April 30, 2009

The case for breastfeeding

An article recently published in the Atlantic magazine titled "The Case Against Breast-feeding" prompted a lot of discussion in a parenting forum that I am a member of. The article was lauded by some—most notably those who did not breastfeed—for being a balanced article and for helping alleviate their guilt, while the pro-breastfeeders shot down the sensationalist journalism and criticized the author for damaging the breast-feeding agenda.

The article starts off by a very provocative claim: that breastfeeding is "this generation's vacuum cleaner—an instrument of misery that mostly just keeps women down."

Now, there is probably no housework that I hate more than vacuuming, so I was intrigued.

According to the author, Hanna Rosin, the benefits of breastfeeding are not so clear in the medical literature, despite what the parenting books and magazines claim. Moreover, breast-feeding mothers are often "miserable, or stressed out, or alienated by nursing", and their marriages are put under stress as a result. Furthermore, breast-feeding sets up an unequal dynamic in marriage—co-parenting becomes difficult to attain when a child is breastfed. So, despite all this, why is breastfeeding "the real ticket into the club"? Why are upper middle-class, chic & urban mothers judged by how they brave the tribulations of breastfeeding?

As a feminist, I found one claim that Ms Rosin makes extremely valid—that one of the reasons given as a pro for breastfeeding, the lower costs, is completely BS; breastfeeding is cheaper than formula-feeding only "if a woman's time is worth nothing." Moreover, having exclusively breastfed June for 6 months now, some of the negative points of breastfeeding mentioned by Ms Rosin did resonate with me. Let me also add to the list:

  • no "off-time": I am not sure if any parent can ever have time when she can be "off", but a breast-feeding mother must always think about her milk—whether it is about giving it to her baby directly, or pumping it when she is away from the baby. When out with a baby, the mother must always think about when and where to feed next. Unlike for the formula-fed baby, feeding is just as about the mother as well as the baby. For a mother, bursting breasts are just as difficult to bear as a crying baby!
  • more burden on the mother: related to the above. A hungry baby can only be soothed by a mother's breast, if the baby is exclusively breast-fed.

  • always concerned about milk supply: it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking, "is my baby getting enough to eat?" and being obsessing about weight gain of the baby, as this is the only way for us to gauge if the baby is eating well, and whether the milk supply is enough.
  • dry skin: I am not sure if this has to do with the breastfeeding or not, but ever since I gave birth, my skin has become so dry, nothing manages to keep my skin moist! The number of wrinkles on my face has definitely increased in the past few months.
  • loss of libido: unfortunately... though I am not sure how much libido any sleep-deprived parent has, when tending to a demanding baby!

Many articles, blogs and comments have appeared as a response to this article. The response made by members of the United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC) is worth noting here, as it mentions something that is often not stressed enough in parenting books—that breastfeeding is not only good for the child, but also for the mother. So, by choosing to breastfeed, the mother is not necessarily succumbing to self-sacrifice to do what's best for the child. A recent article in the BBC titled "Breastfeeding 'protects mother'" also attests to this issue, that breastfeeding not only facilitates faster recovery of the mother after birth, but has longer-term health implications. Furthermore, the USBC argues that breastfeeding can be easier and less time-consuming than washing and sterilizing bottles and buying and preparing formula. Although I have never prepared formula, now that I have gone back to work and June is being fed expressed milk, I can fully sympathize with the hassle of washing and sterilizing bottles and teats.

That Ms Rosin neglects to mention the dark side of breastfeeding—the toxic chemicals present in breast milk—is a glaring omission, for an article that claims to make a case against breastfeeding. If anything, that is the factor that should be seriously considered by any concerned mother. As it is written in Sandra Steingraber's Having Faith, "when it comes to persistent organic pollutants (POPs), breast milk is the most contaminated of all human foods"; situated on top of the food chain, "breastfed babies have greater dietary exposures to toxic chemicals than their parents". A serious discussion on breastfeeding should not neglect to mention the choice women are forced to make: whether "we should feed our babies chemically contaminated, yet clearly superior, breast milk or chemically uncontaminated, yet clearly inferior, formula".

It would have been more accurate if the article had been titled "The case for pro-choice". I myself have problems with "breast-feeding fascists" and no mother who does not breast-feed should be made to feel guilty. At the same time, living in a country where only 15% of babies are breastfed at 6 weeks, where people around me often look at me in consternation when I tell them that yes my baby is still (!) exclusively fed breast milk, I feel that what's called for is an environment that is more supportive of a woman's choice on this matter.

On the day that June turned 6 months old, I must say that I am very happy of the choice I have made to breastfeed my daughter exclusively for the first six months of her life.

The diagram on this page was taken from the Permaculture Research Institute of the USA's website, http://www.permacultureusa.org/2008/08/13/pesticides-and-you/