Talk:Breastfeeding

Anti White Bias?

Is there any particular reason there's no European White Women or is it just the regular anti white bigotry of the left wings weirdos that populate our quasi-encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.84.63 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Left-wing guilt aside, I would say it is the conservatives who think images of breast feeding are innapropriate. -Hypertext (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am disturbed that there are no pictures of western or white women nursing. Is it due to wiki or just becasue no one has put any other pictures up yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandmamma (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Add some.  :) Xenophrenic (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter what colour the people are? Pbhj (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No Chinese or Indian women either. Maybe this topic can be changed from "Anti White Bias" to "Over representation of Africans". Zaurus (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is completely devoid of any fact-based arguments. There is no reason that an article has to include pictures of people from every race in order to be neutral. The notion that it is permissible to have an article without pictures of white people does not have to only come from "left wing weirdos," and claiming otherwise is a sign that there are people in this world who choose to perpetuate out-dated pro-white bigotry. Furthermore, due to the fact that this bigotry is not based upon any provable fact, it has no place in an encyclopedia. hajatvrc 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good breastfeeding resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/35.htm

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The breastfeeding page of the site provides a variety of websites that offer a guide to breastfeeding, articles and advice on breastfeeding normal and premature infants. There is also information on infant nutrition requirements, food to avoid when breastfeeding, weaning from breastfeeding and formula-feeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamme (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no foods to avoid while breastfeeding, unless a family has a history of allergies. I'd double-check the info on that page. Well, I just did. There are pages that have not been updated, broken links, old pages. Nothing that's not referenced better already.--I'm Nonpartisan 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Not KellyMom?

I see that someone posted a link to Kellymom and then it was undone. Kellymom is one of the most well-regarded sites on the internet about breastfeeding, and highly recommended. I'd like to see that link on this page.--I'm Nonpartisan 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. It may not be the "prettiest" site (early 90's web design), but I certainly have found it valuable as a breastfeeding mother. - Ageekgal 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add that link back. Heck, it's even used as a reference on the infant formula page. :) - Ageekgal 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it fails WP:EL. There are plenty of well regarded sites - why should we give preference to this one? If you regard it as authoritative enough to use as a reference then work it into the page; that is the way to go. TerriersFan 04:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Fine by me. (UPDATED) For my education, what part of WP:EL does it violate, exactly? Or do you object due to the pre-existing number of external links used in the article? - Ageekgal 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

First off I have not eliminated KellyMom - bear in mind that Kellymom is still there supporting one of the reference categories - I have simply removed duplication of it in the EL section. There are certainly (in my view) an excessive number of external links. The correct way to develop an article is in prose, using ELs as references as appropriate. The purpose of the references is to provide verification for the encyclopaedic content. Listing large numbers of links is a lazy way to write an encyclopaedia - if the links say something important then what they say should be in the body of the article, if not then they should be out. TerriersFan 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Too little attention to difficulties when breastfeeding?

I am concerned that the article gives insufficient coverage to the very real difficulties encountered by many women who wish to breastfeed and satisfy their baby, but find they cannot, even after extended efforts. Researchers and BF advocates often blithely assert that it is a natural process. However this ignores the fact that it is also a practical skill which needs to be learnt by two parties - not just the mother but the baby too. I have personally known many mothers who desperately wanted to BF their babies but found that, despite huge efforts, immense pain and even with expert help it just didn't work for them. Otherwise healthy babies just sometimes don't play ball and co-operate by adopting a technique which doesn't hurt mum.

Furthermore, I have known a significant number of well-nourished mothers who did establish BF but found they simply could not satisfy their baby's hunger and nutritional needs. BF advocates assure us this is vanishingly rare but my experience says otherwise.

In addition, some women with well-established BF technique can experience pain after many months when the baby is sucking powerfully. And this pain is not caused by poor latch-on but from the sheer flow of milk deep in the breast.

I feel the article, as it currently stands, implies BF is almost always an option women can choose if they wish. I must respectfully protest that it often is not. But to imply it is adds to the immense distress experienced by women who feel they have failed. I feel it is not responsible for us to perpetuate what I would characterise as a powerful myth which causes much distress.

Therefore I suggest greater emphasis in the wording which acknowledges women can experience difficulty and cannot always choose to breastfeed, despite their own wishes.(I am Domod. I'm afraid I have no tildas on this keyboard.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domod (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was too long, so breastfeeding complications was split off as an article by itself.

