After coming across the blog/facebook page The Fearless Formula Feeder some months ago, I think for the sake of my sanity I wholly ignored the blog/page. But today I decided to take a look. All I can say is WOW. On the front, the woman appears to support whatever feeding method an individual chooses, be it breast or formula. But when I dug a little deeper, it seems that this woman has some seeeerious issues. She has links to some very shaky articles on why breast isn't really best and seems to truly think that formula is an acceptable alternative. Safe, healthy even. So this is for The Fearless Formula Feeder and her readers because to be honest, I am sick to death of hearing how these people 'want the best for their babies'. Really??? Read on...
Infant formula contains the following contaminants:-
Aluminium - Linked to mental retardation in infants, learning disorders, hyperactivity and colic.
Cadmium - Linked to bone disease, respiratory infections, kidney dysfunction and is a carcinogen (carcinogens promote cancer growth)
MSG - Linked to obesity and diabetes
Phytoestrogens - Linked to early onset of puberty in girls and decreased testosterone production in boys (soy formula is the very worst culprit in this regard but some degree of phytoestrogens can be found in ALL infant formulas)
Phosphates - Linked to cardiovascular disease, speeding up of aging process and renal disease.
Pthalates - Linked to asthma, allergies, liver and testes damage and cardiovascular disease.
Bisphenol-A (BPA) - Linked to obesity, neurological issues, cancer and sexual organ complications.
Not to mention a host of bacteria that cause a host of gastrointestinal problems as well as viral meningitis etc.
DHA and ARA (which are found in breastmilk in a digestible, natural form that help with gut flora) which infant formula companies so proudly display on their products, are derived from plants. The DHA in infant formula is derived from fermented microalgae (!) called Cryptecodiunium cohnii and ARA is derived from soil fungi (!!) called Mortierelle alpina. These two organisms are quite new to the food chain so the long term effects of their use are not yet known. What is known is that they are a very very poor representation of the DHA and ARA found in human breastmilk. Now, wait for the BIGGIE... The oils for DHA and ARA are extracted with a solvent called hexane which is a petroleum-refining by-product and a known neurotoxin and air pollutant. So basically, infant formula = petrol *yum* Also, the safety of these two plant derived forms of DHA and ARA have not been adequately tested for safety. In many cases, they were only tested on rats. I *think* it's safe to say that we are quite different from mere rats...
Infant formula (as you can see) carries some very worrying contaminants (lets not forget the pesticides from the grass the cows eat, the fumes from the tractors they breathe in and the anti-biotics and hormones the cows are injected with to produce more milk) and only now are their effects starting to be realised. I think it is safe to say that infant formula is the greatest experiment carried out on human beings.
The consumption of infant formula is linked to the following diseases and/or health complications:-
Diarrhoea; Meningitis; Ear
infections; Blood infections; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (cot death);
Diabetes; Childhood cancers; Obesity; High blood cholesterol; Asthma; Reduced effectiveness
of vaccinations; Reduced effectiveness of organ transplants; Candidiasis;
Enteroviruses; Gastroenteritis; Giardia; Haemophilus Influenza; Necrotizing
Enterocolitis; Pneumococcal Disease; Respiratory Infections (general);
Respiratory Infections (protective effect against exposure to tobacco smoke);
Respiratory Syncytial Virus; Salmonellosis; Sepsis in Preterm Infants; Urinary
Tract Infections; Anemia and Iron Deficiency; Autoimmune Thyroid Disease;
Constipation and Anal Fissures; Cryptorchidism (undescended testicle);
Gastroesophageal Reflex; Inguinal Hernia; Lactose Malabsorption; Morbidity and
Mortality; Plagiocephaly; Pyloric Stenosis; Wheezing and Asthma; More pain
during medical procedures; Impaired jaw and teeth development; Allergies; Eczema;
Reduced Development and Intelligence; Bedwetting; Reduced Brainstem, Cognitive,
and Motor Development; Reduced IQ; Reduced Gastrointestinal and Immune
Development; Hormone imbalance; Reduced Neurological, Psychomotor and Social
Development; Disturbed Sleep Cycles and Arousal; Reduced Speech and Language
Development; Reduced Thymus Development; Autism; Appendicitis; Poor Bone mass; Cardiovascular
Disease (Atherosclerosis, Cholesterol Concentration); Celiac Disease;
Helicobacter pylori infection; Haemophilus Influenzae; Meningitis; Inflammatory
Bowel Disease (Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis); Juvenile Rheumatoid
Arthritis (JRA); Poor Mental Health; Menopause (timing of); Multiple Sclerosis;
Reduced Oral and Dental Health; Reduced Protection against toxins
(environmental contaminants, chemicals, heavy metals); Schizophrenia; Reduced
Stress Resilience and Tonsillitis.
