Enthusiastic proponents of breastfeeding are
constantly bringing up reasons why it’s important to nurse your baby, so I was
surprised when looking at a webinar put on by the University of Albany Public Health
Department today. The webinar, which was about community support for
breastfeeding, spent little time on the good outcomes to be expected from
breastfeeding, but went directly to issues like employer decisions that can
help or hinder nursing mothers.
Personally, I am a breastfeeding enthusiast, and calculate
that I’ve spent about 30 months of my life nursing. I agree strongly with the
novelist Eudora Welty’s character who declares that “a woman never feels so
good as when she’s got milk in her”. But I’m disturbed when I see claims made
about breastfeeding that cannot be supported by systematic research.
So, why is it good to breastfeed? Well, it’s not
because it raises the child’s IQ. The differences reported between breast-fed
and formula-fed children’s test scores are so small that they are actually less
than the variation you’d expect for a single individual to show on two separate
test administrations. In addition, because educated mothers in the U.S. are
more likely to nurse their babies, and because genetically-determined factors
help people achieve high levels of education, it’s possible that breast-fed
babies on average carry genetic
material that helps to raise their tested intelligence-- thus, we could argue just as well that higher
intelligence makes babies more likely to be breast-fed, as that breastfeeding
makes them have higher test scores.
And it’s not because breastfeeding causes bonding,
attachment, or any combination of the two. There are a number of ideas left
over from the 1970s that emphasize skin-to-skin contact as a factor in maternal
bonding (“falling in love”) with the baby, and obviously breastfeeding mothers
are more likely to be skin-to-skin than formula-feeding mothers. However (and I
say this cautiously because measures of bonding are so poorly developed), it
seems that mothers’ attitudes toward their babies are about the same after a
couple of weeks whether they breastfeed, bottle-feed, or use a combination of
the two-- except for some bottle-feeding
mothers who have been convinced that they are not doing the right thing for
their babies. As for attachment, the great majority of mothers in developed
countries have weaned their babies months before any clear signs of attachment
appear; naturally, early experiences might influence later development, but
there is no evidence that they do so in this case. Bowlby’s studies of
attachment were done at a time when breastfeeding was relatively infrequent,
but his measures seem to apply in pretty much the same way now as they did
then. There are cultural and ethnic differences in breastfeeding in the United
States, but no evidence that babies in groups that breastfeed less tend to have
less secure or less organized attachment than babies in other groups.
Is breastfeeding physically beneficial for infants? As is well-known, human milk contains
antibodies that help protect against infections that occur through the gut,
including not only gastrointestinal disorders but some other diseases like
polio. Although babies are born with a supply of antibodies against diseases
that their mothers have developed immunity to, in the early months they are not
very good at mounting defenses against new diseases they may be exposed to. The
mother’s milk allows her body to be an “auxiliary immune system” that is good
at developing antibodies against new infections and passing the antibodies on
to the baby. This means that breastfed babies have some advantages, especially
because it is easy for them to become dangerously dehydrated if they have
repeated vomiting or diarrhea. But on the whole, babies in developed countries,
with access to modern medical care, clean water, heat for sterilization of
bottles, and refrigeration of formulas, are not likely to suffer from being
formula-fed-- provided that they do not
encounter problems of formula production like those recently in the news from
China. Babies in Third World countries, however, may suffer serious, even
fatal, health problems if their mothers do not breastfeed.
Is breastfeeding physically beneficial for mothers?
The baby’s sucking at the breast does stimulate contractions of the mother’s
uterus and helps return the uterus to its pre-pregnant size more quickly than
would otherwise happen. Breastfeeding
mothers resume menstruation months later than do bottle-feeding mothers, but
this does not necessarily mean that they do not ovulate and cannot become
pregnant. Breastfeeding for a year or more seems to reduce later breast cancer
rates somewhat. But there can also be mild downsides to breastfeeding, and most
nursing mothers occasionally experience clogged ducts (“caked breast”), sore
nipples, or breast infections.