BTW, there's a link below the edit window that automatically inserts four tildes when you click on it. Ciotog 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with that split but I think even the BF complications article doesn't address the points above. Even if it did, I still think the general tone of the BF article should be slightly altered to avoid giving the impression that BF is simply a choice. (and thanks for the tip) Domod 09:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve this and the breastfeeding complications article. I agree that the medical establishment has made breastfeeding much more difficult then it should be, so it's not just a matter of "choosing" not to breastfeed sometimes when there are complications, but any claims as such would need to be carefully cited. There are people from both camps (breastfeeding advocates and formula advocates) who would be watching carefully for any sign of POV-pushing Ciotog 12:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Domod, healthy breastfeeding is not a myth. The article reflects the reality of the process of healthy breastfeeding, not the reality of breastfeeding in a highly medicalized western culture that makes birth a surgical procedure. When I read your post above, listing the many difficulties that some women experience while breastfeeding, it is not at all difficult for an experienced breastfeeding counselor to "diagnose" what some of those problems might be. Trust me, many, many women in North American prefer to blame their problems on themselves, rather than look at mechanical problems with breast pumps, lingering effects of epidurals, nipple confusion, and being taught controversial breastfeeding positions that can cause real problems. The problem isn't with breastfeeding. It's North American breastfeeding. Women in indiginous cultures experience none of the problems you have listed above. If someone came to me with the idea that there was a healthy baby who wasn't "playing ball" while breastfeeding, we would immediately be talking about tongue-tie and other such resolvable issues that really do come between a baby and his mother.

Domod, don't get angry at breastfeeding activists. Get angry at your ob, your pediatrician, your "expert" help (an IBCLC?), your hospital and the lack of a local nursing clinic, and your family for not supporting you better. A brand new mother needs all the help she can get. If your medical and mothering community isn't giving you that help, then get mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also the issue of people not permitted to breastfeed. Perhaps that should at least be alluded to in the article? People on AEDs are sometimes told that it would be unsafe to breastfeed because of medication passing into the milk. Epilepsy is common enough that a large enough volume of people would be affected to warrant the enclusion. TotTWriter 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely uncomfortable with the first four words of the second paragraph in the introduction. "With virtually no exceptions". Yes, well, unless the child is galactosemic, in which case breastfeeding would *kill* the child. At the very least, genuine and reasonable contraindications to breastfeeding need to be mentioned. 71.123.237.192 11:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

A criticism section is needed. 70.59.1.169 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to write one. Exactly what would you criticize about breastfeeding? There already is a section on Breastfeeding complications?--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism to breastfeeding? You must be joking... :arny (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are many intelligent people who object to the implication that breastfeeding is necessarily superior to formula, a perspective wholeheartedly advanced in this article. However, criticism tends to be directed less at breastfeeding than at the position that failure to breastfeed is tantamount to injuring one's baby. For example, this article explains that the increased health risks to the baby associated with failure to breastfeed are extremely minor. Indeed, they are easily outweighed by economic concerns—the mother's inability to maintain a job while breastfeeding, primarily. The authors don't claim that breastmilk is not more nutritious than formula, but there is so little difference that a mother should not fear formula.--209.6.18.111 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So there could be a criticism for any natural physiological process in humans. For example, why eat? Wouldn't it be better for us to receive nutrients intravenously? We could avoid problems with tooth decay, indigestion etc... Simple logic would say that wouldn't be quite good for health, and especially the fact that you couldn't be sure do you actually get all the nutrients that are necessary. Btw. there aren't only ordinary nutrients in the breast milk, there are other substances which cannot be quite easily artificially reproduced... arny (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Receiving nutrients intravenously would probably end up causing digestive problems since our entire digestive system would fall out of use. Who knows, maybe our stomach acids would eventually burn a hole in our gut? I'm not sure why it's even relevant, frankly. We're not criticizing breastfeeding as a process, we're criticizing those who believe "breast is best" and that breastmilk is somehow superior to formula. Remember to be WP:Neutral. 192.83.228.119 (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Once you conclude that breastfeeding is bad I am totally in favour to get wholeheartedly involved in all the dairy milk industry vs soy based formula lobby conspiracy theories. By reading what research they produce you can easily prove that some formula is almost certainly responsible for every disease on the earth. Richiez (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Father versus partner