Again, *yum*.
So Fearless Formula Feeder, you and your readers laugh in the face of danger eh? Please, for the love of whatever/whoever you believe in, stop telling us all that you 'want what's best' for your babies because, clearly, you don't...
About Me
- backtobasicsmom
- Breastfeeding,co-sleeping, attachment parenting mother. Trying to save babies from unnecessary exposure to infant formula. Supporter of proper information distributed to mothers worldwide on the benefits of breastfeeding and the risks of infant formula. Doing everything possible to make the risks known!
Never in a million years would I support the assertion that "breast isn't really best". The articles I link to on FFF (which are seriously outdated, so thanks for reminding me to re-do that section) simply suggest that breast is best nutritionally, but that we do not feed our babies in a vacuum.
ReplyDeleteI agree that formula could stand to be improved as a substance, but I do stand by my belief that it is a perfectly acceptable alternative when breastfeeding isn't working. I would recommend to any mom who was on the fence that they should give it a go, b/c I believe it is easier (when it works the way it should) and overall, a far superior food than what is manufactured in a lab. But as far as your list of detrimental effects - you are seriously confusing correlation with causation. If you want to list your resources for these claims, I'm happy to go through each one and discuss the actual studies. If you're willing to engage in an open-minded debate, which I am assuming from your profile you are not. You mind seems pretty made up about this issue, so I will ask you politely to focus your energy on spreading your own message rather than blindly attacking my character or that of my readers. Beautiful background, by the way - looks like stained glass....love it.
Ack - sorry, in that second paragraph "give it a go" should read, "give breastfeeding a go".
ReplyDeleteIt would be very interesting to see what you back up your claims with re: formula being an acceptable alternative. http://www.lactivist.net/infant-formula-baby-milk-ingredients-additives-and-contamination-info/ is one of the sites I got my info from (references at bottom of article) and the contaminants in infant formula re: aluminium, cadmium, msg etc from http://www.breastfeedingmomsunite.com/2010/10/what-everyone-needs-to-know-about-infant-formula-ingredients/
ReplyDeleteare you *really* suggesting that these contaminants are not detrimental to health? and likewise, suggesting that it is *impossible* for infant formula to be contaminated at any point by these contaminants?? i'd be interested to know... and thank you, the background is lovely :)
Unfortunately, you're citing lactivist websites, not actual studies. And the sources they are using to back up their claims are simply other biased individuals who are misinterpreting results (Linda Folden Palmer, for example, is one such extremist and calls herself a doctor. She's a chiropractor.) As far as the actual scientific studies cited go, here is what I found:
ReplyDelete1. The Cochrane review (probably the best regarded metastudies on the market) conclusion: "Infants enrolled in the trials were relatively mature and healthy preterm infants. Assessment schedule and methodology, dose and source of supplementation and fatty acid composition of the control formula varied between trials. When the results of the RCT's are pooled, no clear long-term benefits were demonstrated for infants receiving formula supplemented with LCPUFA. There was no evidence that supplementation of formula with n-3 and n-6 LCPUFA impaired the growth of preterm infants." Basically, the additives of LCPUFA in this case did not harm nor hinder the growth of preterm infants.
Abkua Iem et al was interesting... unfortunately I could only access the abstract - have you read the whole study? I see that s/he found that certain brands were lacking elements and/or had elements which were potentially questionable, but again, this just speaks to needing better controls on formula. Which is something I wholeheartedly support.
Enterobacter sakazakii is a scary issue and one that I have taken up as a cause. It is a danger for formula feeding parents, and can be avoided by using the nursette bottles and sterile nipples (often given at non-BFHI hospitals as formula samples). RTF can also reduce the risk. (continued below as your blogspot won't let me write more than 4,096 characters...)
Formula does pose certain small risks, but again, you need to look at the outcomes rather than the possibilities. If you look at deaths in the United States directly related to formula feeding vs related to breastfeeding in the past year, the breastfeeding deaths win (there were 2 due to bacteria contamination in formula, and 3 due to breastfeeding - a smothering and 2 drug-related),. And I would never tell a woman not to breastfeed b/c some idiot mom did drugs while nursing, or a freak accident happened when a mom was nursing and she smothered her baby.
