![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
SUPERFOOD FOR BABIES: How overcoming barriers to breastfeeding will save children's lives, Save the Children (UK version), 2013.
page 35 (page 47 in PDF):
FREE SAMPLES
'If new mothers are given free samples to feed to their babies it can start a vicious circle that undermines their own ability to breastfeed. An infant satiated with formula may demand less breast milk, so the mother produces less, and that can result in her losing confidence in her ability to breastfeed. Save the Children’s research in China found that 40% of the mothers interviewed said they had received formula samples. Of these samples 60% were said to be provided by baby food company representatives, and over one-third were said to be given by health workers.[30] The mothers interviewed for the survey reported that samples were provided by (in order of frequency): Dumex (Danone), Enfamil (Mead Johnson), Wyeth, Abbott, Nestlé, Friso, Ausnutria and Bei-yin-mei.[31]
'A nationally representative survey commissioned by Save the Children in Pakistan in 2012 [32] shows that one in ten health professionals surveyed said that their health facility had received free samples of breast-milk substitutes, teats or bottles in the previous six months; half of the free samples were said to be of infant formula. Among all those respondents who said they had received a sample, 68% said that the sample had been manufactured by Nestlé.[33]'
page 36 (48 in PDF):
ECONOMIC COSTS OF INFANT FORMULA
' . . . In Nicaragua, low-income families who feed their children breast-milk substitutes spend 27% of their household budget every month on breast-milk substitutes, compared with 4.5% spent by high-income families.[34]
'If women who cannot afford it are encouraged to formula-feed – for example, through free samples – they may be too poor to continue buying sufficient quantities of formula and may not get the support needed to re-start breastfeeding. In this situation women have reported feeding their infants with over-diluted formula, which is likely to lead to the infant falling prey to infections.
'A study from the Philippines showed that after adjusting for income and non-milk family expenditures, the average formula-purchasing Philippine family spent an additional $0.30 on medical expenditure for every $1 spent on formula. This was two-and-a-half times as much as that spent by families who did not buy formula.[35]'
I hate re-arranging articles, so I'm reluctant to bring this up. NB that, given the feelings some people have around this subject, if you suggest re-arranging this article to match what MEDMOS uses for diseases, then you should probably expect to get smacked. But: let's talk about this article. Here's the current Table of Contents:
There are some fairly obvious absurdities: It says that lactation consultants are a type of breastfeeding difficulties. "How to do it" (the methods section) seems to have become a "Health effect".
I don't mind leading with the history section, although I could also accept an article that starts with "what it is" rather than "when it was done", e.g., like this:
(or thereabouts). I doubt that we should have these country-specific sections in this article at all. What changes would you make? In particular, is there anything you would add or remove entirely? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
As for putting History last, I'm strongly in favor. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 17:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
should this perhaps be moved to be a subsection of the "Health effects: for the baby" section? Jytdog ( talk) 14:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{ NPOV}} This article has been tagged as biased. I'd like to help to remove this tag. Please list any neutrality issues and we can work on them. Gandydancer ( talk) 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the above might be nit-picking, but I feel it is symptomatic of a greater problem that can be seen in Breastfeeding#Diet during breastfeeding.
If a woman ingests alcohol, a small amount can be passed to the baby through breast milk. Alcohol-containing breastmilk has been shown to have a detrimental effect on motor development. [1]
References
- ^ Little RE, Anderson KW, Ervin CH, Worthington-Roberts B, Clarren SK (1989). "Maternal alcohol use during breast-feeding and infant mental and motor development at one year". NEJM. 321 (7): 425–30. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198908173210703. PMID 2761576.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
A 2014 review ( PMID 24118767) states: "The amount of alcohol presented to nursing infants through breast milk is approximately 5-6% of the weight-adjusted maternal dose, and even in a theoretical case of binge drinking, the children would not be subjected to clinically relevant amounts of alcohol.". Using a 1989 reference to make dubious remarks on something that long has been highly controversial is nothing short of patronizing towards breastfeeding mothers, and is a clear example of straying from a neutral point of view.-- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 22:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Waid, I was about to say the same thing. For instance the US comes in last when it comes to assisting working mothers to nurse their child. Save the Children says: "In the industrialized world, the United States has the least favorable environment for mothers who want to breastfeed. Save the Children examined maternity leave laws, the right to nursing breaks at work, and several other indicators to create a ranking of 36 industrialized countries measuring which ones have the most – and the least – supportive policies for women who want to breastfeed. Norway tops the Breastfeeding Policy Scorecard ranking. The United States comes in last." Gandydancer ( talk) 22:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The mother's commitment to the infant for 6 to 12 feedings per day for months may be overwhelming to a woman who has been free and independent. [1]
iIt is important to appreciate that some normal women cannot or will not nurse their babies. Their babies will survive and grow normally. [1]
I'm all in favor of slowing down, and I also wish to apologize that I haven't had enough time to commit here. That said I wish to continue improving, but I just want you to know where I'm getting at. As far as I'm concerned science is fair and quite uncontroversial. What I object to is saying that women "ought to" breastfeed, rather than simply giving the benefits and showing the recommendations that say why breastfeeding is preferable. We need to mention difficulties as not only ones to be overcome, but actually conceding that at times they outweigh the benefits. If we don't do this we are not neutral, and as I've several times stated, one of the most pro-breastfeeding text-books out there (see Lawrence & Lawrence introduction) is careful to mention that breastfeeding may not always be preferable (see quotes above).
Also as the debate has moved back and forth between being supportive of breastfeeding and being against it I would believe a summary on the ideas of the 80s and 90s would be in order. For example there is quite a lot about how breastfeeding was considered not to be needed in industrialized countries where parasites and various gastrointestinal diseases are rare. This has later been pretty much overturned, but if we don't mention it the myths will tend to procreate anyway.