I reverted this edit. While in most cases the woman's partner is the father of the baby, I think it's important to use inclusive language. The father of the baby might be dead, divorced etc. and the woman might be married to some other man who might not be a father -- or she could be married to another woman, or in an unmarried relationship with a man or woman. The phrase "woman's partner" includes all these possibilities, and possibly even help from a friend, other relative, etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Himba image

I like the Himba image because it shows breastfeeding of someone older than a tiny baby, and shows breastfeeding while apparently doing something else at the same time. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a lovely picture but it contributes to the bias implicit in the pictures used in this article - black african women are nursing explicitly, in contrast the white woman pictured is fully clothed and bottle feedng. this implies that breast feeding is inconsistent with the norms of the culture of industialised and post industrial societies, particularly western ideas of modesty (where naked breasts are depicted only in a sexual context). it would be great to see more pictures here, representing a white woman breastfeeding, perhaps someone breastfeeding discreetly or in islamic style clothing. november 2008 Rachelzebra (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

Breastfeeding and IQ seems to be edited to play down the benefits.

A 7 point difference in IQ is a pretty important fact to know for parents deciding whether to breastfeed/continue breastfeeding considering the difference in life outcomes related to IQ. To some this fact (if they know it) might be pivitol to their decision about breastfeeding. More attention needs to be made of studies on the effect of breastfeeding on IQ. This area seems to be shrinking and not highlighted with a subheading for some reason as some of the other benefits are. It is just included in the middle of a BIG block of text right at the end of all the other benefits and would not be noticed by someone skimming the article. If someone did read the BIG block of text they would only read about a study where they ASKED the mothers, which someone reading this article might go away thinking there has been little study in this area or there is little proof of the link between breastfeeding and higher IQ. Can we include more studies there? Here is one link that might help.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/87775.php

"In the two studies of more than 3,000 children in Britain and New Zealand, the researchers showed that breastfeeding raised IQ by an average of nearly 7 points if the children concerned also had the FADS2 variant."

"In these studies, Moffitt, Caspi and colleagues showed that the link betwee breastfeeding and IQ involves a variant of a gene called FADS2 which partly controls the fatty acid pathways."

Just another thing....the other benefits might not look like benefits to someone skimming the articles because they are headed with the names of the diseases breastfeeding protects against rather than having headings like "breastfed babies have a reduced incidence of whateverillness".

Actually to be correct it should be BOTTLE fed babies have an INCREASED incidence of alll those thing because breastfeeding is the natural way to feed a baby and bottle feeding the artifical way but I guess that might be "offensive". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.129.39 (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, this is an article about breastfeeding in an encyclopedia, not a "how to breastfeed" booklet or a "benefits of breastfeeding" website. The internet is chockfull of these and does not need another. However, there is a "formula feeding" page of Wikipedia that you are very welcome to edit if you wish because, as you clearly understand, there is no such thing as a breastfeeding benefit rather, what studies clearly show is a fomula feeding deficit.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Higher Intelligence" benefit should be removed. From the same cited article:

"Makers of infant formula have been adding DHA and AA fatty acids to their products since this discovery ten years ago. However, the children in the British and New Zealand studies were born in 1972-73 and 1994-95 respectively, before manufacturers started adding fatty acids to infant formula.

Laboratory tests on rats and primates have confirmed that fatty acid supplementation during the first few months of life is linked to higher levels of brain DHA and higher scores in tests of memory, learning and problem solving. As far as we know, there have been no such tests on humans."

The idea that a breastfed baby will be 7 IQ points higher than a formula fed baby is not supported by the cited article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamptonb94 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That same cited article also says, "Our findings support the idea that the nutritional content of breast milk accounts for the differences seen in human IQ. But it's not a simple all-or-none connection: it depends to some extent on the genetic makeup of each infant."

I've re-written that section to more accurately portray the findings of the researchers, namely: Breastfeeding, because breastmilk has DHA & AA fatty acids, may positively affect brain development in infants with the right genes; and formula manufacturers have been incorporating that benefit in their products. Let me know what you think. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unintended bias in the language of the article?

In the section on breastfeeding and diseases, the connection is expressed like this:

Breastfed babies have a lower risk of getting disease Z.

