The health risk of formula percentage wise

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
The health risk of formula percentage wise
 9 Tue, 01-11-2011 - 5:43pm

I have never heard the health risks of formula quantified as a percentage so I was wondering what that might be if someone where to guesstimate that. So my question is what you guys, if you had to guess, think the risk level of formula likely is (percentage wise) minimum for any formula-fed baby getting a significant health issue that they would otherwise not get (or it would be much less serious if they did) if they where BF'ing?

Assume that we are talking only about children who are not premies, , do not live in extreme poverty or a developing country, or where not born with a significant health issue to start with. Is it 90%? 75%? 50%? 25%? 10%? Less then 10%?

What percentage minimum do you think the risk needs to be for formula to be considered to have significant health risks?

If you have an issue with answering this question, I'd like to know what your reason is?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
 Tue, 01-11-2011 - 8:46pm

I don't "get" the question. I sort of get why you want to leave premies and children living in poverty out of the equation, and maybe those born with a heart condition or something,

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
 Wed, 01-12-2011 - 2:01am

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-13-2008
 Wed, 01-12-2011 - 8:14am

It would probably be possible to tease it out of all the stats, but difficult and maybe pointless.

For example, if the risk of SIDS is know for BF babies, and for FF babies, - we can easily see a % increase in risk. But SIDS thankfully, is rarer than say recurring ear infections are in babies. So in terms of contributing to an overall risk, how would we weigh each one up?

Somehow I think information

Registered: 10-01-2010
 Wed, 01-12-2011 - 11:09am

For my own children, I tend to think of it as 100%.

If I was advising another mom, and if I would even think to tell her that percentage of chance (and I really don't think I would) - I would probably say her baby has a 0-100% chance of being affected. And that when it happens to your baby, it is 100%.

It all depends on genetics, other risk factors in their lives, what they are exposed to, and many other qualifiers we cannot quanitify. How much do you want to gamble with your baby's life and hope that you win?

~*~ Catherine - CL of the Breastmilk vs. Formula Debate Board
Come find out why this debate is so important to us!

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2005
 Wed, 01-12-2011 - 11:26am
Many people would say life is a gamble and we all hope to win in the end. I hope to live to 94 like my grandmother, but stepping out of my home is a risk and one I am willing to take. I do not drive, in some ways I am not willing to take that risk where millions are. I gambled with my child by giving formula and she has tonsilitis. Is that a risk I took? Perhaps. Her father had his removed for the same issues. I gambled procreating with him. (Bad gamble there, great kid). My gamble was having a child with a high risk in my family genetic make-up with mental disorders. I hope I win there. I guess it is what can you control, and hope to mimimize any risks which are in your power. Some women say formula is a risk they have to take. Some of us here are saying that for most women that is not the case. But once the child exits the womb, there will be risks everywhere, and you always hope to win.

Registered: 10-01-2010
 Wed, 01-12-2011 - 11:51am

~*~ Catherine - CL of the Breastmilk vs. Formula Debate Board
Come find out why this debate is so important to us!

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2005
 Wed, 01-12-2011 - 11:56am
Thank you for rounding out your answer. Makes more sense to my slightly dulled senses. School work is calling, another long semester ahead of me. I have new resolutions to eat better and get more sleep to up my chances of success and reduce my risk of getting sick. How is that for you? ;P