Our four children were all breast fed, exclusively, for their first six months of life, and continued to nurse past the one year mark. One weaned around 14 months and another around 18, with the others falling in between.

I was the main supporter of this policy, while my wife was the main implementer. If she had a conference to attend, she expressed-- for weeks-- to produce the extra needed to cover the time away from home.

We did not expect any psychological advantage over formula at all. The kids all turned out fine and enjoyed reasonably good health in their infancy and early childhood. Possibly better than average, but it's hard to tell, and impossible to tell if the cause had anything to do with breast feeding.

We chose breast feeding over formula because people are biological mechanisms, and breast milk has evolved with people over the ages to serve a certain purpose. We believed then and continue to believe that it is best for children. There are no issues with contaminated or chlorinated water, no worries that the formula is not correct. There is evidence of a number of physical advantages for breast fed children, and why wouldn't parents want what is best for their offspring? We continue to believe that formula is appropriate for that portion of women, about 5% or so, for whom breast feeding doesn't work.

If breast-feeding makes some women feel closer to their children, fine-- that can only be considered a good thing. But breast feeding, besides being the least expensive, most portable option available-- remains the best option because of the long term advantages demonstrated for children's health.