Why We Shouldn't Use The "F" Word

Vs

Those of us committed to improving breastfeeding rates worldwide need to stop using The "F" word. It's fine (and sometimes absolutely necessary) to drop a "fuck" or "fucking" into our conversations about promotion of artificial feeding and related topics, because that "F" word is great for expressing our rage and frustration. And we need a feminist framework to help understand the patriarchal factors which contribute to widespread lactophobia. These "F" words are F-F-F-Fine. The truly abhorrent "F" word that has got to go is "formula"!

Artificial breastmilk is not "formula", despite the commonly used lingo. Formula is a word with positive connotations in Western society. It is associated with fast cars, scientific advancement, cunning strategy (think "formula for success"). By the simple act of using The "F" Word we are subtly promoting artificial feeding over breastfeeding in our everyday conversations!

One of the most famous formulas is "E=MC2". Artificial milk pushing companies know this and use this to their advantage, creating an association between their product, which they call "formula" and "Einstein", the Western world's best known genius. Sadly, however, children who are artificially fed end up with lower IQs than breastfed children (see here and here).

Artificial feeding is no formula for success and is certainly not the smart or technological advanced way to feed a child. Artificial feeding is greatly inferior to breastfeeding! Artificial feeding is associated with greater incidents of gastroenteritis, childhood cancers, obesity, multiple sclerosis, otitis media, osteoporosis, diabetes and hospitalisation for respiratory infections (to name just a few dangers of ABM).*

So-called "formula" is no substitute for breast milk, as the Australian Breastfeeding Association's Counselor Manual says (Section D.70.27):

"When we have a substitute on a playing field we take off one player and replace with another player of equal value and the game continues. Artificial baby milk is not a breastmilk substitute. It is a greatly inferior product. Breastfeeding is not special. Special indicates something extra or harder work, not everyday or normal. Breastfeeding is everyday and needs to be incorporated into the everyday rather than seen as an extra."

Refusing to use the "F" word is one very simple way lactivists can make a stand against the marketing of artificial breastmilk. Instead, by saying "artificial breastmilk" we put breastfeeding front and centre again, highlighting that it is the man-made powder that comes in cans which is abnormal and inferior.

For more on langauge and breastfeeding see Watch Your Language! By Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC (Reprinted from the Journal of Human Lactation, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996)

Related Ilithyia Inspired pages:

Artificial Milk: Voldermort of Baby Feeding

Why is the Health of Babies Less Important?

See also:
Artificial Feeding – Nothing To Do With Breastfeeding

Consumer Research on Infant Formual and Infant Feeding

Formula for Disaster

Genetic Engineering and Infant Foods

Hot Milk - The Unbottled Truth About Formula

IBFAN

International Breastfeeding Journal

Just One Bottle

Misinformation: Redefining Baby Feeding

Myths

Suck on This

Toxic Phthalates in Infant Formulas

The Case of The Virgin Gut

The Language of Breastfeeding

The Risks of Infant Formula Feeding

What Should I Know About Infant Formula

Yes! Just One Bottle Will Hurt!

*Information concerning the dangers of artificial feeding and consequences to health were found in Jan Riordan's Breastfeeding and Human Lactation, Third Edition, see in particular pages 114-117.

Why is the Health of Babies Less Important?

After an unfriendly encounter with an artificial breastmilk (also known as formula) pusher in a department store it occured to me that the health of babies simply does not rate as important as the health of adults and older children. I have no doubt everyone in this society would deny such a claim, but when we consider social attitudes and behaviour concerning health issues such as breastfeeding and birth it is undeniable.

Yesterday I discovered a local store had two large promotional displays of artificial breast milk (ABM) assembeled in their baby section. This is a violation of the World Health Organisation's code about advertising ABM. The World Health Organisation is very clear on the improtance of breastfeeding to the health of all babies (See "The World Health Organisation Says" section in the right hand sidebar of this site). In addition to WHOs 'stance, many scientific studies attest to the superiority of breast milk compared to ABM, and indeed give cause for great concern about the dangers ABM poses to the health and well being of babies (in the short and long term).

I gave the store the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the store manager was not aware of the violation or of their responsibility to promote good health for babies. I politely approached her about the issue to let her know. She was immediately rude and defensive and wanted to argue with me and make the issue personal. And I learned that I was wrong to give her the benefit of the doubt because she told me I was not the first to inform her of the code and recommend removing the promotional display. She simply chose advertising a product that promotes poor health and disregarded the concerns of educated consumers.

She implied that I was a breastfeeding mother intent on forcing my choices on others, she argued "some women just don't want to breastfeed and they have a choice and I'm allowed to advertise what I want in my store, except for cigarettes". I informed her that this is not a matter of choice it is a matter of health. Furthermore the danger ABM poses to the health is comparable to the danger cigarettes pose to health. But babies don't smoke, adults do. Adults don't drink ABM.

