It’s everywhere.
On doctors’ lips and in lactation consultants’ exhortations. In advertisements and on the walls of public assistance clinics. Heck, it’s even emblazoned around cans of formula.
I’m talking about the admonition that “breast is best.”
“Breast is best” is awesome from a public relations point of view, but is it really true? Is it even meaningful? Or for babies does nourishing=flourishing?
[pullquote align=”right” color=”#F9E49B” class=”” cite=”” link=””]Isn’t it more important that a baby is growing and thriving than that it is getting breastmilk?[/pullquote]
Is breast best for babies?
Sure, it’s best for babies in developing countries with contaminated water supplies. Formula mixed with contaminated water kills babies, but it is the water that kills the babies, not the formula.
Yes it is best for premature babies because it reduces the incidence of deadly bowel complications. Of course it is not natural breastmilk that is best for these babies, it’s technologically concentrated and fortified breast milk that is best.
But in countries with clean water, breast is obviously not best for term babies whose mothers have low supply and they aren’t getting enough milk to grow and thrive. It’s obviously not best for babies who have latch or muscular issues and don’t have the srength to extract the milk from the breast.
Is breast best for mothers?
It’s not best for mothers who are counseled to forgo medication for pre-existing conditions in order to breastfeed. It’s obviously not best for mothers who have no time to cuddle and appreciate their babies because they are so busy pumping and nursing to boost their supply. It’s certainly not best for women who feel shame, guilt and humiliation because of breastfeeding difficulties.
Or does “breast is best” merely reflect the tendency for natural parenting advocates to privilege process over outcome? Shouldn’t we judge a feeding method by its impact on babies and not by whether it comports with some activists’ views about process?
Simply put, isn’t it more important to ensure that a baby is growing and thriving than to ensure that it is getting breastmilk?
Isn’t it more important for a baby to drink formula to satiety than to wail in hunger and frustration because there isn’t enough breastmilk to meet its needs?
Isn’t a mother’s mental health important at all? How did we get to a point where women are encouraged to risk their physical and mental health by forgoing needed medications that are incompatible with breastfeeding? We got here by elevating process over the wellbeing of mothers and babies.
As I said in my piece in TIME, I could happily celebrate Infant Feeding Week. As a physician I am more concerned with ensuring happy, thriving babies than with the process of infant feeding.
Breast isn’t best. A happy, healthy, growing, baby is best. How it happens isn’t important. The truth is that nourishing=flourishing and when it comes to babies, outcome is infinitely more important than process. We should be celebrating any method of feeding that produces thriving babies, not specific methods of feeding. We should be celebrating any mother who feeds her baby nourishing food, not a subset of such mothers merely because they used their breasts to do it.
They say that when you frame an issue you own it. Therefore, it’s time to wrest framing of infant feeding back from activists who obsess about process and give it to the rest of us who care more about outcome.
Forget “breast is best.”
Nourishing=flourishing!