ReplyDeleteI agree that these contaminants could indeed be detrimental to health. However, there is also a huge concern over the contaminants in breastmilk: http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/chems.asp
Where did you get the idea that I felt it was impossible for infant formula to become contaminated?! That's utterly ridiculous. It's a human substance, thus prone to human error, and just this year alone we've had several recalls of formula. That's not at all my point. Both forms of infant feeding carry risks. Relative risk means that you must weigh the realities of what that risk means against known outcomes that are guaranteed to be bad. For example, sticking with breastfeeding if it is making you miserable from PPD and thus an inattentive mother. The slight risk of your baby ingesting bug parts (which are harmless, for the most part, although disgusting) versus the known outcome of having a suicidal or completely inattentive mother... you see?
In order to prove to you why I think formula is an acceptable alternative, I would need to post the entire body of infant feeding research here and explain the statistical outcomes, and unfortunately I am at work at the moment and don't have time. But here's a few good pieces of reading:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-feeding/FL00133/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformation/infantformula/default.htm
The studies do tend to show better outcomes for breastfed babies in many cases, but not a one has been able to prove that this is causation rather than correlation. Michael Kramer's famous Belarus study is probably the best we've got at this point (he got at least a bit closer to randomization) and the results were only clear on a few items- mostly the IQ advantage. As there are multiple other ways to aid intellectual development, these are things that formula feeding parents can counteract in other aspects of parenting.
and YOU are citing information from sources that have direct links with infant formula corporations who fund them to say the things they do, especially the FDA. i'm not able to now but i will provide you with information on the link between infant formula corporations and the medical profession from the archives of disease in childhood. i have links from the british medical journal et al that show that infant formula corporations have infiltrated almost every aspect of the medical profession with 'goodwill' funding to prove that their products are safe. more on this tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteMayo Clinic is sponsored by formula companies? As far as I know, they don't do maternity care, so there would be no reason for them to be in cahoots. I know the AAP takes a lot of infant formula funding, and yet they are profoundly in favor of breastfeeding... so I'm not sure one follows the other. As for the FDA, I am curious to see evidence that they are paid off by the formula companies... that would be quite scary, and I'd join you in questioning their bias if it is the case!
ReplyDeleteAlso, to clarify, I am not citing those specific sites as evidence, but rather to show what I felt were moderate, unbiased clearinghouses of information to counter things like WABA and Lactivist,net who wear their bias on their sleeves. There's no shame in taking a stand, but I think it's unfair to assume that there is only one "truth" and that it comes from those with a vested interest in proving their point.
Regardless, I appreciate your willingness to converse! All the best with your site, and with raising your baby in the way you feel is best.
Ok! So you cited the FDA as being a reliable and 'unbiased' source of information. FDA gets half of it's funding from the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not sure if you are aware but the pharmaceutical industry owns the majority of companies that manufacture infant formula. Here is an excerpt from an article in the citizen "Big corporations are putting profits before the health of mothers and babies. Formula makers — primarily Big Pharma and Big Food companies — are undermining women and families’ access to adequate healthcare by limiting healthcare providers’ abilities to provide accurate, science-based information about breastfeeding and infant care to their patients"
ReplyDeleteBig Pharma is one of the corporations that fund the FDA.
Your assertion also, that mayoclinic is unbiased is also unfortunately wrong. Mayoclinic cites information from studies funded by infant formula companies. Although I understand where you are coming from with regards to my information coming from lactivist sources, I am more inclined to take the word of someone/thing who has not been paid to give out the information. what corporation can gain from breastmilk? 'lactivist' studies/sources are, in my view, far more reliable as they provide unbiased, untainted information. the medical profession, has been funded by infant formula/pharmaceutical corporations for years and are much more likely to cite prejudiced information.
You might also be interested in this link, bearing in mind it extends to all medical professions.
ReplyDeletehttp://adc.bmj.com/content/91/5/383.full
Who would feel so strrrrongly about formula to advocate for it? I agree. Seriousssss issues maybe feeling inadequete! I suggest relactation! As soon as I stopped bf my second daughter at 6 months she was literally sick for a year sickness after sickness. Now my 3rd daughter gets breast until 2 :)
ReplyDelete