Who said "Formula is evil"?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2003
Who said "Formula is evil"?
824
Mon, 11-03-2008 - 12:14pm

Ok, we need to get back to debating - so I typed "formula is evil" into Google & found most were saying,



~*~ Catherine, mom to three grown men - Jason, Michael & Joshua and Granma to Christopher & Leia.


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2003
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 5:06pm

<>


Formula is a substance, and cannot be evil by itself. Now the manufacturers who deny contaminants in their product and



~*~ Catherine, mom to three grown men - Jason, Michael & Joshua and Granma to Christopher & Leia.


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2006
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 5:24pm

I was told something like if you have a baby you bf'd for 6 months and does not need donor milk you would be unable to obtain it from a milk bank.


WRONG.


They save the milk bank milk for preemies and sick babies since the supply is limited


Preemie babies get milk from moms who delivered preemie babies.

siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2006
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 5:29pm

I don't think I said it was wrong to state the facts. But the facts IMHO make it sound evil to willingly use it on an innocent little baby and thereby increasing the risk of such horrendous health issues.


The posters here did not come up with those facts.

siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 5:57pm

>>>But I agree with it, in the context that it was stated--that is, if you state your opinion, don't be surprised or upset if you're asked to back it up with something.<<<<

I disagree with your assessment - she wasn't saying don't be surprised or upset - I was neither. She said I failed to see it was a debate board, and if you look at the post she also told me it was not a support board (was I asking for support)? In post 185 she said me wanting to discuss opinions and not science was a problem (I have no problem discussing science, but I would debate opinions too) and several other people had made the mistake, not realizing the "true" nature of the board. Yet the top of the board says "pros and cons" not "facts and science" and I believe the "about this community" link refers to opinions, also nothing about facts and science. Of course facts and science has an important role in a debate like this and of course people will be asked to back things up, I never said they didn't. I have no problem being asked to back up a factual statement - I don't think Lee had an issue or was upset over that. I don't think either of us could be confused with someone looking for support. And the idea we don't know what a "true" debate is because we are debating opinions is well, I'll keep my opinion on how I feel about that comment to myself.

Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 6:59pm

>>>I formula feed my child and I will my second child, I am confident that it is as good as breast milk, I don't need to prove anything to anyone.<<<<

I struggle with this too. I know the research and the facts, I know BM is better. It's not in dispute. But when I had to switch from BF to FF at 7.5 months, we weren't dealing with babies failing to thrive, who had any health issues, there is no obesity in my family even among the ff'd group, there is diabetes and immune disorders that exist for the bf'd group. So looking at my family and the fact that switching to FF was the only option I felt I had (for several reasons I was not interested in M2M) - I do on some level feel FF was almost as good, for our situation. Given the fact I can't know if it was a good idea to BF'd on the medications I was taking, maybe FF'd was just as good. FF'ing was the best option for us, so in that way at the time for us FF'ing was superior to BF'ing.

I know that's not Lee's situation but when you are FF'ing and you know you aren't currently experiencing those immediate nasty consequences of FF'ing and you know in your family there is no instances of the longer-term nasty consequences - it's hard to say there is a vast difference between BF'ing and FF'ing. I can see where a FF'd child has an IQ of 72, or failed to thrive on formula, or any number of things, that you could say the difference is major, and there are always "what ifs" but in my case, I'm not able to say the difference at 7.5 months with medication issues to deal with, that FF'ing was way, way substandard.

Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 7:13pm

>>>Not in the past, but I believe that in the future this may become an important question, the answer may very well affect your life & health insurance coverage and amount you will have to pay.<<<<

I certainly hope not! Having that impact life and health insurance coverage would be awful.

Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 7:21pm

>>>Some feel that if the biological risk is 2%, an increase of 300% means 6% - to them, this still isn't a big enough risk to worry about. Some feel that the risks are exaggerated, and none of the children they have come in contact have suffered from being formula fed.<<<<

Holy misleading statistics! You mean this 300% increase might be an increase from 2% to 6%. Okay, that sounds definitely less evil to inflict on a baby.

Can anyone back these statistics up? What is the risk of ear infections? What is the increased risk for obesity, immune disorders, and death? Was there already a link and I missed it?

Yikes. This is a good example of what I've been saying all along. Nobody should have to lie or hide the truth, it's important to know the risks. But saying the risk of ear infections grows by 300% when using formula sounds way different than saying the risk grows from 2% to 6%. How you present the risks matters. Both might be factually correct but one is more alarmist. If you go around telling people the risk grows by 300% people might think "whoa, I would never give my baby that, people who do that to little innocent babies are evil" (not saying people here say that, check out the OP though) but if you go around with the SAME facts and science but say the risk grows to 6% it isn't going to raise nearly as many eyebrows.