This may associate breastfeeding with disease Z. Why not express the association like this?

Artificially fed babies have a higher risk of getting disease Z.

This clearly shows that artificial feeding is the riskier option for babies.

How do others feel about changing the wording of the article in this way?

Michael Glass (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We should stick close to whatever the studies actually say. For example, as a made up example, maybe water buffalo milk is healthier than both cow and human breast milk; it's unlikely that the studies we cited were comparing against that. The best way to avoid introducing bias is to stick close to the actual wording of the studies. Nandesuka (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Nandesuka is right that the study is the place to turn to and it seems (probably in an attempt not to be too wordy) we have left out what the lower risk is in comparison to. Adding that in would take away any bias most times. We should probably be saying something along the lines of breastfed babies have a lower incidence of getting disease Z than infants who are formula fed. Or possibly solely breastfed babies......than infants who are solely formula fed. Depending on the study. -- SiobhanHansa 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Although on looking, the only place I see the Breastfed babies have a lower risk wording is in relation to sudden infant death syndrome and the study quoted there does not support quite such an unequivocal sentence. Would be more appropriate to say breastfed babies seem likely to be at lower risk of SID than formula fed babies. -- SiobhanHansa 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a fairly thorough re-work of the benefits section, I'll try to keep this in mind. Mostly my re-work consists of removing details of the studies to support the statements and the addition of citation templates. I've never seen a policy or guideline that supports the inclusion of a large amount of detail on the study's methodology or results, so mostly I'm paraphrasing the conclusions. WLU (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like worthy cleanup! I would say if you are going to remove the detail of the studies the conclusion may need to be wordier than lower risk. The degree of risk would seem significant if it can be ascertained - somethings have a much greater benefit than others and some things seem to have been studied much more thoroughly than others. And a close reading of the study is needed in order to make sure the claim is an accurate reflection of the study. For instance the SID claim would be better written Breastfed babies are more easily aroused from sleep than formula fed babies. Easier arousal is believed to be an important survival mechanism that may be impaired in victims of SIDS. It seems from the detail that the study didn't actually measure incidences of SIDS so the claim that it is lower in breastfed babies is not supported. -- SiobhanHansa 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont' know about worthy, but definitely tedious. I've adjusted the SIDS claim - your suggestion does match the study's findings better so thanks. Unfortunately, I appear to have lost the original study! I'll try to track it down when I'm done, but if anyone knows the title or PMID for the study where they blew on kids who were breastfed, I need it! WLU (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. WLU (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, feedback? WLU (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's wonderful. You've made it much, much easier to read. Great job!

I have a couple of small formatting suggestions -

• There are two third level headers under "Benefits", one for "Infant" and one for "Mother". Because the heading levels below those look almost identical in format I don't think it really aids in splitting up the information. I would suggest it's better to have two second level headers "Benefits for infants" and "Benefits for mothers" an then move all the risk factor titles (currently fourth level headers) up to the third level header that Infant and Mother are currently at. (I realize this is also tedious and you've done a lot of that sort of thing, so if there's consensus to make the change I'll happy undertake the editing).
• There seems to be quite a bit of redundant wikilinking. While it's probably very useful for some of the more technical terms so people can easily click through for a description of a disease in the right place, words like "nutrition" or "maternal bond" probably only need linking once. Again this is something I'd be happy to go through and do if there's agreement it would be good.