With this in mind I suggest we avoid citing very pro-breastfeeding organization such as La Leche League in the same way that we avoid citing Nestlé funded studies. Together with stripping the article of WP:MEDRS-violating content it might seem as if I'm running a sledgehammer into the article, but that is not what I want. I want a well balanced article that shows the benefits as well as the difficulties. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 14:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
References
A few comments (numbered so that you can all disagree with me more easily ;-):
My two cents. You may all begin disagreeing with me now. ;-) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
User:FloNight and User:CFCF, I'd like to know what you expect from the ==Organizational endorsements== section. It includes the WHO, the UK NHS, the main American pediatrics society, and multiple Canadian groups—in other words, the most important international health agency plus most of the English-speaking world. The POVs expressed are basically the same: breastfeeding is good for mothers and babies. What's missing? What could we add that would be relevant and actually add information? (By "add information", I mean that it would add something other than a laundry list of basically any health group that has said anything about breastfeeding in the last two decades.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Copyedited the behemoth. Comments below. Feedback encouraged. Happy to fix anything I broke. Just let me know. Cheers!
Done for now. Thanks for your patience.
User:Lfstevens, can you explain why you've twice changed one section heading to say ==Protocols==? There's no actual protocol there. "I just breastfeed the baby" is not a protocol. "Sometimes I give the baby infant formula" is not a protocol. "My sisters and I all breastfeed any of the babies in our family" is not a protocol. "Protocol", especially in a medical context, implies definite rules or steps to be followed. What are you trying to convey with this word? Maybe we can work out something that would make more sense. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The article says (smushed into a mostly irrelevant section on maternal bonding) that "Teaching partners how to manage common difficulties is associated with higher breastfeeding rates". Later, we says that "Partners may lack knowledge of breastfeeding and their role in the practice." Do we need a section on other family members? And what, exactly, is "their role in the practice"? (Mightn't that vary significantly by culture?) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the opening paragraph on the Marketing of infant formula:
"Controversy has arisen over the marketing of breast milk vs. formula; particularly how it affects the education of mothers in third world countries and their comprehension (or lack thereof) of the health benefits of breastfeeding. [1] The most famous example, the Nestlé boycott, arose in the 1970s and continues to be supported by high-profile stars and international groups to this day. [2] [3]"
Really? I mean, Really? We really want to run down the parents as being unable to comprehend? I'd say in most cases, the low-income parents are making the best decisions given their circumstances, given the information they have, and given their social environment.
And I kind of thought the Nestlé boycott had been a success, although there might well be ongoing issues with this and other companies. Why are we stating that this specific boycott continues to this day?
From the sources, maybe the specific Nestlé boycott does continue to this day, although that would surprise me. Cool Nerd ( talk) 18:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Formula use promotes breastfeeding. This is a sort of "man bites dog" situation, and I don't know if it's been replicated, but it's interesting that (strictly) limited infant formula use in the first few days is associated with more breastfeeding later. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Neonatal Hyperbilirubinemia, Merck Manual Professional Edition, Dec. 2009 (last modified Oct. 2013):
"Breastfeeding jaundice may be prevented or reduced by increasing the frequency of feedings. If the bilirubin level continues to increase > 18 mg/dL in a term infant with early breastfeeding jaundice, a temporary change from breast milk to formula may be appropriate; phototherapy also may be indicated at higher levels. Stopping breastfeeding is necessary for only 1 or 2 days, and the mother should be encouraged to continue expressing breast milk regularly so she can resume nursing as soon as the infant's bilirubin level starts to decline. . . "
Newborn Jaundice, Healthline, Written by Danielle Moores, Medically Reviewed by George Krucik, MD, published on July 16, 2012.
http://www.healthline.com/health/newborn-jaundice#Overview1
"Babies at highest risk for developing newborn jaundice are:
•"Premature babies, born before 38 weeks’ gestation.
•"Babies who are not getting enough breast milk, either because they are having a hard time feeding or because their mothers’ milk is not in yet.
•"Babies whose blood type is not compatible with their mothers’—this may cause a buildup of antibodies that destroy babies’ red blood cells and cause a sudden rise in bilirubin levels."
'Why is kernicterus still a major cause of death and disability in low-income and middle-income countries?,' Arch Dis Child. 2014 Dec;99(12):1117-21. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305506. Epub 2014 Aug 14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25123403
'A global need for affordable neonatal jaundice technologies.' Seminars in Perinatology. Slusher TM, Zipursky A, Bhutani VK. 2011 Jun;35(3):185-91. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2011.02.014
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21641493
http://www.seminperinat.com/article/S0146-0005(11)00043-7/references
UNICEF has a nice map of rates of breast feeding in different parts of the world here [3]
Newer globally data is here [4] however it leaves out rates in the developed world. I am sure we can find sources for that in other places.
Would be good to develop a map. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I find it odd that there are multiple references to the societal issues involved in sexualizing the breasts, and how it affects breastfeeding choices, and yet there is no mention anywhere in this article of the facts that some women become sexually aroused from breastfeeding, that women have been known to achieve orgasm from breastfeeding, and that some women will express milk during orgasm outside of breastfeeding. It would seem to me this is relevant, if it's determined to be relevant that society sexualizes breasts.
And in the Conflation with Sex section this statement is bugging me. "Western society tends to perceive breasts in sexual terms instead of for their main biological purpose, to nourish infants." Given the role of sex in human biology, and the role of breasts in human sexuality, how do we feel we can define which of the biological functions of breasts is the "main" purpose. Given that breast stimulation causes uterine contraction, it would seem the breasts have multiple functions which all play a vital role in human biology.