How you state the "facts" impacts how others perceive the choices, actions and behaviors related to using formula. One isn't necessarily wrong, they are both factually correct, it depends on what kind of reaction you are looking for, or what you are hoping to accomplish.

Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2003
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 7:27pm

<>


Yes, we have 2-3 who post regularly, maybe more who haven't posted in a while.



~*~ Catherine, "Internet Research Specialist" ;)




No matter what decision you make in your life, or your child's life - there will always be someone just waiting to tell you what a stupid idiot you are for doing so...

Some of my blogs:
Life Begins... (miscarriage)
Frugal Baby Tips
Frugal Freebies
Pregnancy Stories By Age - 43-56+yrs old!
You Can Get Pregnant in Your 40's



~*~ Catherine, mom to three grown men - Jason, Michael & Joshua and Granma to Christopher & Leia.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2007
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 7:42pm

But if breast is best, how can formula be just as good.


If I come in second in a race, its not first place, no matter how much I want it to be.


Photobucket


Albini: Married Sole Custodian Bio-mum of 3 Mine plus 1 Ours baby.


Photobucket">


              *Praying for my best friend, my Dad*


 &n

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 7:57pm

Me: "I was told something like if you have a baby you bf'd for 6 months and does not need donor milk you would be unable to obtain it from a milk bank."

You: "WRONG."

Here is information that is consistent with what I learned when making this decision for myself, to back up what I said. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on your reply to me after reading this.

Article about shortage of milk bank milk: http://breastfeeding.blog.motherwear.com/2007/03/colorado_milk_b.html One of the comments says that milk bank mostly feeds newborn and preterm infants

This one requires a prescription, which I do recall hearing about. Do they give prescriptions for healthy babies over 6 months old? http://www.milkbankne.org/FAQ.shtml

"A breast milk bank is an organization that collects healthy mother's milk to feed premature babies, sick babies, babies that cannot handle formula, and babies where their mother's milk is not adequate." http://baby.families.com/blog/what-is-a-breast-milk-bank Doesn't sound like healthy 7.5 month olds are high on the priority list.

"At this time, there are only six human milk banks in the United States. While the number of infants and children who depend upon donor milk for health or survival is small, their numbers are greater than is the supply available from these milk banks." http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/index.cfm?page=359

"We cannot guarantee that the milk will be available the day the prescription comes in. Please take into consideration that our sick and premature infants are our main priority." http://home.earthlink.net/~milkbank/faq.htm#How_do_I_order_processed_milk

"In sum, there are risks of sharing breastmilk. Most risks can be minimized by obtaining an accurate history from the donor mother, bearing in mind one can never obtain a history that is completely trustworthy. Unknown HIV infection represents the most serious risk, and while heating breastmilk through an effective home pasteurization process could inactivate HIV, this is not routinely done in the US. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and La Leche League discourage sharing breastmilk. It is suggested that donor mothers be screened using the protocol developed by the Human Milk Banking Association of North America." http://www.massbfc.org/news/index.html#isItSafe

A lactivist blogger: "I continue to be perplexed by this issue. Donating my milk? No problem! But taking donated milk from strangers? I just don't know... I understand it, I'm just not sure I could do it." http://thelactivist.blogspot.com/2006/01/more-on-black-market-for-breast-milk.html

"It is imperative that healthcare providers become educated regarding human milk banking because of the increase in informal sharing of breast milk via the Internet. Breast milk that has not been screened and treated has the risk of transmitting infections such as hepatitis and HIV. Healthcare providers should be familiar with the selection criteria for suitable donors and how to approach families when the death of an infant is imminent. Human milk banks are able to provide human milk to adopted, preterm, or ill infants whose mothers are unable to provide their own milk." http://www.nursingcenter.com/prodev/ce_article.asp?tid=718146

"4. Milk-sharing sales over the internet. Henry’s article notes the inherent dangers in this method." ..... "In addition to the ethical concerns and health risks, there are risks of scams such as the fraudulent sale of “milk” made from “chalk mixed with water.” Henry finds that “a simple Google search reveals how easy it is to find women offering their milk for sale with only their own assurances of its quality.”" http://www.breastfeeding123.com/milk-sharing-and-donor-milk-banks/

Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

Pages