-- SiobhanHansa 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Your suggestions are excellent, and I look forward to seeing you make them :) (I'm a bit sick of editing the page and that's a tremendous amount still more tedious work. I think editing is fun, but not that fun...) WLU (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Michael Glass, and that saying something like "breastfed babies have a lower incidence of getting disease Z than infants who are formula fed" is exactly the type of language that he's referring to - it suggests that formula feeding is the norm and breastfeeding is being compared to it, rather than the other way around. This is like saying: "not smoking lowers your risk of lung cancer". Most studies I've read (the more recent ones, anyway) tend to use breastfeeding as the frame of reference, and compare artificial feeding to this. At any rate, I'm not sure I'm happy with the current layout - "Benefits of breastfeeding" seem to include Atopy, Celiac Disease, Diabetes, etc. I think the layout was better before. Ciotog (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see two ways of getting around this problem. One is to change the headings to read, less atopia, less celiac disease and so on. Another is to introduce another heading that says Disadvantages of artificial feeding and then either leaving the headings the same or changing them to read, more atopia, more celiac disease and so on. Michael Glass (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hum. Perhaps the studies could be gathered according to how the comparisons are made - exclusive breastfeeding versus mixed? Benefits of exclusive breastfeeding? It's a bit WP:SYNTHy to make the comparison ourselves, but if every single article compares breastfeeding to formula, then it's legit! And give it's about infant feeding, what other options are there besides breastfeeding and formula feeding? I'm glad I did the re-work for content, but the wording and formatting could indeed be adjusted. Many could be collapsed into 'disease/infection resistance' or something similar - there's simply too many sub-headings with short paragraphs. Given the ways the information must be organized within the individual studies, the only way I can see to gather things together. The biggest problem is to somehow write a cohesive section that accurately represents a variety of studies that have a wide variety of methods and results without engaging in WP:OR. If anyone has a suggestion or wants to attempt a bold re-write, I'm willing. WLU (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hum. You know what, on further thought I think there's definitely validity in re-writing to contrast heavily of breastfeeding versus formula. How 'bout we make this more explicit - section title of advantages versus formula feeding, and an intro sentence of 'Breastfeeding offers significant advantages for X, Y and Z when compared to exclusive formula feeding, mixed feeding or solid foods'. Thoughts? Any OR-ish stuff we can deal with on a case-by-case basis. WLU (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing I dislike about the wording disadvantages of artificial feeding and comparisons that start with artificial feeding increases risk ...... is that this article is about breastfeeding so the focus should be on breastfeeding and what that does or doesn't do. The disadvantages of artificial feeding wording seems appropriate in the formula article where it is the focus of the article. A table could get around this quite elegantly if it could be made readable. Reflecting the actual results of studies could be a challenge in that format though. -- SiobhanHansa 09:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about the wording but I don't think the table is the way to go though - some of the results are pretty long and nuanced, and that'd be difficult and awkward to shoehorn into a table I think. I'd mentioned leading with something akin to 'Breastfeeding presents significant advantages and health benefits as compared to exclusive or mixed formula feeding' do others think this is acceptable or have I missed the point somewhere (always a significant risk when I read). WLU (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It doesn't look easy! I wonder about turning the language on its head a little - instead of using reduces the risk of we use provides some protection from (and the like). Focusing on what breastfeeding does rather than what not breastfeeding does! This isn't exactly a direct quote from the studies though so I could potentially see people having concerns about and we'd have to be careful to make sure we didn't overstate the case and make breast milk sound like a bullet proof shield. -- SiobhanHansa 10:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, darn, I left a very nice little post here yesterday that perhaps my computer didn't post. One way to avoid sounding anti-formula is to make a distinction between a breastfed and non-breasfed babies, because there are many other foods that a baby can be given besides artifical baby milk. It could be first foods way too early, pap, cow's or goat's milk, soy milk, or homemade formulas. Remember the "vegan" couple in New York who only gave their baby apple juice until the poor soul starved to death? I once had a mother who insisted that she was told that goat's milk was the closests thing to breastmilk. I asked for references on that one, there are none.