I also don't know why a mention of unintended pregnancies and their rate of breastfeeding, is in the Health section. It makes perfect sense in the socio-economic section, but having an unintended pregnancy isn't really a health issue, as much as simply being pregnant is.
Though what should be in the Health section, and I can't figure out why it's not, are the many issues of severe pain, discomfort and medical complications which can cause women to stop breastfeeding, or avoid doing so with subsequent children. The Breastfeeding Difficulties article has pages of medical reasons why a woman might choose not to, or be unable to breastfeed, yet there is little to no mention of any of those issues in this article. And the one significant mention of pain, is about bad latching on techniques, and glosses as if that's easily correctable. Earlier mentions of NPOV issues, I think, are tied heavily to this problem. The actual myriad of good medical reasons for women not to breastfeed, are barely touched on here. Tons of benefits found on other articles, are outlined here, but few of the negative impacts. And there is also little real mention of good medical reasons for the baby not to be breastfed, like if it were born with galactosemia.
And why is there no mention of the dangers of vegan women breatsfeeding, and the additional vitamins they must ingest to insure their infant gets the proper nutrition?
Most glaringly, the reference cited for the first sentence in the Diabetes section includes the following text, "Because almost all the data in this review were gathered from observational studies, one should not infer causality based on these findings."
And the sources cited in both the Obesity and Diabetes sections, do not support the statements on the page. Those aggregate studies didn't show a small but consistent incidence of obesity and diabetes, it found an absolutely minuscule incidence of more obesity in those who were not breastfed. And as far as diabetes is concerned, the most comprehensive cited source states this, "At this stage, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the longterm effect of breastfeeding on the risk of type-2 diabetes and related outcomes."
And one more thing - why is there no mention here of prolactin deficiency or other factors which can lead to insufficient or non-existent milk supply? The only thing mentioned is breast surgery, and it's not even implied there are other health reasons why a mother would not produce sufficient milk to feed a child. Yet there are a dozen things which can lead to insufficient milk supply, including bulimia, postpartum hemorrhage and obesity - something which is a big factor in the Western world these days.
The reason this article feels biased is because it refers to the statistics of women who are not breastfeeding, and fails to provide information on the most primary they give for not breastfeeding. Even the Breastfeeding difficulties article cites that "Pain... is cited as the second most common cause for the abandonment of exclusive breastfeeding after perceived low milk supply." Yet this article gives no significant time to either the subject of pain or lack of adequate milk supply. The Breastfeeding difficulties article treats those difficulties with a somewhat comprehensive evaluation - this article most definitely does not. It reads like a PSA on why every woman should breastfeed.
I am not a regular editor here, and I honestly don't have time to learn things like which sources are valid and how to avoid original research. I wish I did have that kind of time. I'm just someone who fixes bad spelling or syntax or throws in an episode list for a TV show I like. And I recognize that every article is only as good as the information available. But this article's presentation of the facts about breastfeeding does not feel encyclopedic, and most definitely does not feel comprehensive. I am hesitant to post such a litany of criticisms, and I truly mean no disrespect to the active editors of this page. But it is my very considered opinion that this article needs a lot more work before it can be deemed a valid collection of resources which fully describe the act and effect of breastfeeding.
And for the record I mean considered in the context that I thought long and hard about posting this long list, and reviewed it many times to be sure I felt the criticisms were constructive. I don't mean anyone should consider my opinion more valid than anyone else's. Thanks for reading. CleverTitania ( talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
UNDENT First off I want to apologize for apparently posting this long diatribe and disappearing. I Watched the page, but apparently it's not working. I haven't gotten any notifications about additions to it. I just clicked on this in my Contributions page to reread what I wrote. I'll remember to check back manually from now on.
I'm going to try and go through this, but there's a lot that has been said. So I may not go in order.
Regarding a source on insufficient supply - is this considered original research or an acceptable source? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2288566 I've never been great on the distinction. Here is an article which mentions the study if that helps. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-03/health/sc-health-0403-breast-feeding-20130403_1_milk-supply-lactation-breast
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2288566 seems to be studying multiple causes of low milk supply.
Either way, it's not rare enough to be ignored as a factor. Even La Leche has a section on it. I would think this article is also a reliable source. http://www.llli.org/llleaderweb/lv/lviss2-3-2009p4.html And while they obviously are still pushing for breastfeeding, they acknowledge it's not always possible. "Hypoplasia can be a heartbreaking discovery for a mother and those who are supporting her efforts to breastfeed, but it does not necessarily mean the end of the breastfeeding relationship."
And here are articles on how postpartum hemorrage can lead to diminished milk supply. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1552-6909.12198/full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889881/
This bit from the last link might even be a good quote for the article. It actually probably explains part of why I never got anything beyond colostrum myself - I have been borderline anemic since I was young.
"When a mother experiences a significant hemorrhage during or after a birth, her blood pressure can drop so low that it fails to circulate to her pituitary gland. This can cause some or all of the cells in her pituitary to stop functioning normally. It’s the pituitary that secretes key milk making hormones, and when hormone production is affected, milk production can be, too. For this reason, some experts recommend monitoring women who have have suffered postpartum hemorrhage for milk production problems. Blood loss can also create anemia, which is another risk factor for low milk production."
On sexual arousal during breastfeeding. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431754/ I think that one works on its own because it uses outside sources for its background information. But please do correct me.
This one I'm just including for the purposes of our discussion - I don't think it's so much uncommon, as something the women experiencing it are quite fearful to talk about. The comments go on and on. http://www.raisingmyboychick.com/2009/07/on-breastfeeding-and-things-we-dont-talk-about/
Regarding Ellie Lee - I read the link, I do not see any bias against breastfeeding, just a bias against the politicizing of infant feeding. In fact, it's a great paper that makes fantastic points, especially, "Policy in this area should aim to support individual mothers to feed their babies in the way that makes most sense for them and their families. It should cease to connect mothers’ infant feeding practices with solving wider social and health problems. " I think new mothers have enough on their plates without feeling like their failure to breastfeed is contributing to global issues of childhood obesity and cancer rates. We are beginning to associate not breastfeeding with being a lazy or selfish mother, and that is NOT helping any mother or child in this world.
