We hear all the time about the benefits of breastfeeding. A benefit by definition is something that is advantageous or has an advantage over something else. This language leads to the thinking that breastfeeding is better than "something" else. Now, in North America and most of the world, that something else is infant formula or artificial infant feeding. Again this language suggests to us that formula is good and acceptable but breastfeeding has advantages and benefits.
Is this how we should be thinking about breastfeeding? I would like to challenge that we should be changing this language, as language affects perceptions strongly. Is breastfeeding not what humans, like all mammals, are biologically programmed to do? Breastfeeding is the normal. If this is the case, how is it that something else has replaced the normal, expected biological act of infant feeding to the point that artificial feeding is the norm and it is an advantage, a bonus of sorts, to breastfeed?
I suggest it is partly to do with language. Be aware there is a multitude of factors that has lead to this normalization of formula feeding but right now I will focus on the language aspect. If I want to focus on language and I want to switch the normals around, so that breastfeeding is the normal, I now need to substitute the opposite from advantage or benefit to describe what the impact of not breastfeeding would be. What would be a word to describe an act that is the opposite? Harm, risk, disadvantage, damage, injury; these all could be used.
If we Google the benefits of breastfeeding we find lists that include concepts like:
•Higher IQ in breastfed children
•Higher visual acuity
•Breastfed babies get fewer ear infections
•Breastfed children are less likely to require tonsillectomies
•Breastfed babies have fewer and less severe upper respiratory infections, less wheezing, less pneumonia and less influenza
•Breastfed children may have lower cholesterol as adults
•Heart rates are lower in breastfed infants
•Less diarrhea, fewer gastrointestinal infections in babies who are breastfeeding
•Six months or more of exclusive breastfeeding reduces risk of food allergies
•Less risk of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in adulthood
•Breastfeeding decreases the risk of childhood cancer
•Reduced risk of getting diabetes
•With less salt and less protein, human milk is easier on a baby's kidneys
•Fewer urinary tract infections in breastfed infants
•Less allergic eczema in breastfed infants
•Breastfed babies are leaner at one year of age and less likely to be obese later in life
•Less constipation; stools of breastfed babies have a less-offensive odour
Sounds good doesn't? Why would I think this is a not a great thing? Well, simply because when we change the language it looks a little ridiculous and raises questions for me.
•Higher IQ in breastfed children. Are humans intended to normally have a lower IQ?
•Higher visual acuity. Are the majority of humans born to need glasses?
•Breastfed babies get fewer ear infections. Are children expected to have ear infections?
•Breastfed children are less likely to require tonsillectomies. Were we given tonsils simply so a surgeon could remove them?
•Breastfed babies have fewer and less severe upper respiratory infections, less wheezing, less pneumonia and less influenza. Should children struggle with infections, breathing difficulties and influenza?
•Breastfed children may have lower cholesterol as adults. Are adults expected to have high cholesterol?
•Heart rates are lower in breastfed infants. Are infants expected to have high heart rates?
•Less diarrhea due to fewer gastrointestinal infections in babies who are breastfeeding. Are we expecting children to have gastro issues?
•Six months or more of exclusive breastfeeding reduces risk of food allergies. Do we expect humans to be allergic to common foods?
•Less risk of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in adulthood. Do we expect most adults to develop bowel illnesses over time?
•Breastfeeding decreases the risk of childhood cancer. Is it normal for children to suffer cancer?
•Reduced risk of getting diabetes. Is diabetes another expected illness?
•With less salt and less protein, human milk is easier on a baby's kidneys. Is human milk easier?
•Fewer urinary tract infections in breastfed infants. Do we expect to see children with UTI's?
•Less allergic eczema in breastfed infants. Is eczema a normal infant allergy?
•Breastfed babies are leaner at one year of age and less likely to be obese later in life. Is the normal to be less lean and possibly obese?
•Less constipation; stools of breastfed babies have a less-offensive odour. Are babies expected to be constipated and have offensive odours?
With the new language these concepts could read
•Lower IQ in artificially feed babies
•Poorer visual acuity in artificially feed babies
•Artificially feed babies suffer more ear infections
•Artificially feed babies are more likely to require tonsillectomies
•Artificially feed babies have more occurrences and more severe upper respiratory infections, more wheezing, more pneumonia and more influenza
•Artificially feed babies may have higher cholesterol as adults
•Heart rates are higher in artificially feed babies
•More diarrhea and more gastrointestinal infections in babies who are artificially feed
•Six months or more of non-exclusive breastfeeding increases risk of food allergies
•More risk of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in adulthood
•Artificial feeding increases the risk of childhood cancer
•Increased risk of getting diabetes
•With more salt and more protein, formula is harder on a baby's kidneys
•More urinary tract infections in artificially feed babies
•More allergic eczema in artificially feed babies
•Artificially feed babies are heavier at one year of age and more likely to be obese later in life
•More constipation; stools of artificially feed babies have a more-offensive odour
These lists are not exhaustive by any means and there could be pages more to add to the both lists depending on the language and concepts we were choosing to use, such as the impacts breastfeeding or not has on the mother herself. I was simply highlighting some examples to show how the use of language is powerful and influences our perceptions of what is normal, what is acceptable, what is beneficial and what is risky.
