant-survivability.
There may never have been one true and authenticized word spoken actually uttered by Tom or Ros a'Sharon Joad and equally improbable that there even was a Joad family so we can justifiably say ,like you would say , that apart from Steinbeck's scathing prosaic indictment of american capitalism during the depression " The Grapes of Wrath " was "nutty" and "over the top"
In writing as in all endeavours , those who can write convincingly and humourously like Johann Hari , do , while those who can't , critique .
Yes indeedy breast milk is a magic potion. I breast fed all four daughters, from 18 months to 3 1/2 years. As children each one of them excelled in both academics and athletics, as adults they are; lawyer, scientist, fire chief, business owner. Not only is there proof that it is the best nourishment but the time spent bonding in their Mothers arms can't be duplicated! My daughters are grown women now but back in the 70's when I was breastfeeding it was looked upon as something to be hidden and disgusting. It is all about profit and corporate greed. God gave women breasts to feed and nurture their children, not for the enjoyment and pleasure of men!
Nanoo -- I remember reading about that breast milk/cancer study. From what I recall, they were trying to determine what substances in breast milk protect infants from infection. They were using human cancer cells because they multiply so quickly, but soon discovered that the cancer cells exposed to breast milk were dead. It's been a few years, so I may not have remembered those details correctly... still, I wonder what happened with that research?
the 'shoving' of formula at new mothers in hospital is a deliberate marketing tactic. it takes a few days for breast feeding to be established. and is harder today than previously due to diminished help from extended families who would guide and encourage. if in those early days formula is given to the infant, they are more satisfied after a feed, gain weight faster and a subliminal link is established that formula satisfies/ nourishes better than breast milk.for this reason, several developing countries have indeed outlawed the presence of infant formula countries in maternal hospitals. and the WHO strongly reccommends against giving mothers free formula samples afetr delivery.
Some years back I had read there was a study on breast milk that could cure cancer. The research was done in Sweden. Never heard anymore about it.
Who could ever forget the ending of the book, Grapes of Wrath.
I'm sorry to say that Chakra Khan is right, here in the far north Inuit mothers who are still eating a traditional diet are advised not to breast feed because the marine mammals have accumulated such high levels of dioxins from industrial waste (also the birthrates are drastically skewed towards female babies as a result of dioxins).
That is so criminal. Nursing an infant is both a privilege and a great joy; no woman should be denied that.
Not to mention the convenience compared to sterilizers, formula, worrying about temperature or if the bottle has sat in a hot car too long or if you put in too many or not enough vitamin drops or etc etc.
But to breast-feed most successfully, women must feel that they themselves are cherished and cared for and feel secure in their surroundings . . . how many societies do we know (other than Norway) that actively work towards such a reasonable goal ?
How can a society get so twisted that war and guns are "normal", but mothers nursing their little ones, especially those nursing for as long as the child (who ought to know) needs it, are considered odd?
I'd venture a guess that the two most dangerous terrorists in the world (Shotgun and Coke-head) never got a taste of their mothers' personal nectar. I mean, try as I might, I just cannot imagine Barbara Bush on a park bench with her blouse open, nursing little Georgie.
Perhaps, considering the wreckage that it causes, we should declare NON-nursing as child abuse. And Nestle's? Nothing less than "Enemy of All Humanity".
I breast fed both of my daughters. They recieve immunities to many diseases from their Moms breast milk. If a baby, happens frequently, develops jaundice just open the blinds and curtains, put your rocker close to the window and as the sun shines through nurse, within about 5 days no more jaundice.
It's great at night, too because if baby wakes up hungry you just put them in your bed and nurse them and they doze and nurse off and on all night. Helluva lot easier to get up in the morning after we've both slept, no traipsing through the cold house at 2 am to heat a bottle up, already there for the babes.
And no, you do not roll over and squish the poor baby to death! One is 19 the other 31, so no squished baby girls as a direct result of breast feeding. We didn't have enough money then either, baby food is expensive and who knows what the hell is in there. Both are women, healthy, exceptionally talented, one a writer/actor/dancer/artist, the youngest hard core ice hockey player, all 5' 3" of her. when she isn't playing club she goes to open hockey and plays with A league men. The last game, 99% of these guys knew her since she started skating at age 7 so they're like her big Bros but you get some macho, she's just a girl so I think I'll check her ass into the boards, so he came at her, she's quick got her stick up there and leaned in, head up, flipped him up and over flat on his back. everyone loves little Lala so they were laughing, the jerkoff wasn't.
Breastmilk does something right, hell they're both a handful.
Ah, what the hell I'll share this one... we all need to laugh! When I was on the brink of weaning one daughter I took a trip to Mexico with my husband, and just at the point of erotic release, both breasts expressed milk like a human version of Niagra Falls. It made me appreciate the inspiration behind all those fountains in Italy, and why the "waters of life" flowed from their human figures! God-dess has a sense of humor, too! We were built to be playful and enjoy our bodies, nurture and be nurtured by them. The belief in sin as linked to human sexuality has warped so many, and in their twisted capacity to know sensual joy, they have instead reached out to embrace pain, anger, violence and war....