And breast/nipple tenderness varies tremendously from woman to woman. From personal experience alone I can say that the pain is a lot more significant than Gandydancer apparently experienced. And I only did it for a little over a week, before it became apparently nothing was going to bring my milk in - and I did go through 20 hours hard labor with no pain killers, so yeah I'm aware of serious pain. But if you look at the sources in the /info/en/?search=Breastfeeding_difficulties article and just go over the Breast Pain section, you'll see there are multiple causes, which can cause varying degrees of pain - some excruciating.
As far as UNDUE goes, again I'm not a regular contributor so tell me if this fits the rules. These behaviors may not be common reactions to breastfeeding, but if they are common reasons why women stop breastfeeding, wouldn't it specifically make it relevant to a part of the article which is about the reasons women do not breastfeed?
I personally think that the "time factor" is not as important to document for an encyclopedia, as the physiological challenges which can hinder or prevent a woman from breastfeeding, especially in an article which perpetuates the push for everyone to breastfeed if it is even remotely possible. This kind of position may make the gestational experts happy, but it again perpetuates the notion that if you do not breastfeed you are somehow selling your child short - something which was hammered into me at the hospital, only to later have a nurse tell me (quite condescendingly) that my child won't sleep or stop crying because he's starving to death, give him a bottle already. I agree that you can't cover everything, and I know this is a tricky subject and as little POV as possible is important. But as I mentioned in my original comments, given how much pro-breastfeeding content is in this article, I think at least a little more comprehensive description of the obstacles is reasonable, and most definitely it should be made clear that there are many women who have no choice in the matter and will never be able to breastfeed.
Sorry to go so long again. Like I said, I'll try and check in regularly to see if there are additional comments. Now I'm off to see who else it seems I've ignored. CleverTitania ( talk) 10:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Titania, I had hoped that Waid or Doc James would step in with help on sourcing; perhaps they will when they find the time. The policy here is to pretty much accept only reviews (to find reviews at Pubmed, for instance breastfeeding, put it in the search bar and hit "Reviews" on the left). The trouble is, other than being just hard to find for some things, reviews can easily distort information as well, IMO. La Leche meets standards AFAIK but note above that one editor would like to get rid of them in the article as well. The study done by Lee would be usable, I would think, for certain things. As for blogs, they are actually (rarely) usable.
Waid asked about how common it is that breastfeeding is not possible even when all things are done correctly - I saw a 1% to 5% in some of the info that you provided. Is that what you've found? Have we narrowed that down to hypoplasia (right word?) and postpartum blood loss as far as the mom goes? I think I remember that you said above that the time factor perhaps should not be included in the factors, is that right? Gandydancer ( talk) 12:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to articles such as this [11] I'd like an opinion on whether it or similar are usable. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
... of benefits doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7 JFW | T@lk 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Can someone put it in English??
kind regards from Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkycameo ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Breastfeeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that the examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please let me know which sort of information that you feel is lacking and I will look for it. It is my understanding that the practice and benefits would be the same worldwide. We could discuss the fact that in the modern day world it can be difficult and perhaps impossible for a mother and her baby to exclusively breastfeed... But this really does get into a very lengthy discussion about maternity leave, on-the-job promotion, society acceptance, and on and on... Gandydancer ( talk) 16:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Once the mother starts producing milk, usually on the third or fourth day, the baby should have 6-8 wet cloth diapers (5-6 wet disposable diapers) per day. In addition, most young babies have at least two to five bowel movements every 24 hours for the first several months.
Hello can someone put it in, I'm German, thanks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/werner-schultink/new-research-shows-that-breastfeeding-matters-everywhere-and-could-save-millions-of-lives-and-dollars_b_9106540.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.65.194 ( talk) 16:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
No reason for this to be a stand-alone article. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Our article states: " Other benefits include lower risks of asthma, food allergies, celiac disease, type 1 diabetes, and leukemia.[3]" and the next sentence reads, "Mothers may feel considerable pressure to breastfeed, however in the developed world there are no long-term negative effects of not breastfeeding, and children grow up normally.[9]". Although every page is not available to read, I would be surprised that she would make this statement. She clearly states that statistics demonstrate the many health advantages attributed to breastfeeding so why would she say, "...in the developed world there are no long-term negative effects of not breastfeeding"? I'd like to read her direct quote which states this fact. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I changed the wording of the sentence on the world health organization recommendation.
The sentence said that WHO recommends "only breastfeeding for the first six months." That statement could be improperly read/understood to mean that the WHO recommends breastfeeding stop after six months.
I revised it to say "recommends exclusively breastfeeding (breastmilk only)" in order to clarify meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.81.223 ( talk) 15:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I am considering adding a section to cover breastfeeding issues specific to the lesbian, gay, bi, trans, and queer community. Topics will include lesbian co-nursing, transgender women and breastfeeding, and chestfeeding by transmasculine and genderfluid individuals. I am thinking to place it after "Society and Culture." I invite your comments, suggestions, and feedback. Thanks! Dharmabum ( talk) 05:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll be working on a draft here when I can grab a few minutes, and invite your input. Dharmabum ( talk) 04:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Okay, the section is now live, and I'll continue to work on it. Cheers! Dharmabum ( talk) 17:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If you have enough information, you might even give it its own article and post a couple of paragraphs in this one with a link. It seems like there is a lot of information and if you can find sources for all of that, it may be deserving of a full in depth article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.81.223 ( talk) 15:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
SUPERFOOD FOR BABIES: How overcoming barriers to breastfeeding will save children's lives, Save the Children (UK version), 2013.
