For older kids' moms who breastfed....

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
For older kids' moms who breastfed....
73
Sat, 02-02-2013 - 8:49pm

How do you know now (if you're finished breastfeeding your children) that it made a difference?  Formula feeding is much easier, make a bottle, be on-the-go without stopping while out and about, maybe an infant who slept longer.  Would your older children (no longer breastfed) be different if you had formula fed? 

Pages

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010
Mon, 02-18-2013 - 1:30pm

So then our disagreement is with the definition of organic. I do not consider any food covered in chemicals/pesticides to be organic.

So I am curious - what is the difference you see between food 30+ years ago and today? Is it GMOs?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Mon, 02-18-2013 - 9:42am

Oh, I see.  Pesticides have been used in the past and they will always be used.  They are necessary and are an important part of organic farming:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

If you're interested, there is a lot of reading about organics and lots of documentaries: Food, Inc.; Vegucated; Fat Sick and Nearly Dead. 

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 11:22pm

thardy2001 wrote:
<p>Witch Power: I don't understand your point?  Pesticides are alive and well.  What can I say?</p>

My point? That you said that anyone over 30 years old was raised on organic food. My point was that it was not organic, but heavily pesticided. And I asked what proof you had that it was all organic?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 4:31pm

"Resorting" to formula is not biased. Read any pro-formula website and you will find that all people agree that formula is not a substance equal to breastfeeding. "Choosing" between breastfeeding and formula is biased, implying equal choices. "Resorting" to formula acknowledges breastfeeding's higher health ranking.

If a mom notices that a baby is sensitive to caffeine or other substances as indicated by irritability or sleeping issues, she has the right to opt not to ingest caffeine or to tolerate the infant's behaviors. However, not all infants are sensitive and most will be less sensitive with increased age.

Despite the sorry state of our environment and some less than perfect lifestyle decisions by the mom, breastfeeding is still a better health choice than formula feeding.

Moms who breastfeed, drink occasionally, or smoke, or eat junk food are making a better health decision than moms who opt for formula. It is unnecessary to be a perfect being healthwise in order to benefit from breastfeeding. These little indicretions are taken into account in studies comparing breastfeeding to formula feeding.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 10:24am

Witch Power: I don't understand your point?  Pesticides are alive and well.  What can I say?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 10:21am

So you want an infant with 3 - 4 month-old liver and kidneys to process mom's alcohol, nicotine and caffeine? Wow.  A mother should have enough restraint during the year or 2 she's breastfeeding.

Again, formula does not add nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, and the toxins/chemicals/fats mom consumes in her fast foods. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 10:17am

Nisupulla: I'll not only comment on the article. I'll quote from it to show how misguided it is.

<<Having a couple of drinks is not a good reason to resort to formula.>>

"resort to formula"??  Okay, so the article is very biased from the start.

<<And supplementing with formula can cause your milk supply to decrease.>>

The writers are also ignorant as anyone who cares about the topic is fully aware of pump and dump.

<<However, some young infants are sensitive to caffeine and become irritable or have difficulty sleeping even with small amounts of caffeine.>>

That's what I said.  Did you read the article?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sat, 02-16-2013 - 7:27pm

Science Daily has a current article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130213114511.htm

Perhaps you'd like to comment to them about how wrong they are.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sat, 02-16-2013 - 7:22pm

After 3-4 months an infant's liver and kidneys are working quite well, so what the mom consumes is filtered first through her body and then through the infant's.

But what remains after the filtration is not nearly as important as all the protective factors in the breastmilk that help the baby's body cope with whatever adverse substances are in the infant's environment and/or diet.

Would you like to comment on those protective factors in breastmilk?

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010
Sat, 02-16-2013 - 6:47pm

thardy2001 wrote:
Witch power, you understand that's propaganda published by some farm owners?  It's not reliable.  Nor true.  Pesticides are alive and well in industrialized countries to this day.

No sorry, I didn't know that - I haven't looked into this too deep.

So the facts they posted on their site are not true? They were not using any pesticides between 1945 and 1972? Do you have any trustworthy sites I can read that prove food was all organic in that time period?

Quote:
-- The total expenditures for pesticides increased tenfold between 1945 and 1972.

-- Total pesticide production was below 100 million pounds in 1945. It jumped to about 300 million pounds by 1950. It jumped again by 1960 to over 600 million pounds.

  • -- In 1952, 11 percent of the corn and 5 percent of the cotton acres were treated with herbicides. By 1982, these percentages had risen to 95 percent of the corn and 93 percent of the cotton.
  • -- Between 1947 and '52, the USDA registered almost 10,000 new, separate pesticide products and the list continued to grow through the rest of the century.

I looked on Wikipedia and found this:

Until the 1950s, arsenic-based pesticides were dominant.[67] Paul Müller discovered that DDT was a very effective insecticide. Organochlorines such as DDT were dominant, but they were replaced in the U.S. by organophosphates and carbamates by 1975. Since then, pyrethrin compounds have become the dominant insecticide.[67] Herbicides became common in the 1960s, led by "triazine and other nitrogen-based compounds, carboxylic acids such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate".[67]

The first legislation providing federal authority for regulating pesticides was enacted in 1910;[68] however, decades later during the 1940s manufacturers began to produce large amounts of synthetic pesticides and their use became widespread.[54] Some sources consider the 1940s and 1950s to have been the start of the "pesticide era."[69] Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1970 and amendments to the pesticide law in 1972,[70] pesticide use has increased 50-fold since 1950 and 2.3 million tonnes (2.5 million short tons) of industrial pesticides are now used each year.[66] Seventy-five percent of all pesticides in the world are used in developed countries, but use in developing countries is increasing.[18] In 2001 the EPA stopped reporting yearly pesticide use statistics. A study of USA pesticide use trends through 1997 was published in 2003 by the National Science Foundation's Center for Integrated Pest Management.[67][71]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide#History

Pages