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.

and much more positive than a lot of the folks around here who promote breastfeeding. i don't think people should feel pressured either way and just do whatever is the best fit for that life. fifty years ago, many people seemed to forget that breastfeeding was natural and had been in existence since the beginning of humanity. now, many seem to forget that there were generations that were brought up on formula who turned out fine, too. The important thing is to feed the kid- breast or no breast.

I'm a bit incredulous that the writer of the article for some reason assumed that breastfed kids would be closer with their mothers. It's such a ridiculous notion.

I am shuddering at the thought of your wife "expressing" for weeks just to be able to go on a short trip... No kidding that your wife was the "main implementer." Something tells me that she was the only implementer.

While breast milk may not have any source water "contamination" issues, it can still be contaminated. Remember, DDT was pulled from the market when it was found in human breast milk. Some contaminants, when eaten in food by the mother, will end up in the breast milk. On the other hand, tap water is regularly tested for environmental contaminants. Which is better? Who knows, but I'm guessing you'd be surprised by how much contamination is in the average mother's breast milk.

There is no scientific reason that formula, when used correctly, can't be just as good as breast milk. Breast milk has been exhaustively analyzed and all the same contents are included in formula.

How about we free women from being chained to their homes and/or their breast pumps? How about we actually listen to modern science for a change? I'm all for choice, but let's stop bad mouthing formula and making those that use it feel guilty (you know who you are out there).

The author has a very good point, however, about 3rd world countries. Women in those places should be encouraged to continue using breast feeding.

Don't shudder too much at the "expressed for weeks." After all, the expressing had to be in addition to the amount normally expressed during every feeding. Plus, the conferences were probably a couple days at least - that's at least 8 ? meals or so. It takes time to build up a reserve like that without overtaxing yourself.

I remember my friend showing me with great pride her stockpile in the freezer. She was getting ready to return to work and wanted the baby to continue to be fed breastmilk while she was away each day. It was kind of funny - she was so proud. But that stockpile gave her piece of mind too.

Of course the mother is the main feeder when breastfeeding, but if Dad's not cool with reheating it and bottle feeding with it and supporting her emotionally, it's got to be much harder. My husband knows he can't do much besides bring me the baby when I breastfeed, but he's researching pumps and will do all he can to help make it easier on me to pump and go back to work while still breastfeeding. I only plan to do it for the first 6 - 9 months, however.

Sure, formula is so convenient, yada yada, let's "free women" yada yada. Nope, not buying it. For more than you want to read about the topic, turn to the book, Milk, Money, and Madness: The Culture and Politics of Breastfeeding

by Dia Michels.

As for contamination-- you think local water supplies have more or less contamination than breast milk? While not perfect, the mother's body filters out a lot of crap.

And no, she wasn't the only implementer. My wife had a full time job and it was up to me to make sure the children got taken to her office at the right time to get fed. She did not and could not have breast fed the kids on her own.

Some moms have no choice and are physically unable to breast feed. Some have choice removed by external economic pressures. But for the rest choosing formula instead of breast milk is justified how? Laziness? Greed? Those are excuses and explanations, not justifications.

You've pointed to a propaganda tract.

Oh, you've read it?

ihatethenewlogin:

But for the rest choosing formula instead of breast milk is justified how? Laziness? Greed? Those are excuses and explanations, not justifications.

Why does a woman have to "justify" bottle feeding? They're not abusing their kids, and it's none of your business if they decide to bottle feed rather than breast feed. I didn't have a problem w/ your orginal post, that you and your wife decided to make the commitment to breast feed b/c you felt it was the best interest of your child to do so. Here's where you and the rest of the Boob Nazis go wrong, they then make it sound that if a woman DOESN'T breast feed, then she's being a selfish wretch who doesn't deserve her precious gift of a baby.

Get over it. Maybe the women who bottle feed do so because they don't want their baby/toddler grabbing for their tit every time they go out. Maybe they want to have a social life w/o having to worry about how their precious gift/baby will be fed. Maybe at 4 am when their precious gift is crying, they can nudge their partner out of bed instead of slumbering off, pulling their tit out of their night gown. Either way, it's none of your business.

Er, the editorial reviews make clear that your book is a propaganda tract.

Well, you did manage to sound somewhat reasonable the first time around.  You even graciously allowed that you and your wife think formula is appropriate for women who can't breast feed - as opposed to what, I wonder?  A wet nurse?  Starvation?

You completely lost me when you wrote of taking your children to your wife's workplace for breastfeeding.  Is that not what the pump and storage bottles were designed for?  Is it so important to get milk straight from the source that you would subject your infant(s) to several car trips per day just so they can eat?  Please tell us how that is increasing their quality of life, particularly in light of your earlier comments that you couldn't be assured breast milk is any better than formula, and you weren't looking for the supposed psychological benefit of having snookums feed directly from Mom instead of a plastic teat.

Finally, I'm really curious how someone could be motivated by greed to spend 90 bucks a month on formula when breast milk is pretty much free.

Is it so important to get milk straight from the source that you would subject your infant(s) to several car trips per day just so they can eat?

I suspect that the safety risk of those car trips outweighs whatever health benefit the baby gets from the breastfeeding.

In terms of probability, it's likely a higher risk.  But it's the kind or risk that either manifests itself or it doesn't - in other words, the kids aren't going to have chronic health problems because of the car rides that offset the benefits of breast milk.  

Of course, there's also the time factor.  Maybe this man lives next door to his wife's workplace, but chances are the kids are spending an hour or two buckled up, staring at the back seat instead of interacting with Dad.  And that's not to mention the long-term benefits to a father of feeding his own children - it's not at all uncommon for children to be much, much more attached to their mother than their father if the only one who ever feeds them is Mom. 

Blah, blah, blah. The research shows there is no real difference in the health of babies who use breast milk or formula. So, there is no excuse or justification needed by those that use formula. Stop trying to force everyone else to live by your values.

"you think local water supplies have more or less contamination than breast milk?"

I think that's a real possibility. Synthetic organic pollutants (like DDT) and other environmental contaminants can end up in breastmilk. We did not evolve in a world that contained many of these pollutants (or at least not at current levels). Therefore, our bodies don't always have a mechanism to protect us or our babies from them. Why do you think that pregnant and breastfeeding mothers are cautioned against eating fish with high levels of mercury?

Congratulations on being a reasonable father. Your medal is in the mail.

You're right, Mike. The OP thinks of the body as some sort of natural filter, but in reality, toxins can accumulate over time in the human body attached to fats, which are then passed along in the breast milk. It's probably not a serious risk, but it's not completely insignificant.