page 35 (page 47 in PDF):
FREE SAMPLES
'If new mothers are given free samples to feed to their babies it can start a vicious circle that undermines their own ability to breastfeed. An infant satiated with formula may demand less breast milk, so the mother produces less, and that can result in her losing confidence in her ability to breastfeed. Save the Children’s research in China found that 40% of the mothers interviewed said they had received formula samples. Of these samples 60% were said to be provided by baby food company representatives, and over one-third were said to be given by health workers.[30] The mothers interviewed for the survey reported that samples were provided by (in order of frequency): Dumex (Danone), Enfamil (Mead Johnson), Wyeth, Abbott, Nestlé, Friso, Ausnutria and Bei-yin-mei.[31]
'A nationally representative survey commissioned by Save the Children in Pakistan in 2012 [32] shows that one in ten health professionals surveyed said that their health facility had received free samples of breast-milk substitutes, teats or bottles in the previous six months; half of the free samples were said to be of infant formula. Among all those respondents who said they had received a sample, 68% said that the sample had been manufactured by Nestlé.[33]'
page 36 (48 in PDF):
ECONOMIC COSTS OF INFANT FORMULA
' . . . In Nicaragua, low-income families who feed their children breast-milk substitutes spend 27% of their household budget every month on breast-milk substitutes, compared with 4.5% spent by high-income families.[34]
'If women who cannot afford it are encouraged to formula-feed – for example, through free samples – they may be too poor to continue buying sufficient quantities of formula and may not get the support needed to re-start breastfeeding. In this situation women have reported feeding their infants with over-diluted formula, which is likely to lead to the infant falling prey to infections.
'A study from the Philippines showed that after adjusting for income and non-milk family expenditures, the average formula-purchasing Philippine family spent an additional $0.30 on medical expenditure for every $1 spent on formula. This was two-and-a-half times as much as that spent by families who did not buy formula.[35]'
I hate re-arranging articles, so I'm reluctant to bring this up. NB that, given the feelings some people have around this subject, if you suggest re-arranging this article to match what MEDMOS uses for diseases, then you should probably expect to get smacked. But: let's talk about this article. Here's the current Table of Contents:
There are some fairly obvious absurdities: It says that lactation consultants are a type of breastfeeding difficulties. "How to do it" (the methods section) seems to have become a "Health effect".
I don't mind leading with the history section, although I could also accept an article that starts with "what it is" rather than "when it was done", e.g., like this:
(or thereabouts). I doubt that we should have these country-specific sections in this article at all. What changes would you make? In particular, is there anything you would add or remove entirely? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
As for putting History last, I'm strongly in favor. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 17:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
should this perhaps be moved to be a subsection of the "Health effects: for the baby" section? Jytdog ( talk) 14:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{ NPOV}} This article has been tagged as biased. I'd like to help to remove this tag. Please list any neutrality issues and we can work on them. Gandydancer ( talk) 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the above might be nit-picking, but I feel it is symptomatic of a greater problem that can be seen in Breastfeeding#Diet during breastfeeding.
If a woman ingests alcohol, a small amount can be passed to the baby through breast milk. Alcohol-containing breastmilk has been shown to have a detrimental effect on motor development. [1]
References
- ^ Little RE, Anderson KW, Ervin CH, Worthington-Roberts B, Clarren SK (1989). "Maternal alcohol use during breast-feeding and infant mental and motor development at one year". NEJM. 321 (7): 425–30. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198908173210703. PMID 2761576.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
A 2014 review ( PMID 24118767) states: "The amount of alcohol presented to nursing infants through breast milk is approximately 5-6% of the weight-adjusted maternal dose, and even in a theoretical case of binge drinking, the children would not be subjected to clinically relevant amounts of alcohol.". Using a 1989 reference to make dubious remarks on something that long has been highly controversial is nothing short of patronizing towards breastfeeding mothers, and is a clear example of straying from a neutral point of view.-- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 22:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Waid, I was about to say the same thing. For instance the US comes in last when it comes to assisting working mothers to nurse their child. Save the Children says: "In the industrialized world, the United States has the least favorable environment for mothers who want to breastfeed. Save the Children examined maternity leave laws, the right to nursing breaks at work, and several other indicators to create a ranking of 36 industrialized countries measuring which ones have the most – and the least – supportive policies for women who want to breastfeed. Norway tops the Breastfeeding Policy Scorecard ranking. The United States comes in last." Gandydancer ( talk) 22:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The mother's commitment to the infant for 6 to 12 feedings per day for months may be overwhelming to a woman who has been free and independent. [1]
iIt is important to appreciate that some normal women cannot or will not nurse their babies. Their babies will survive and grow normally. [1]
I'm all in favor of slowing down, and I also wish to apologize that I haven't had enough time to commit here. That said I wish to continue improving, but I just want you to know where I'm getting at. As far as I'm concerned science is fair and quite uncontroversial. What I object to is saying that women "ought to" breastfeed, rather than simply giving the benefits and showing the recommendations that say why breastfeeding is preferable. We need to mention difficulties as not only ones to be overcome, but actually conceding that at times they outweigh the benefits. If we don't do this we are not neutral, and as I've several times stated, one of the most pro-breastfeeding text-books out there (see Lawrence & Lawrence introduction) is careful to mention that breastfeeding may not always be preferable (see quotes above).
Also as the debate has moved back and forth between being supportive of breastfeeding and being against it I would believe a summary on the ideas of the 80s and 90s would be in order. For example there is quite a lot about how breastfeeding was considered not to be needed in industrialized countries where parasites and various gastrointestinal diseases are rare. This has later been pretty much overturned, but if we don't mention it the myths will tend to procreate anyway.