I encourage you to keep this idea in mind when you are speaking to future parents, parents to be, parents, grandparents, health care providers, anyone you are discussing infant feeding practice with.
14 comments:
I really appreciate this!! I had some friends who formula fed their babies and constantly told me how their babies slept thru the night. How they prepared a few bottles a day. My baby was up every two hours at night and constantly nursed all day. In a moment of weakness ( and exhaustion) I felt envious and needed reassurance that my decision was best for me and my baby. Thankfully the wonderful women at LLL did that for me. This blog post was exactly the reassurance I was looking for at the time. Thank you for providing for all the mamas out there.
Many lactivits agree that in order to promote breastfeeding, it is better to present breastfeeding as the normal and natural rather than to bash formula feeding because it turns people off lactivism. I would be simply horrified to see your "new language concept" used with a mother who had a breast reduction and was not producing enough milk. Instead of telling her what she is doing right, you get to tell her the formula she supplementing with causes low IQ and cancer. Awesome job of promoting breastfeeding. I guess your IBCLC did not cover common sense or business. Now where is Linda Cheston's number?
I have to say I agree with the previous commenter. While I agree wholeheartedly that breastfeeding is best, there are just going to be some mothers who, for whatever reason, cannot do it (and yes, I am aware that in some circles, it is firmly held that all women CAN breastfeed and that women who say they cannot are simply not trying hard enough or doing the right things. I do not subscribe to this belief). Mothers have enough to feel guilty about, and your "new language" makes that worse. You are right, language is powerful. And yours could cause a lot of harm, too.
This is NOT ABOUT YOU. If you are reading this blog, you need to establish a few things:
- Breasts, feeding, nursing babies, formula - etc - all of the language surrounding feeding babies and sustaining life carries some sort of issue and weight in all of US. This blog is about Kim, her views on why lactation is an issue, and ways to change the worlds perception. It's going to hurt feelings of those who are facing the reality of formula. Reality hurts! It really does! But how can we CHANGE the reality? It won't change with blind acceptance that formula is 100% safe.
- The way I see it, why should the benefits of breastfeeding be disguised as the risks of formula?
- Why are you holding Kim responsible? The reality in this world is that not all of us were created equal with the ability and anatomy to give breastmilk... it's not Kim's fault!! She's making a commentary about how to make things better, not that you are a bad woman for putting the bottle in your child's mouth. This isn't about YOU.
- It's not meant to make people feel guilty. read the first post Kim wrote.
- Yes, it's SHOCKING. But its' NOT ABOUT YOU.
Another great post Kim. Language is powerful indeed. Mothers will feel guilt, it comes with the culture in which we raise our children - there is always some way in which we fall short of our own and others expectations (usually our own, that's what guilt is about). May Kim's message spark anger at the formula industry which has made feeding infants into a commodity - if they had the best interests of artificially fed babies at heart, their products wouldn't come with the list of potential negative consequences Kim has posted above. Kim is right, breastfeeding is the biological norm - and her argument is sound.
Yes there are women who cannot nurse their babies, and those women should be PISSED off at this post not because Kim is wrong but because the only option to breastfeeding your own baby is using the sub par nutrition made by the formula industry. What about milk banks? What about strict regulations on formula production? There has got to be a better way.
Another great post Kim.
Our common use of language really leads women to believe that breastfeeding is giving their baby "something extra" when really we are just meeting Mother Nature's intention. I used similar language (Thank you Marsha Walker) at a recent Birth Matters Group meeting and the women were shocked. They appreciated what they felt to be "the truth" (their words). When we tell women the truth they are given a whole new opportunity to make different decisions and seek different alternatives.
Fabulous post!! I always explain this to the expectant parents in my prenatal classes. They are always surprised to hear it but it definitely makes them think about it a little more!!!
This post states the well known facts from a point of view that is alternative to our current norm, what we've become accustomed to and/or comfortable with. It's the same facts realities presented from a different angle. It's not about laying blame. It's so not about that! It's about changing the language so that we can begin to make societal and institutional changes that will benifit all moms and babies. It allows us to begin to question why our only options are either breastfeed or formula feed. Where are the milk banks? Really, why do we only have the alternative of formula? We should be outraged at the formula industry for this. What if our only option was a milk bank? Then the formula industry would be the ones with feelings of discomfort. Lets work towards that instead of throwing useless comments around. Change is painful.