How about the family in general? Is breastfeeding
beneficial or not? It is certainly cheap compared with formula feeding, and the
savings in money can be put to good use by most young families. Breastfeeding
involves less extra work during the early months, since there are no bottles or
nipples to clean and sterilize. Bottle-feeding can appeal more strongly to
fathers who otherwise feel left out of the mother-baby loop, although the
bottle can contain the mother’s milk rather than formula. The impact of
breastfeeding on the mother’s return to work after some months can depend on
her employment and the time and situations that allow for nursing the baby or
pumping milk; however, returning to work in the first two weeks, when the milk
supply is not yet well established, will probably mean that breastfeeding will
not go on for long.
Breastfeeding does provide some assurance that a
baby is getting picked up and attended to as much as is needed. Most bottle-fed
babies also get all the attention they need, but bottle-feeding does make it
possible for parents or caregivers to skimp on attention by propping bottles
for the supine baby-- a practice that is
illegal in many states that regulate what goes on in infant day care. Only
occasionally does one encounter a breastfeeding mother who limits the baby’s
nursing time (I once met one who used a stopwatch!), because most nursing
mothers know that more sucking means more milk being produced.
Breastfeeding also pretty much assures that parents
respond to a baby’s communications. Because adults cannot easily know how much
milk a baby has taken, they rely on the baby’s signals to let them know what he
or she needs. Bottle-feeding parents can do this too, but they can also pay more
attention to how much milk is left in the bottle and thus have the option of attending less to
the baby’s cues. There is one unique situation of this kind associated with
breastfeeding: the breastfed baby indicates to the nursing mother when it’s
time for the switch from one breast to the other. Most women nurse on both
sides at each “meal”, and although they can feel that a breast becomes softer
to the touch as it is emptied of milk, they really cannot tell whether the
breast is producing the fat-rich hindmilk or whether it is close to dry-- nor do they know whether the baby is hungry
for the hindmilk or would like to proceed to the more watery foremilk being
produced by the second breast. The baby’s communication, letting go of one
nipple and fussing until the sides are switched, is essential. Does this stress
on communication during breastfeeding make any difference to the development of
gesture and speech communication? As far as I know, this has never been studied
systematically, but it’s not implausible.
Most nursing mothers find breastfeeding gratifying
(or probably they would stop). It can be a wonderful quiet time during which
nobody will bother you, and you and the baby can just peacefully do your thing.
There are several other good reasons for choosing to breastfeed, but the
extravagant claims about the benefits for babies in the developed world have
not been supported by evidence. Some possible
benefits have never been investigated carefully. But, like most other things
about infant development, it’s more complicated than it appears, and is not a
miracle cure for every infant and family problem.
Do you have references for your statements about the IQ differences between breast-fed and formula-fed children?
ReplyDeleteWhich ones-- that they exist, or that they're not meaningful?
DeleteBy the way, as I've mentioned before, all breast vs. bottle studies are full of confounding variables because participants in each group are self-selected rather than randomly assigned to groups.
Both? I posted a link to this article on facebook and one of my friends got quite... defensive.
DeleteFor outcome differences between bottle-fed and breastfed groups, this is good: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812877/
DeleteFor the issue about IQ scores,your friend can go to any psychological tests and measurements textbook, or she can try this: http://ncme.org/linkservid/6606715E-1320-5CAE-6E9DDC581EE47F88/showMeta/0/
where she can probably deal with at least the introduction and the discussion. The point is that for most tests you will get somewhat different measures on different occasions even though you would expect the underlying variable to stay constant, and if you are going to say you've created a difference by some treatment, the difference has to be bigger than the natural variation between measurements.
But again, the problem with comparing breastfed and bottle-fed babies is that there are more differences between them than just feeding method, including whatever the attitudes or circumstances were that caused the parents to choose as they did-- so there's no way to know whether it was the feeding method that made any difference,or something else about the baby's environment or heredity.