With this in mind I suggest we avoid citing very pro-breastfeeding organization such as La Leche League in the same way that we avoid citing Nestlé funded studies. Together with stripping the article of WP:MEDRS-violating content it might seem as if I'm running a sledgehammer into the article, but that is not what I want. I want a well balanced article that shows the benefits as well as the difficulties. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 14:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
References
A few comments (numbered so that you can all disagree with me more easily ;-):
My two cents. You may all begin disagreeing with me now. ;-) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
User:FloNight and User:CFCF, I'd like to know what you expect from the ==Organizational endorsements== section. It includes the WHO, the UK NHS, the main American pediatrics society, and multiple Canadian groups—in other words, the most important international health agency plus most of the English-speaking world. The POVs expressed are basically the same: breastfeeding is good for mothers and babies. What's missing? What could we add that would be relevant and actually add information? (By "add information", I mean that it would add something other than a laundry list of basically any health group that has said anything about breastfeeding in the last two decades.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Copyedited the behemoth. Comments below. Feedback encouraged. Happy to fix anything I broke. Just let me know. Cheers!
Done for now. Thanks for your patience.
User:Lfstevens, can you explain why you've twice changed one section heading to say ==Protocols==? There's no actual protocol there. "I just breastfeed the baby" is not a protocol. "Sometimes I give the baby infant formula" is not a protocol. "My sisters and I all breastfeed any of the babies in our family" is not a protocol. "Protocol", especially in a medical context, implies definite rules or steps to be followed. What are you trying to convey with this word? Maybe we can work out something that would make more sense. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The article says (smushed into a mostly irrelevant section on maternal bonding) that "Teaching partners how to manage common difficulties is associated with higher breastfeeding rates". Later, we says that "Partners may lack knowledge of breastfeeding and their role in the practice." Do we need a section on other family members? And what, exactly, is "their role in the practice"? (Mightn't that vary significantly by culture?) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the opening paragraph on the Marketing of infant formula:
"Controversy has arisen over the marketing of breast milk vs. formula; particularly how it affects the education of mothers in third world countries and their comprehension (or lack thereof) of the health benefits of breastfeeding. [1] The most famous example, the Nestlé boycott, arose in the 1970s and continues to be supported by high-profile stars and international groups to this day. [2] [3]"
Really? I mean, Really? We really want to run down the parents as being unable to comprehend? I'd say in most cases, the low-income parents are making the best decisions given their circumstances, given the information they have, and given their social environment.
And I kind of thought the Nestlé boycott had been a success, although there might well be ongoing issues with this and other companies. Why are we stating that this specific boycott continues to this day?
From the sources, maybe the specific Nestlé boycott does continue to this day, although that would surprise me. Cool Nerd ( talk) 18:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Formula use promotes breastfeeding. This is a sort of "man bites dog" situation, and I don't know if it's been replicated, but it's interesting that (strictly) limited infant formula use in the first few days is associated with more breastfeeding later. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Neonatal Hyperbilirubinemia, Merck Manual Professional Edition, Dec. 2009 (last modified Oct. 2013):
"Breastfeeding jaundice may be prevented or reduced by increasing the frequency of feedings. If the bilirubin level continues to increase > 18 mg/dL in a term infant with early breastfeeding jaundice, a temporary change from breast milk to formula may be appropriate; phototherapy also may be indicated at higher levels. Stopping breastfeeding is necessary for only 1 or 2 days, and the mother should be encouraged to continue expressing breast milk regularly so she can resume nursing as soon as the infant's bilirubin level starts to decline. . . "
Newborn Jaundice, Healthline, Written by Danielle Moores, Medically Reviewed by George Krucik, MD, published on July 16, 2012.
http://www.healthline.com/health/newborn-jaundice#Overview1
"Babies at highest risk for developing newborn jaundice are:
•"Premature babies, born before 38 weeks’ gestation.
•"Babies who are not getting enough breast milk, either because they are having a hard time feeding or because their mothers’ milk is not in yet.
•"Babies whose blood type is not compatible with their mothers’—this may cause a buildup of antibodies that destroy babies’ red blood cells and cause a sudden rise in bilirubin levels."
'Why is kernicterus still a major cause of death and disability in low-income and middle-income countries?,' Arch Dis Child. 2014 Dec;99(12):1117-21. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305506. Epub 2014 Aug 14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25123403
'A global need for affordable neonatal jaundice technologies.' Seminars in Perinatology. Slusher TM, Zipursky A, Bhutani VK. 2011 Jun;35(3):185-91. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2011.02.014
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21641493
http://www.seminperinat.com/article/S0146-0005(11)00043-7/references
UNICEF has a nice map of rates of breast feeding in different parts of the world here [3]
Newer globally data is here [4] however it leaves out rates in the developed world. I am sure we can find sources for that in other places.
Would be good to develop a map. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I find it odd that there are multiple references to the societal issues involved in sexualizing the breasts, and how it affects breastfeeding choices, and yet there is no mention anywhere in this article of the facts that some women become sexually aroused from breastfeeding, that women have been known to achieve orgasm from breastfeeding, and that some women will express milk during orgasm outside of breastfeeding. It would seem to me this is relevant, if it's determined to be relevant that society sexualizes breasts.
And in the Conflation with Sex section this statement is bugging me. "Western society tends to perceive breasts in sexual terms instead of for their main biological purpose, to nourish infants." Given the role of sex in human biology, and the role of breasts in human sexuality, how do we feel we can define which of the biological functions of breasts is the "main" purpose. Given that breast stimulation causes uterine contraction, it would seem the breasts have multiple functions which all play a vital role in human biology.