MAKE love not war is a timeless sentiment! I was glad to come of age WHEN it was THE lingo spoken!
JONI ROSE: So true about the way FORMULA is thrust at new mothers, plus the medical field is so under thrall to the glorified drug merchants of big pharma, that too many believe that formulas as 'just as good' as breast milk.
One benefit of nursing (I nursed both my daughters for 2 years and they are extremely healthy, have great teeth and are in beautiful shape as adults) is you don't have to wake up and sterilize bottles or heat formula!
TREE FITZ & GREENER THAN THOU: Good points. It truly is astounding that we're taught to tolerate the influx of toxins in our environment, but tell mothers not to nurse! And Nestle's legacy in Africa, it's positively satanic. I no longer eat their chocolate... small protest, but symbolic. The lives lost when profit becomes the altar before which the powerful worship.
"DD, you aren't squeamish about breasts and breastfeeding are you?"
No, Molly J, I'm not squeamish about breasts or breast-feeding. Odd you should ask such a thing. I was reacting with that word precisely to agree with the the author about the negative problem she brought up about her mum being glared at in public places and asked to leave restaurants, parks and buses. Shouldn't happen, then or now.
Nestle and the other baby formula companies are evil. You can't carry your baby out of the hospital without someone shoving a case of formula at you... even after you've informed the nurses that you intend to breastfeed. They tell new Moms that breast milk is the best start for their babies, then try to discourage it by handing out free samples of formula. That practice should be outlawed.
It is possible to continue breastfeeding after returning to work. I had to go back to work full time when my daughter was only 3 months old. What you need is a supportive boss, and I was fortunate to have one of those. Every day, I had to close my office door for about 15-20 minutes to express milk. I refrigerated it and gave it to her babysitter for her next day's feedings. It wasn't always easy (imagine explaining to the IT guy why your keyboard was all gummed up after accidentally spilling a bottle of breast milk on it), but SO worth the effort! I burned out the motors on two breast pumps that year, but my daughter went through her infancy and toddlerhood without ever having an ear infection, and only rarely, a minor cold.
Breastfeeding is good for both baby and mother; it's free, readily available food loaded with everything a baby needs to grow and thrive; and it's a wonderful bonding experience. What's not to like?
Mmmm... breast milk.
( Sorry, couldn't resist. ;) )
Breast feeding is perfect food but you have to have a fairly well nourished mom so that she is not breast feeding to her own detriment.
Don't get me wrong. I am not against breast feeding and totally for it. But in third world countries a mal-nourished woman may not be able to breast feed her baby without endangering herself. Additionally there is a risk of HIV transmission via breast milk, albeit small.
http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20070801.htm
Breast milk is a reminder that a woman is connected to her community and to her environment. So yes, a toxic environment can produce a toxic breast milk. I don't think this is an argument for diminished breast feeding. I think this is an argument for excellent stewardship of the environment.
DD, you aren't squeamish about breasts and breastfeeding are you? There is some good justification for claiming that breast feeding enhances brain development. A Google search will get you there.
But as any woman who has breast fed can tell you, the act changes your relationship to your breasts and I don't think you ever see them the same again.
First, concerning the "pus"comment. Yes unfortunately there is pus in most cow's milk. If you want more information go to www.notmilk.com
Besides, the benefits already mentioned of better health for the baby, there are also health benefits for the woman who breast feeds. If I remember correctly breast feeding helps tighten the utereous and lowers the incidence of breast cancer. The Laleche league, www.breastfeeding.com has a great site with all the details.
Also, I agree with the poster who mentioned bonding with the baby. Breast feeding and natural child birth are very important in creating the bond between mother and child.
I also agree we should boycott Nestle. They are a horrible, irresponsible company. Not only have they caused the death of untold numbers of third world babies, they also employ slave labor in the growing and harvesting of their chocolate. There other brands like Endangered Species which sell fair trade chocolate.
Well, Zaki, since women can nurse twins, I'd guess a woman could nurse with one breast. There were wet nurses in the old days (rich people outsourcing human needs) who nursed up to 5 babies.
I'm one of those whose mother was advised not to breast feed, as she'd had a mastectomy a few years prior to having children. I don't know what the advice now is for women with only one breast, but I know my mother felt that it was the biggest loss of the cancer, not to be able to breastfeed the children (three of us) she went on to have after surviving the cancer (50 years later, she's still here!)
We never were a close family and I've always wondered if things would have been better had we had that initial closeness. Not to mention the other health benefits.
Wait. How can you say drinking pus from another animal species is abnormal?
Those Got Milk? ads cant be wrong.
Breast Milk IS a smart drug, provided you are not a woman who resides in the Southwest, especially on/near an Indian reservation/Toxic waste dump (There are some reservations in the Southwest where women are advised NOT to feed their infants breast milk because it is considered a toxic substance), or provided that you are not a woman who lives in the Great Lakes region, or I guess these days, pretty much anywhere.
Actually, all infants, not some, should be breastfed, DD.