Because there is no "breastfeeding boost or benefit," rather a higher risk associated with babies who are not breastfed, that is the fairest wording to use: Babies who are not breastfed show a higher incidence of (insert malady here) of 15% over babies who are exclusivly breastfed for the first six months. I would guess that every study has a different time period or deffinition of exclusive breastfeeding. Some early studies only asked if the baby had ever been breastfed, if even only once, or if the baby was breastfed once a day. Most recent studies have tighter restrictions on what breastfed really means.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat: the best way for us to avoid unintended bias (or, over time, unintended inaccuracy) is to match, as closely as possible, the phrasing of the sources we are citing. If they phrase the effects under discussion as "breastfeeding benefits" rather than "artificial feeding risks", then we are obligated to follow that phrasing. Even if we personally think they are wrong. Nandesuka (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How did I miss that comment? Really, given WP:OR, that's the only thing we can do and it makes sense. Attempting to combine all the studies into a single uber conclusion would doubtless violate WP:SYNTH. If the study says formula feeding is worse, it's some tricky math to reverse it. One option we could also use is 'compared to formula/breastfed peers, infants fed exclusively/mixed formula/breastmilk were more/less likely to catch x disease/be smarter/whatever. Dont' know if it helps or not. WLU (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - WP:NPOV trumps systemic bias. You can't say "breastfeeding lowers the risk of X" because this implies the standard is the alternative to breastfeeding, which is not neutral language. Sometimes sources need to be reworded in order to present the points they make in a neutral fashion, and for consistency. Ciotog (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia is obliged to present information from a neutral point of view. It does not mean, in any way, that Wikipedia must never present a point of view held by others. If the reliable sources we cite say "X", Wikipedia absolutely may not misrepresent those sources by "rewording" "X" as "not Y" if "X" and "not Y" are substantially different. Obviously, sometimes there is "wiggle room" where we have a choice as to how to phrase something without changing the meaning of the underlying citation. But particularly with respect to citing scientific studies, which tend to be chock full of terms of art, it violates a number of our core policies to "reword" them to help us reach a conclusion that we, as editors, "like." Perhaps I"m misunderstanding what you're saying here, but I'm being emphatic because this is such a core point. Nandesuka (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If a reference uses non-neutral language, but the facts they present can be stated in non-neutral terms then that's what needs to be done. Changing "breastfeeding reduces the rate of X by 20%" to "not breastfeeding increases the rate of X by 25%" does not alter the facts, but the first statement uses non-neutral language (using an improper frame of reference) where the second doesn't. Ciotog (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue is being blown out of proportion somewhat, I think it is relatively simple to edit the page contents in a way that will satisfy everyone. Sticking to the wording of the studies seems the best solution in my mind. WLU (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency and neutrality is the best solution, and WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". Anyway, here's a good overview and includes a long list of references it uses: [1] Ciotog (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regulating Authority

What is a "regulating authority" and why is the term even used in this sentence:

"While recognizing the superiority of breastfeeding, regulating authorities work to make artificial feeding safer when it is not used."

It may be more of a British term than an American one, but I have little evidence that the American Acadamy of Pediations has any "authority" about breastfeeding when it comes to local doctors, some of whom have clearly never read the AAP statement on breastfeeding. Exactly what authority would WHO or AAP have over pediatricians, many of whom still use old and outdated growth charts based on formula fed babies. Is there a need for this sentance at all?--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this statement is referring to formula manufacturing regulations. The sentence used to say: "Regulating authorities recognize the superiority of breastfeeding but also try to make artificial feeding safer." which I think was somewhat clearer (for instance, what is "it" in the revised sentence?). I'm not sure if formula regulating authorities really recognize the superiority of breastfeeding, anyway... Ciotog (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that in most jurisdictions, infant formula would be controlled by pure food regulations or similar legislation. Michael Glass (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If we have to imagine, then the statement isn't a good one. The statement is sourced to Baker, 2003, so someone with access to the full article should read through and verify/modify the statement to be in line with the source. WLU (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The US Food and Drug Administration regulates infant formula in the United States <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/infguid.html> British regulations may be found here <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950077_en_1.htm>. Australasian regulations may be found here <http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2002/newdirectionsforinfa1391.cfm> Michael Glass (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read "making artificial baby milks safer", because there can be real problems with parents making powdered formulas too thick or too thin and offering babies other foods, such as solids and cows milk too early. Also, I don't think that regulating authorities have much to say about the purchase and use of bottle, nipples and other parts of the feeding systems of which we have recently seen problems with imports from China. "Artificial baby milk" is the authoratative term for infant formula, which is not really too descriptive because all the commercial formulas are different.I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sociological factors

This section needs to be broken up into shorter paragraphs to increase readability.Michael Glass (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now broken up the section into shorter paragraphs and reduced the verbosity. However, the whole section lacks references. Could someone else help here? Michael Glass (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a stab at reorganizing the section. It's rather disconnected as is. I will only delete information that is redundant to other sections of the article. Lcwilsie (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See my changes - I don't have the references the original author is citing, and there are probably many places that need better citation. I think the language can be improved (I tried to simplify), but at least information is grouped appropriately. I also think the Economics section I started needs work, but it was lumped in with the sociology stuff and might be appropriate as it's own section. Or perhaps we can work it into the "income" subsection of the sociology section. Lcwilsie (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Weaning section: American English vs. British English use of the word "weaning".

