Comments received:

• Name: Rosie
• IP address: 91.105.176.11
• Date/time: Thursday 13th September 2007 11:24:19
• Comment: I agree that mothers who are unable to breastfeed for very good reasons shouldn't be made to feel guilty. How utterly unhelpful for the whole stress of new motherhood. However I should say that if at all possible, babies should be breastfed; thats what breast milk is for and is designed perfectly to meet a baby's needs in the first few months (did you know that it dilutes in hot weather to become more thirst quenching, for example?) and I have a problem with people like Jordan who won't even try breastfeeding for reasons of image or personal convenience (ie putting themselves before their newborns) - if that makes sense. Also i dont think its a chattering middle class thing only - i've seen lots of impoverished African women and women in Sheffield on council estates being pressured to buy formula milk for their babies at prices they can't really afford when they have the perfect solution - breast milk, and think the SMA and nestle and other companies have a lot to answer for. so i guess in summary - if you can't breast feed for a real reason, don't feel guilty, its not your fault, if you are just opting out as an image or convenience thing, thats less justifiable. Wonder if i'll get bullied about breastfeeding in Sheffield (though I plan to! if i can) - will let you know!!

• Name: jonath
• IP address: 127.0.0.1
• Date/time: Friday 14th September 2007 01:02:13
• Comment: Indeed, yes. Good points, well made. The reference to the chattering classes was . . . well, I was trying to make the point that there is clearly a class division in our society with regard to the dietary intake of our infants from age 0 through to about six months. You acknowledged this yourself when referring to the women in council estates. Indeed, I remember when living in Leeds, M****'s mid-wife would tell M**** about how she had had to explain to young mothers why giving a cup full of Coke to her young (3 months old) child might not actually be such a brilliant idea. Oh, and cigarette ash in his banana blancmange dessert does not provide the vital pH balance and potassium levels that you seek. That kinda thing. So, erm . . . oh, I don't know. I think I was trying to make a bigger point here, but I forget now.

• Name: Rob
• IP address: 217.46.214.84
• Date/time: Tuesday 18th September 2007 15:52:19
• Comment: I think it's a bit of a non-story that. The headline is misleading in the way one would expect from News International. All the research quoted in that lazily written article really says is that women are more likely to breast feed for longer if it is recommended to them by the local authority. The article doesn't tell the reader much about the research into allergies at all.
  
  The other week Jordan was photographed in the Sun (also a Murdoch publication) bottle feeding her latest stupidly named child and in the accompanying short article she suggested that breast feeding was a form of cannibalism. On the same page was an advert for formula milk, I wonder if the article you've linked to is part of the same covert marketing scam?
  
  If people read either of the articles and see it as a reason to behave like Jordan then maybe they should stop doing other natural things such as eating (take vitamin supplements intravenously) and have waste removed by colonic irrigation or colostomy bags. Maybe they could stop breathing too because air is so polluted and dirty (bring on the ducking stool).
  
  Why pay for formula when nature has provided something that has been suitable for thousands of years? Unless there is a physical problem, I can't see a sensible reason for not breast feeding when the teat is available. If the mother experiences excruciating pain or is unable to produce enough milk, then formula is a sensible option and she should not be made to feel guilty for not being able to feed naturally.
  
  I also don't wish to suggest that a mother should not be parted from her young for the first few months of life just to feed it from the teat. In fact, it's probably even more important after the birth of the child for the parents to spend time together away from their offspring to develop their relationship and help the child start to get used to other people.
  
  Deciding not to breast feed at all for reasons of vanity or because of a misunderstanding of the multiple purposes of the breast, is surely due to a society that celebrates and encourages the selfish and stupid. It is surely the profit related pressure of the large corporations who encourage the poor and ill educated to forgo the breast that started this pointless discussion. I'm surprised your bullshitometer wasn't activated when you decided to associate your well written and thoughtful entry with that article.
  
  Of course in six months time I may have a completely different attitude...

• Name: jonath
• IP address: 192.168.0.1
• URL: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39304.4640...
• Date/time: Friday 21st September 2007 08:06:55
• Comment: I've provided a link to the actual research paper on the BMJ web-site - much more useful that the Times article, which doesn't exactly do a good job of summarising the research, as you point out. The research is actually a useful study in that, as the authors point out, "Some studies have reported greater degrees of protection with more exclusive and prolonged breast feeding, and several have noted a larger protective effect in children prone to atopy. Other studies, however, have reported no reduction in risk or even an increase in risk with breast feeding." The paper highlights various possible reasons for the conflicting results in previous studies and, therefore, suggests a randomised controlled trial as a potential solution to these methodological problems. It's also important to bear in mind the participants to the research (17046 mother-infant pairs), the setting, the method of intervention, all of which is given in the abstract.
  
  But yeah . . . where was I? Oh yes: what's a ducking stool?

• Name: jonath
• IP address: 192.168.0.1
• Date/time: Friday 21st September 2007 08:11:19
• Comment: Oh, and I was mightily impressed by the length of your comment - must be longest my web-site's seen. Fantastic stuff. Also, I might be wrong here but I believe once a lady has had breast implants, she is then unable to breast feed, hence Jordan's use of the bottle. Of course, Katie Price chose to have the breast implants in the first instance, blah blah blah,

• Name: Rosie
• IP address: 91.105.174.139
• Date/time: Friday 21st September 2007 11:20:08
• Comment: to continue - basically the article is saying that, as far as asthma goes, there is no convincing evidence either way. fair enough. but that doesnt make any difference to the huge amount of other evidence on other benefits of breast feeding and its a bit of a non story again - so what, if breast feeding isnt a preventative against other diseases such as cancer or diabetes etc, that doesnt add anything to the breast vs bottle is best discussion.. and no, breast implants don't necc mean you can't breast feed - depends on the surgery and if the nipple was actually severed from the ducts or not or preserved. i wonder if those women who have breast implants are thinking of the children..

• Name: jonath
• IP address: 192.168.0.1
• URL: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39304.4640...
• Date/time: Friday 21st September 2007 20:30:54
• Comment: We've perhaps interpreted the research paper differently. I read the conclusion: "These results do not support a protective effect of prolonged and exclusive breast feeding on asthma or allergy," and considering that, prior to the trial, there was indeed no convincing evidence either way, I thought a need existed for such research, and perhaps further research is yet required. I entirely agree with you with regard the benefits of breast feeding, but we have to be realistic and acknowledge that for some mothers, despite all their best intentions, breast feeding simply doesn't work out. Question is, do the mothers struggling to breast feed kind of go, "I must continue with this, no matter what. The child might get asthma, an allergy or, erm, something if he/she doesn't drink this stuff," or do they calm down, acknowledge that there is scant scientific research to justify their worries (insert caveat here) and, erm . . . something else, I forget now . . . end the sentence. I think more than anything here I wouldn't want a new mother to be overly stressing about continuously doing the 'right thing' for her child, perhaps to the detriment of her own mental/physical well-being and, in consequence, that of the child. One goes into these things with all the best intentions, but . . . etc. etc.

Add your comment (or not):