Why am I not surprised.

I once basically accepted the conventional wisdom that breast feeding is better than formula...but my wife was bitterly opposed to doing it with our boy. So I went along with her wishes.

When I dug deeper into the breast-industrial complex two points became clear to me. First, that the purported benefits were marginal and poorly supported (as the author points out here SES factors were not controlled for). Second, the breast-is-best folks dramatically underplay how much of a pain in the ass--and how much of a time commitment--breast feeding is.

Our boy is doing great on formula. He is growing like a weed, we can monitor how much he is eating, and when I am taking my spins at baby duty my wife is really getting a rest (not having to hook herself up to a pump like a cow). We've also been able to keep him in his crib since night zero with only one overnight feeding.

Science and human progress is great. It has freed my wife and my family from bondage to the teat.

One of the all-time best post titles I've seen. It's funny, as a pediatrician I read the studies, but it's more the visual displays I get that make the best arguments for me. When I see a gigantic baby wallowing in rolls of fat at six months, I usually assume (almost always correctly) "oh, a breastfeeder." And yet, when those same children grow up a bit, everything seems to even out; when the SES factors that your correctly point out are taken out of the equation, the evidence is less than overwhelming.

One counter-argument to your point, however: the formula companies are at least twice as bad as anything the breast police have to offer. Consider: if you are using either Similac or Enfamil, you are paying a 33% premium (the new price of Similac Advance or Enfamil Lipil over the old versions of the formula) for exactly nothing at all. Both marked up their prices after adding a couple of fatty acids that one study suggested were associated with better brain and eye development. Of course, a second study came out a few years later and said - oops, our bad - that all of those differences disappeared by age two. Did they go back to cranking out the original, cheaper version? I'll let you guess.

So as a Pediatrician, you don't agree that breastmilk has additional benefits that formula does not have? Eg. the mother's antibodies passed on to the babies, the protection, albeit modest, against certain allergies, infections and cancers (breast, ovarian?) There are studies to support this. I can't imagine how the degree of fat on babies alone would be a good measure of health.

I don't debate for a second that breast milk is the best option available, for the exact reasons you cite. And no, the amount of fat on a baby is not a good measure of health. That was just an observation that early on, it does tend to be obvious which babies are breastfed; I mentioned it as a preamble to the observation that the differences between breastfed and formula fed babies become progressively smaller as they get older. Really, I was trying to say that while breastfeeding is the unquestioned best option, the advantages aren't sufficient to justify stigmatizing those who opt to give their infants formula, for whatever reason.

for good rational posts that don't feel the need to demonize others. one of the main things that bothers me about many pro-breast people is that they feel the need to criticize and put down people who make a different choice than they do.

i've become convinced that these people are the types of folks who feel threatened by people making different decisions. they need to be part of a group to define them. and if there are others surviving outside the group, they should be taken down, derided and made to feel as though they are "lesser than". this same high schoolish mentality is replayed in societal politics time and again. and is easily seen in this instance.

it feels good to know that there are some rational types out there and that the country isn't necessarily being run by the "popular kid" mentality.

I agree that nobody should demonize or stigmatize others because of their choices. My 4 kids and I benefited from both breastfeeding and formula, especially when I had my twins. Those formula bottles sure helped with my hungry babies. However, as a public health person who has worked in maternal/child health and disease control, I feel it's important for parents to be aware of the wide range of health benefits of breastfeeding, even if they ultimately choose to bottlefeed.

Probably I became a serious breastfeeding advocate, too, from working in West Africa for many years, where environmental and socioeconomic conditions really make breastfeeding advantageous.

I would just like to hear a story from a mom who has actually been demonized for either decision. At home and with family/friends, I nursed my babies; in public, sometimes I bottle-fed expressed milk/sometimes I breastfed: I pumped at work - and never heard a word of judgment, anywhere, from anyone (and I live in a mid-size southern town). Not one mom-friend of mine has ever mentioned being harassed, no matter what her feeding choice. It seems like this topic has been blown way out of proportion.

After struggling to breast-feed until three months with my first two sons, I opted to formula feed our third son. I felt I recovered MUCH more quickly, both physically and emotionally, and enjoyed the newborn phase so much more by being able to share greater responsibility with my husband... and sleep. I DID feel criticism from several sources: the hospital, who were surprised and gave me a lecture before giving me a bottle to give to my newborn; an acquaintance (vegetarian/organic) who lectured me about the benefits of breast-feeding; a few relatives who criticized the choice; etc. I would say I had about a dozen encounters where I had to justify my choice. Oddly, the more mothers I talk to about this, the more I get the sense that about 50% of women have difficulty (physically or emotionally) with nursing. Yet they feel pressure to do it (breast is best) and so struggle through in spite of the astonishingly tiny and unsubstantiated benefits.