Differing points of view are not useless comments. What's wrong with healthy debate and discussion?
Differing points of view are what fuel healthy debate and discussion. Healthy debate and discussion are helpful and important and often lead to positive change. But useless comments such as, "I guess your IBCLC did not cover common sense or business..." are not going to be helpful in supporting a healthy debate or discussion.
Kim,
I agree that our language needs to change. I read your title, and I laughed to myself. I thought..... in the concept of language, what if people said, "the benefits of feeding our children".... That whole concept is ridiculous, but it's what we have come to.
I agree 100% with your post. It's just a discussion piece to get people thinking. That's what our problem is, in society. We have become conditioned by big pharma and by big formula money making companies to think that there are options. How on EARTH did we get there? Option on how to feed your child? We are CREATED to feed our children.
If there are problems (LEGIT ones.. like low thyroid, or something like that), then it should be the norm to milk share, or wet nurse or milk bank. The NORM is and should be seen as just that. If our society can change our language, to see that breast feeding is normal and the expected thing that happens after birth, and you do whatever you have to, to feed your child with breast milk, then we can influence and hopefully, the end goal.... end formula companies, period.
I know that sounds harsh, but if we can re-normalize breast milk, everyone will see it as normal and will all start helping and doing what it takes.
Of course, maybe that's a bit idealistic, but not wrong.
Kim, fabulous post and fabulous wave length and fabulous way of thinking. Let's all start doing things, seemingly "radical" to some people, and just do our piece to re-normalize the whole thing. And we have to stop worrying about everyone else's guilt. It's their own person that is causing guilt. It is not OUR responsibility to make sure someone else does not feel guilty. It is our society's fault that proper support is not recognized, nor given.... nor proper truths and facts and education.....
That is sad...
Thanks for standing up and being passionate. You are on the money.....
hahaha I was so confused, thinking that anonymous said was the same person! I get it now! :)
I have pondered several thoughts today as comments have been coming. One of those thoughts are I am human, a human, one human alone. I am a human with passion but a human with compassion, as well. I am a human caught in cross fire. (and some may say I am a human that put myself in that cross fire, you made you bed sleep in it. whatever. it is where I am, regardless of how I got here). Why do I say I am caught in cross fire. Just look at my blog, let alone ALL the other work I do with expecting, new and experiences parents. In my first blog post I was blasted by the "lactivists" of various types (interestingly this group did not openly post on my blog but rather via pm and emails). What they had to say to me was supporting non-breastfeeding families was a waste of an LC's time, that it should not be our responsibility, that I SHOULD be with the moms that want to make breastfeeding work, are NOT lazy, that are truly doing what they should do, I was called a "booby trap" for those familiar with that term, I was told that my attitude was NOT going to increase breastfeeding initiation rates or duration rates, that I had fallen victim to the do not make moms feel guilty mentality. It went on like that. Now today I present another concept and fall victim to the opposite firings. You see the lactivists expect the LC's to uphold the breast is the best and only way to feed a baby without necessarily having the experience we do with helping the difficult cases and supporting these families in their challenges, but these same families expect the LC to uphold that with all the knowledge and science and training we have that when things really are not going to work that we also support them in the other avenues available to them. It is a mighty fine balancing act to maintain these responsibilities.
There is an IBCLC Code of Ethics and a Scope of Practice and expectation of the person who earned and will use the title IBCLC. Perhaps, this is part of why there are so few of us? It is a challenging title to earn, it is a very challenging job, both because you have to put your neck out there and challenge the norm, you are fighting the system so many times, because by the time I get called moms and babies have been though so much they are ready to stop and because I cannot fix everyone's breastfeeding relationship. I shed fears for those mama's that try so damn hard and it does not work for them. The mama's who had every intention and the system rolled them over. The mama's with the babies that just have bigger stuff then their little lives should have to go through. Those mama's who were told to ignore their gut feelings. You don't see those tears because as a professional I am not about to cry while supporting you but they are there. They are in the car when I am driving home from helping, they are in my office when I am on the ward. They are there when I am reading your stories.
I am lucky enough that some of my friends and dearest clients that I respect so much and I know have the same respect for me, truly know that they are not judged by me because they did not have perfect breastfeeding relationships, that I know that they made choices that were best for their families, informed educated and supported choices. That is where it counts. When that client gives me that to hold on to, that they knew I was there to support them no matter what they decided, that I was a safe person for them to come to and say I am making the choice to ____________. I am that safe person because I understand the roads to the end well. I know how and why mama's end up in that position and it is 99.9% of the time not anything that mama would have chosen to do if she expected that outcome.
So, yes I uphold the truths about breastfeeding but I also uphold the truths of the mama's and babies walking that path and the various paths there are.
Look what I found on Linda's Facebook page. http://www.drmomma.org/2010/04/watch-your-language.html Perhaps she agrees...
Post a Comment