Breast vs bottle - must it always be one or t’other?

Make no mistake - I’m a passionate breastfeeding advocate, and particularly passionate about prolonged breast-feeding and infant-led weaning. I say “ask the experts, only 3 year olds need apply!”

But I’m also a pragmatist. In Australia, the baby-friendly initiative in hospitals has meant a big increase in the number of women who are confidently and securely breastfeeding on discharge.  But twelve months down the track, the number still breastfeeding remains static at around ten percent - despite the fact that WHO recommends a minimum period of at least two years. The number remains static despite better adherence by formula manufacturers to the MAIF Code. The number remains static despite the mass of material suggesting that there is no substitute for breastmilk, that breastfed babies are healthier, brighter, more secure and that their mothers enjoy a whole host of physical, mental and emotional benefits that continue long after the breastfeeding period is over. 

So as a very practical woman, with 45 years in both orthodox and complementary medicine, with a variety of educational roles and as a spokesperson for numerous health-promoting products and services, I’ve come to the conclusion that women need to hear a different message. We need to tell them that whatever their reason for initiating formula feeds and whatever their timing, they shouldn’t make it an either/or decision. The benefits of “nursing” (and I deliberately choose that instead of the more prescriptive “breastfeeding”) go far beyond the delivery of food and drink to a baby. 

But the reality? A Mexican stand-off between infant formula manufacturers and breastfeeding associations. Cowboy companies who capitalise on ignorance and fear in emerging markets. Mums who for a multitude of real or spurious reasons choose a supplemental product. The biggest loser in all of this is the baby. I believe that breastfeeding is a child’s birthright. Encouraging mothers to provide at least some of that birthright is better than providing none at all. Meanwhile formula manufacturers must work towards a product that is as close as possible to Nature's design. Some examples include strains of probiotic isolated from breastmilk (not from the gut), fatty acid content closer to breastmilk and staged levels of protein that is more akin to the real thing. Or human milk banks? Now there's an opportunity for an enterprising company...

On a slightly different note, this video is almost 30 years old, in about 5 minutes a good way to explain to children about breastfeeding. 

How far have you strayed from your traditional diet?

Urbanisation, increasing wealth, aggressive marketing by the food multi-nationals, adoption of what are seen as “progressive Western eating habits”, changing work patterns, women in the workforce - I could go on, but the diets of the developing nations are at a watershed. Now Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) José Graziano da Silva has called for integrated nutrition strategies to help countries deal with rapidly changing diets. 

Well, I reckon he’ll be up against it, because big food companies see these regions as their new high-growth markets. However I’m heartened that da Silva appreciates and supports the need for and desirability of different crops for different regions and different diets for different communities. He indicates the need for individualised solutions that respect season, climate, soil, water and landforms.

Which begs the question, what would it take for communities around the world to revert to their traditional diets? When the world is one big melting pot, when the drift to the cities from rural communities is a global trend, I’d suggest that isn’t in the realm of possibility. However with the knowledge that we now have of the benefits of whole, unrefined, in season and non-processed, and the ill-effects of refined, sugar, salt and fat-laden, plain for all to see, “integrated nutrition strategies” are definitely called for. Let’s hope they make it off the FAO drawing board and into the developing communities around the world soon! And let's hope FAO start by enforcing the code for Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes!

"...despite significant concerns about marketing breast milk substitutes"

Danone has topped the Access to Nutrition Index (ATNI) for its efforts to address issues such as obesity and malnutrition.

Apparently those assessing the performance of the food and beverage manufacturers of the world don’t place much value on compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. Danone rates 6.3 and and Nestlé 6.0, scoring out of possible 10 in the ATNI Index. Both were applauded for their efforts to address obesity and malnutrition, improving the health profile of their products, making them affordable and promoting them appropriately, yet their breastfeeding policies remain of “significant concern.”

Which means the ATNI score is a complete oxymoron. If these companies are still flouting the MAIF Code, they’re white-anting the most fundamental, preventive health promotion measure that should be the birthright of everyone on this planet! Whatever they do down the track to tackle obesity or malnutrition pales into insignificance. 

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) has branded the report a ”whitewash.” They say the ATNI Report is “a clever tactic that rewards companies for the wrong things!” Absolutely agree with that and the fact that Coca Cola and Friesland-Campina (one of the four largest Infant Formula companies in the world) don’t even rate a 0 on the ATNI scale should be cause for panic (but probably no surprise)! A long time ago, concerned women of the world boycotted Nestlé for inappropriate promotion of their breast milk substitutes in developing countries - maybe we need to mount another campaign?