I had a friend who didn't breastfeed her children because she heard that mother's milk had DDT in it. The older child developed Type 1 diabetes. Breastfed babies have less incidence of type 1 diabetes. Whoever told my friend that she was poisoning her child by feeding her the proper food is responsible, in my opinion, for the horrible sentence of diabetes for her child.
Eating low on the food chain can protect your baby from toxic chemicals. Not losing weight while you nurse can keep the fat-stored chemicals from being released. How about we demand that corporations not release toxic chemicals, that government agencies protect us, and that the US military quit polluting the environment, rather than telling mothers to feed their babies milk from another species, or from soy, most of which is genetically modified?
What a bizarre society we live in, that accepts pollution as unchangeable and tells mothers to not do the natural and healthiest thing for their infants!
One thing I've noticed lately is that mothers who "breastfeed" don't really breastfeed. They pump their breasts, store it in plastic bottles and then either feed it to their infants, or hire other people to feed it to their infants. There is no actual contact between themselves and their babies. What the heck is this?
I think it might be looking at breastmilk as a superior "product". Yeah, that's true, but there is also human importance to the actual physical connection between mother and baby. This is disregarded by so many now, including the writer of the article.
Plus, if the infant actually nurses at the breast, there is an interchange of bacteria, and the mother can actually create milk that will combat any infection that her baby is exposed to.
I just think it's sad that our culture is so dehumanized that our natural functions are disrespected, and our human interactions are turned into commodities.
The author probably has a good point about the value of breast milk for some--maybe most--infants. And the author probably has another good point about why public society should be far less squeamish and far more tolerant about such a natural thing taking place most anywhere and anytime.
But the third paragraph above is plumb nutty and detracts mightily from the subject. Especially since it's doubtful that that paragraph is anywhere near the truth of any conversations that ever took place (even if one poster thinks it "adorable"). Can anyone say "over the top?"
Kelmer, what does your weirdo comment have to do with this topic?
I wish weirdos would not post weirdo comments like this one from Kelmer. This is not the first time I have heard someone weirdly, illogically, compare pus, which is related to infection, with milk, which is part of the beautiful, brilliant system nature has created to sustain new animal life, including new human life.
pus: A generally viscous, yellowish-white fluid formed in infected tissue, consisting of white blood cells, cellular debris, and necrotic tissue.
milk: A whitish liquid containing proteins, fats, lactose, and various vitamins and minerals that is produced by the mammary glands of all mature female mammals after they have given birth and serves as nourishment for their young.
Chakra Kahn: you have made some very broad statements. My gosh, you have suggested that all lactating females in the Southwest of the USA produce toxic milk. If you are correct, this must mean that all humans in the Southwest, particularly, as you further suggest, people living in proximity to Native American reservations, are all walking around with toxic substances in their body. There is no reason to assume only lactating women are toxic. . . . .
Come on, Chakra, why did you post your inflammatory and, I strongly suspect, inaccurate comment here? You present a very bleak picture of humanity. And, gosh, maybe you are right. Maybe no where is safe from toxic substances leaching into human bodies. . . . but, in the meantime, as the human race hurls ever onward into the unknown future, we are still going to have babies and babies are still going to need to be fed . . . and me, I am willing to bet that trusting nature to produce milk in a mother's breast is a safer way to raise humans than trusting profit-driven corporations.
There are no perfect answers but human breast milk has managed to perpetuate the species,well, ever since the beginning.
Nobody questions that newborns have to be fed with liquid nutrition. It seems so basic to trust the nutrition provided by nature over the nutrition provided by a profit-motivated, non-human entity like a corporation.
Questioning the basic, foundational mechanism provided by nature -- the mother's breast -- well, gosh, that seems monumentally arrogant. It sounds like something only males could come up with.
I am sorry that the only comments to this important topic have been such odd ones. Nothing is more central to the human future than nurturing future humans. . . and, . . . yet. . . folks in commondreams forum ignore the topic.
Thanks for publishing this column, commondreams.
I was a breastfed baby. And I breastfed my daughter. I have met, and heard about, some mothers who were unable to breastfeed. As the column suggests, it is uncommon but a few women can't make it work. Except for this very small category (women who are unable to make it work. . . and this could be rooted in many different reasons and none of these reasons are the 'fault' of the mother or the child. .. some things just don't work out), how can anyone challenge nature's system over a greed-driven one?
It breaks my heart thinking about poor women in Third World countries, who love their babies every bit as much as I loved mine, and who want the very best for their babies just as much as I wished the very best for mine, sacrificing their family's wellbeing because they are saturated with corporate propaganda that is solely motivated to make money.
Nestle is an egregious offender. Why don't we call for a boycott of all Nestle products?
Thanks, Johann Hari, for your column. Now, could you please tell us how you happened to be writing notes to your mother when you were still only two years old? That's a story I'd like to read! Did someone teach you to write when you were two? And how did they manage that? Or did you just pick it up? I am having a happy moment, here, imagining a miniature human writing mummy a note. I believe you, honest. How charming. Adorable.