I also don't know why a mention of unintended pregnancies and their rate of breastfeeding, is in the Health section. It makes perfect sense in the socio-economic section, but having an unintended pregnancy isn't really a health issue, as much as simply being pregnant is.
Though what should be in the Health section, and I can't figure out why it's not, are the many issues of severe pain, discomfort and medical complications which can cause women to stop breastfeeding, or avoid doing so with subsequent children. The Breastfeeding Difficulties article has pages of medical reasons why a woman might choose not to, or be unable to breastfeed, yet there is little to no mention of any of those issues in this article. And the one significant mention of pain, is about bad latching on techniques, and glosses as if that's easily correctable. Earlier mentions of NPOV issues, I think, are tied heavily to this problem. The actual myriad of good medical reasons for women not to breastfeed, are barely touched on here. Tons of benefits found on other articles, are outlined here, but few of the negative impacts. And there is also little real mention of good medical reasons for the baby not to be breastfed, like if it were born with galactosemia.
And why is there no mention of the dangers of vegan women breatsfeeding, and the additional vitamins they must ingest to insure their infant gets the proper nutrition?
Most glaringly, the reference cited for the first sentence in the Diabetes section includes the following text, "Because almost all the data in this review were gathered from observational studies, one should not infer causality based on these findings."
And the sources cited in both the Obesity and Diabetes sections, do not support the statements on the page. Those aggregate studies didn't show a small but consistent incidence of obesity and diabetes, it found an absolutely minuscule incidence of more obesity in those who were not breastfed. And as far as diabetes is concerned, the most comprehensive cited source states this, "At this stage, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the longterm effect of breastfeeding on the risk of type-2 diabetes and related outcomes."
And one more thing - why is there no mention here of prolactin deficiency or other factors which can lead to insufficient or non-existent milk supply? The only thing mentioned is breast surgery, and it's not even implied there are other health reasons why a mother would not produce sufficient milk to feed a child. Yet there are a dozen things which can lead to insufficient milk supply, including bulimia, postpartum hemorrhage and obesity - something which is a big factor in the Western world these days.
The reason this article feels biased is because it refers to the statistics of women who are not breastfeeding, and fails to provide information on the most primary they give for not breastfeeding. Even the Breastfeeding difficulties article cites that "Pain... is cited as the second most common cause for the abandonment of exclusive breastfeeding after perceived low milk supply." Yet this article gives no significant time to either the subject of pain or lack of adequate milk supply. The Breastfeeding difficulties article treats those difficulties with a somewhat comprehensive evaluation - this article most definitely does not. It reads like a PSA on why every woman should breastfeed.
I am not a regular editor here, and I honestly don't have time to learn things like which sources are valid and how to avoid original research. I wish I did have that kind of time. I'm just someone who fixes bad spelling or syntax or throws in an episode list for a TV show I like. And I recognize that every article is only as good as the information available. But this article's presentation of the facts about breastfeeding does not feel encyclopedic, and most definitely does not feel comprehensive. I am hesitant to post such a litany of criticisms, and I truly mean no disrespect to the active editors of this page. But it is my very considered opinion that this article needs a lot more work before it can be deemed a valid collection of resources which fully describe the act and effect of breastfeeding.
And for the record I mean considered in the context that I thought long and hard about posting this long list, and reviewed it many times to be sure I felt the criticisms were constructive. I don't mean anyone should consider my opinion more valid than anyone else's. Thanks for reading. CleverTitania ( talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
UNDENT First off I want to apologize for apparently posting this long diatribe and disappearing. I Watched the page, but apparently it's not working. I haven't gotten any notifications about additions to it. I just clicked on this in my Contributions page to reread what I wrote. I'll remember to check back manually from now on.
I'm going to try and go through this, but there's a lot that has been said. So I may not go in order.
Regarding a source on insufficient supply - is this considered original research or an acceptable source? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2288566 I've never been great on the distinction. Here is an article which mentions the study if that helps. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-03/health/sc-health-0403-breast-feeding-20130403_1_milk-supply-lactation-breast
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2288566 seems to be studying multiple causes of low milk supply.
Either way, it's not rare enough to be ignored as a factor. Even La Leche has a section on it. I would think this article is also a reliable source. http://www.llli.org/llleaderweb/lv/lviss2-3-2009p4.html And while they obviously are still pushing for breastfeeding, they acknowledge it's not always possible. "Hypoplasia can be a heartbreaking discovery for a mother and those who are supporting her efforts to breastfeed, but it does not necessarily mean the end of the breastfeeding relationship."
And here are articles on how postpartum hemorrage can lead to diminished milk supply. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1552-6909.12198/full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889881/
This bit from the last link might even be a good quote for the article. It actually probably explains part of why I never got anything beyond colostrum myself - I have been borderline anemic since I was young.
"When a mother experiences a significant hemorrhage during or after a birth, her blood pressure can drop so low that it fails to circulate to her pituitary gland. This can cause some or all of the cells in her pituitary to stop functioning normally. It’s the pituitary that secretes key milk making hormones, and when hormone production is affected, milk production can be, too. For this reason, some experts recommend monitoring women who have have suffered postpartum hemorrhage for milk production problems. Blood loss can also create anemia, which is another risk factor for low milk production."
On sexual arousal during breastfeeding. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431754/ I think that one works on its own because it uses outside sources for its background information. But please do correct me.
This one I'm just including for the purposes of our discussion - I don't think it's so much uncommon, as something the women experiencing it are quite fearful to talk about. The comments go on and on. http://www.raisingmyboychick.com/2009/07/on-breastfeeding-and-things-we-dont-talk-about/
Regarding Ellie Lee - I read the link, I do not see any bias against breastfeeding, just a bias against the politicizing of infant feeding. In fact, it's a great paper that makes fantastic points, especially, "Policy in this area should aim to support individual mothers to feed their babies in the way that makes most sense for them and their families. It should cease to connect mothers’ infant feeding practices with solving wider social and health problems. " I think new mothers have enough on their plates without feeling like their failure to breastfeed is contributing to global issues of childhood obesity and cancer rates. We are beginning to associate not breastfeeding with being a lazy or selfish mother, and that is NOT helping any mother or child in this world.