Moreover, I question how much the store manager turly values so-called choice, given that she had two large displays promoting feeding babies an inferior man-made artificial and dead substance and yet no equivalent promotion of feeding babies the superior, normal, natural, organic, living milk of mothers' breasts. Well, it hardly takes a genius to figure out why that is the case; breastfeeding doesn't make the store manager money!

Attitudes towards birth provide another example of how little this society values the importance of infant health. Scientifically we know that giving birth under the influence of narcotics, such as pethidine, compromises the health of unborn and newborn babies. Medical evidence supports the safety of homebirth and the danger of caesarean sections. Yet, almost 100% of Australian babies are born in hospitals where only 1-5% of babies escape these interventions (and more). And educated folks who share this information with others are accused of not respecting the choices of women who prefer to make birth choices which compromise the health of their babies and themselves.

Of course another glaringly obvious way our society refuses to acknowledge the humanity of babies is male infant genital mutilation. Our society refers to this abhorrent abuse of human rights politely as "circumscision". It is in fact the unnecessary and permenant mutilation of a baby boy's penis which poses health risks to him for life, including the potential for castration. Some people may point out that such a risk is low, but when you take into account that in this age; with awareness about hygeine, where there is rarely to never a medical justification for genital mutilation, and is almost always carried out for cosmetic reasons, facing such a risk, no matter how low, is ridiculous and sickening.

Just like birth and breastfeeding, the concept of choice gets thrown around when it comes to chopping up baby boy's penises. It's a parents' choice to mutilate their son's penis. It's a parents 'choice to give their babies a drugged start to life or increase their babies risk of death three fold by surgically removing baby from mother's womb. It's a parents' choice to compromise their babies immune systems, digestive systems, increase their risk of malnutrition, contimination and obesity in future life (to name just a few health consequences of ABM). Where, in all this, is the baby's choice?

Babies are people too. It is dispicable that so many babies are artificially fed, and almost 100% of those babies do not need ABM to survive. It is because ABM companies and stores profit from the sale of artificial infant milk that feeding a baby normal milk (which is their birthrite) has become one of two "choices". It is this easy access and insidious advertising of ABM that undermines a mother's breastfeeding journey and makes it easy for parents to deny their children breast milk.

Furthermore artificial infant formual does not need advertising! If a baby has a genuine medical need to eat something other than breast milk, then his or her parents can go in search of such a product (I was going to write "just as parents of a child with a gluten or lactose intolerance search for gluten and lactose free foods for their children", but that is an unfair comparison given that it is much harder to find gluten and lactose free products than it is to find artificial infant milk and yet there is a legitimate and widespread need for easy access to gluten and lactose free foods!). Promoting artificial feeding is more aptly compared to promoting artificial breathing products - IT DOESN'T NEED PROMOTING! We know it's needed in dire circumstances, and we'll get back to you if we suddenly struggle to breathe!

Breastfeeding is not a parent's choice! Breastfeeding is a baby's health requirement!



For information about the importance of breastfeeding and dangers of artificial breast milk read:

101 Reasons to Breastfeed Your Child

Artificial Feeding – Nothing To Do With Breastfeeding

Consumer Research on Infant Formual and Infant Feeding

Formula for Disaster

Genetic Engineering and Infant Foods

Hot Milk - The Unbottled Truth About Formula

IBFAN

International Breastfeeding Journal

Just One Bottle

Misinformation: Redefining Baby Feeding

Myths

Suck on This

Toxic Phthalates in Infant Formulas

The Case of The Virgin Gut

The Language of Breastfeeding

The Risks of Infant Formula Feeding

What Should I Know About Infant Formula

Yes! Just One Bottle Will Hurt!


For related articles at Ilithyia Inspired:

Those Not Breastfeeding Yet, Need Breastfeeding Support

The Personal is Political For Everyone But Me

Uncovering What Lies Behind Lactophobia

Breastfeeding Beyond Two Years

Uncovering What Lies Behind Lactophobia

Lactophobia: fear of lactation, often expressed in the form of disgust and defensive attitudes and beahviour.

Today there is an entire market for commercial goods which hide breasts and babies during feeding time in case anyone should be offended by seeing breastfeeding in action, or the mother herself feel embarrassed by nursing her child in public. But why should anyone be offended or embarrassed by giving their child the most important source of health and well-being? After all, the reason women have breasts is to nurse their young! One answer is that breasts in Western society have been sexualised to the extreme and as a result some people are unable to separate sex from breasts. Subsequently these people perceive breastfeeding as perverse because it involves children in a sex act. Of course nursing mothers and young children know this is not the case! Breastfeeding is the normal and optimal method of nourishing and nurturing our young.