And breast/nipple tenderness varies tremendously from woman to woman. From personal experience alone I can say that the pain is a lot more significant than Gandydancer apparently experienced. And I only did it for a little over a week, before it became apparently nothing was going to bring my milk in - and I did go through 20 hours hard labor with no pain killers, so yeah I'm aware of serious pain. But if you look at the sources in the /info/en/?search=Breastfeeding_difficulties article and just go over the Breast Pain section, you'll see there are multiple causes, which can cause varying degrees of pain - some excruciating.
As far as UNDUE goes, again I'm not a regular contributor so tell me if this fits the rules. These behaviors may not be common reactions to breastfeeding, but if they are common reasons why women stop breastfeeding, wouldn't it specifically make it relevant to a part of the article which is about the reasons women do not breastfeed?
I personally think that the "time factor" is not as important to document for an encyclopedia, as the physiological challenges which can hinder or prevent a woman from breastfeeding, especially in an article which perpetuates the push for everyone to breastfeed if it is even remotely possible. This kind of position may make the gestational experts happy, but it again perpetuates the notion that if you do not breastfeed you are somehow selling your child short - something which was hammered into me at the hospital, only to later have a nurse tell me (quite condescendingly) that my child won't sleep or stop crying because he's starving to death, give him a bottle already. I agree that you can't cover everything, and I know this is a tricky subject and as little POV as possible is important. But as I mentioned in my original comments, given how much pro-breastfeeding content is in this article, I think at least a little more comprehensive description of the obstacles is reasonable, and most definitely it should be made clear that there are many women who have no choice in the matter and will never be able to breastfeed.
Sorry to go so long again. Like I said, I'll try and check in regularly to see if there are additional comments. Now I'm off to see who else it seems I've ignored. CleverTitania ( talk) 10:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Titania, I had hoped that Waid or Doc James would step in with help on sourcing; perhaps they will when they find the time. The policy here is to pretty much accept only reviews (to find reviews at Pubmed, for instance breastfeeding, put it in the search bar and hit "Reviews" on the left). The trouble is, other than being just hard to find for some things, reviews can easily distort information as well, IMO. La Leche meets standards AFAIK but note above that one editor would like to get rid of them in the article as well. The study done by Lee would be usable, I would think, for certain things. As for blogs, they are actually (rarely) usable.
Waid asked about how common it is that breastfeeding is not possible even when all things are done correctly - I saw a 1% to 5% in some of the info that you provided. Is that what you've found? Have we narrowed that down to hypoplasia (right word?) and postpartum blood loss as far as the mom goes? I think I remember that you said above that the time factor perhaps should not be included in the factors, is that right? Gandydancer ( talk) 12:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to articles such as this [11] I'd like an opinion on whether it or similar are usable. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
... of benefits doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7 JFW | T@lk 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Can someone put it in English??
kind regards from Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkycameo ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Breastfeeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that the examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please let me know which sort of information that you feel is lacking and I will look for it. It is my understanding that the practice and benefits would be the same worldwide. We could discuss the fact that in the modern day world it can be difficult and perhaps impossible for a mother and her baby to exclusively breastfeed... But this really does get into a very lengthy discussion about maternity leave, on-the-job promotion, society acceptance, and on and on... Gandydancer ( talk) 16:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Once the mother starts producing milk, usually on the third or fourth day, the baby should have 6-8 wet cloth diapers (5-6 wet disposable diapers) per day. In addition, most young babies have at least two to five bowel movements every 24 hours for the first several months.
Hello can someone put it in, I'm German, thanks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/werner-schultink/new-research-shows-that-breastfeeding-matters-everywhere-and-could-save-millions-of-lives-and-dollars_b_9106540.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.65.194 ( talk) 16:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
No reason for this to be a stand-alone article. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Our article states: " Other benefits include lower risks of asthma, food allergies, celiac disease, type 1 diabetes, and leukemia.[3]" and the next sentence reads, "Mothers may feel considerable pressure to breastfeed, however in the developed world there are no long-term negative effects of not breastfeeding, and children grow up normally.[9]". Although every page is not available to read, I would be surprised that she would make this statement. She clearly states that statistics demonstrate the many health advantages attributed to breastfeeding so why would she say, "...in the developed world there are no long-term negative effects of not breastfeeding"? I'd like to read her direct quote which states this fact. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I changed the wording of the sentence on the world health organization recommendation.
The sentence said that WHO recommends "only breastfeeding for the first six months." That statement could be improperly read/understood to mean that the WHO recommends breastfeeding stop after six months.
I revised it to say "recommends exclusively breastfeeding (breastmilk only)" in order to clarify meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.81.223 ( talk) 15:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I am considering adding a section to cover breastfeeding issues specific to the lesbian, gay, bi, trans, and queer community. Topics will include lesbian co-nursing, transgender women and breastfeeding, and chestfeeding by transmasculine and genderfluid individuals. I am thinking to place it after "Society and Culture." I invite your comments, suggestions, and feedback. Thanks! Dharmabum ( talk) 05:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll be working on a draft here when I can grab a few minutes, and invite your input. Dharmabum ( talk) 04:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Okay, the section is now live, and I'll continue to work on it. Cheers! Dharmabum ( talk) 17:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If you have enough information, you might even give it its own article and post a couple of paragraphs in this one with a link. It seems like there is a lot of information and if you can find sources for all of that, it may be deserving of a full in depth article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.81.223 ( talk) 15:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)