Different body parts have been fetishised at different times and in different places of the world, including feet, neck, and anckles. It is important to note that breasts have not been perceived as sex objects for all cultures or in all periods, at this point in history, in the West they are. One possible reason that breasts are so sexualised in the West currently is the fact that our rates of breastfeeding are low. Carolyn Latteier states that we don't see a lot of breastfeeding in public, most of the time when we see breasts it is within a sexual context (From Breast Obsession).

According to the 007Breast website refusing to breastfeed a child as well as forced and early weaning also contribute to the sexualisation of breasts. If the baby is refused what is her best source of comfort and security (as well as nutrition) she is left with an unfulfilled attachment to breasts. The baby still wants to be close to breasts, but is denied. As toddlers this normal and healthy desire to be close to breasts is misconstrued by some adults as unsavory and the youngins may be scolded or punished for expressing their need for mother's breasts. In addition children (and teenagers) may also not be allowed to see naked breasts within their family because this is ruled by adults to be taboo. Naturally, children develop "curiosity towards breasts" and the taboo makes breasts exciting. To top it all off this exciting taboo is represented as sexual within the media, and so the fetish is born and "the end result is a distorted view of female breasts" (Breast Obsession). This article notes that this leads to a vicious cycle:

The less women breastfeed, the less people get to see the real purpose of breasts. At the same time media everywhere touts the view of female breasts as sexual. That in turn makes it harder for women to breastfeed, since many of the reasons for not breastfeeding are linked to the sexualization of breasts.

So the less women breastfeed, the harder it becomes for women to breastfeed. We have a cycle that self-promotes the view that the main purpose of female breasts is for something else than feeding babies! (From Breast Obsession).

There is an easy way to break the cycle, though: breastfeed our children, let them wean themselves naturally, don't hide breastfeeding from older siblings and relatives, encourage our children to understand breastfeeding and see this as breasts' purpose!

Sheila Kitzinger notes that artificial feeding products help perpetuate this vicious cycle by eliminating display of breasts, and that this in turn helps to perpetuate misogynist beliefs that women's bodies are rightfully the sexual property of men. She writes:

Today bottle-feeding, because it eliminates display of the breasts, helps protect women, and their male owners, against such attack. Women's breasts are considered their husbands' possessions. The man decides what is done with them and to whom they can be shown. Shame and disgust about breastfeeding are closely connected to the view of a woman's body as male property (The Politics of Birth, pg. 43).

Kitzinger also observes that lactating is sometimes viewed as an unattractive bodily function, like menstruation it is perceived as "polluting" or disgusting (2005, 39). Breastfeeding is thereby made inconvenient for women and their children, because it is considered something that should be hidden.

For all our "progress" and "enlightenment" The West has become terribly confused about the purpose of breasts. Breasts were made for meeting the needs of our young. This is evidenced by the fact that breasts of all shapes and sizes can equally nourish a child - not just the most aesthetically pleasing and amply-sized breasts.

Private spaces designated for breastfeeding outside the home, and products sold for the specific purpose of hiding breastfeed from public view, do nothing to bring an end to lactophobia. By taking action to break the "vicious cycle" of low breastfeeding rates and a distorted view of breasts we can simultaneously fight lactophobia and the sexual objectification of women! Which would lead to great improvements in the health and well-being of all women and children.

who could be offended by something this gorgeous?

Further Reading:
Breast Obsession

Kitzinger, Sheila, The Politics of Birth, Edinburgh, Elsevier, 2005, pages 33-43.

ETA:
For another article on this topic see Got Milk? Not in Public! by Jacqueline H Wolf. She writes:

"[Hurricane] Katrina exposed America's class and racial divisions. We heard stories about inefficient government agencies, abandoned pets, lethal mold.

But do you know what story I kept looking for and never found? What happens to formula fed babies during a disaster when mothers cannot buy infant formula and they do not even have access to water? And there was ample opportunity to have a sidebar that pondered those awful questions. Some of the most memorable film clips coming out of New Orleans in 2005 pictured frantic mothers clutching their barely conscious, dehydrated babies.

To those of us who work on breastfeeding, the "issue" of breastfeeding in public is a periodic amusing and frustrating annoyance. However, we have to start treating it as more than that. The negative attitude toward public breastfeeding is a cornerstone of low breastfeeding rates and a basis of our persistently formula feeding culture. Aside from all the mothers who quickly learn to use infant formula because they are embarrassed by their hungry babies when there is no private space to breastfeed, women in the U.S. often fail at breastfeeding because they do not have adequate opportunity to observe other women breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is not intuitive, it is a learned behavior. In other words: Breastfeeding in our culture is deemed a private bodily function when – for many reasons, all having to do with infant and maternal health – it should be a public one."