I've noticed that the word "weaning" is used slightly different in American English vs. British English. In the U.S., a mother saying she is weaning her breastfed baby usually means she is in the process of trying to completely stop breastfeeding within the next a few months at most. In British English, it is used to refer to what American's would refer to as the "introduction of solids", they simply referring to the idea of a exclusively breastfed baby now receiving a mix of breast milk and solid foods. In this sense, the process of being completely weaned happens over a much longer time frame. So a British mom might start weaning at 6 months but not completely wean her baby from breastfeeding until say 18 months, for example. The term "weaned" (in relation to breastfed babies) seems to have the same meaning in both American and British English (i.e. complete cessation of breastfeeding). I think this distinction should be added to the section on weaning but I haven't yet found a reliable source that discusses the two uses of the word. I've noticed on some parenting message boards with where both American and British parents participate that the way the British parents used the term was confusing some American parents. --Cab88 (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In La Leche League we say that weaning happens with the first taste of solid food. A breastfeeding women who supplements with formula in a bottle would not say that she is "weaning." Although the term weaning may mean different things to different mothers, the term "weaned" does not. People also use the term for weaning a baby away from a bottle to a cup, or away from a pacifier. It's an interesting subject and really isn't written about much, except for how-to advice. If you feel creative, weaning could be it's own extended Wikipedia article, especially because of different weaning ages around the world. First good place to look is Kathy Dettwylers page.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

History

The article lacks a section on the history of breastfeeding. Such a history might start by mentioning that all mammals nurse their young. Then, the social history of breastfeeding in various cultures. Include the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (with the mind boggling statistic that of 19,250 Baby-Friendly hospitals worldwide, less than 500 are in industrialised nations). --Una Smith (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's a section titled "History of breastfeeding", with a link to the full article that was split off some time ago in order to shorten this article. Ciotog (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Point of View

I find this whole article strongly slanted by people with a "political" and unscientific point-of-view & agenda who want to slant things to their own agendas and notions. The whole thing needs to be discarded of and possibly then rewritten from a Neutral Point of View and taking into consideration of scientific facts. For example, nothing is said about the lifesaving features of artificial feeding, and how many infants died by poor nutrition in very primitive times before it was discovered that infants could be fed with the milk of domesticated cattle, goats, sheep, horses, and camels. There is complete lack of a historical perspective, and merely exposition of modern-day "contoversies".72.146.52.71 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I nominate this article as an excellent example of a non-neutral point-of-view article.72.146.52.71 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, everything in this article is slanted to promote breastfeeding. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that breastfeeding is generally a good idea and should be promoted, but this is an encyclopedia. The biggest problem with this article is the exacerbation of both benefits and risks beyond what is justified by the scientific information on hand; and I quote "Medical journals are replete with contradictory conclusions about the impact of breast-feeding: for every study linking it to better health, another finds it to be irrelevant, weakly significant, or inextricably tied to other unmeasured or unmeasurable factors. While many of these investigations describe a correlation between breast-feeding and more desirable outcomes, the notion that breast-feeding itself contributes to better health is far less certain, and this is a crucial distinction that breast-feeding proponents have consistently elided." - Dr. Joan Wolf. This article needs a rewrite to address this conflicting information and obvious bias. 74.70.154.77 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr Joan Wolf is hardly a neutral observer. She was the opponent of choice for Opposing Views in putting forward a point of view in defence of formula feeding. See <http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/will-formula-feeding-harm-my-baby> Because of her known point of view, her opinions, when used, should be balanced with those of others.Michael Glass (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

She uses sound references in her arguments and is not coloring her response based on a breastfeeding bias. Do you really believe that the La Lache League is a non-biased participant? "Formula Circumvents Nature's Plan", so do homosexuals and space exploration but that is not a scientific rational it is an appeal to emotion. Just because her scientific rational is unpopular does not make them any less correct. 169.226.69.156 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed: remove source

I'd like to remove the following source from the article:

\author=W.Sadler,L.Sadler | The Mother and Her Child | 1916 |Part II

It's currently being used to justify a comment about the quality of the breastmilk being compromised by smoking, etc. While probably true, we shouldn't be using such a low-quality source to support a statement that there is probably modern research to support.

Comments? Nandesuka (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1916, before much of the evidence about smoking? Sounds good to me. WLU (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

References from nearly a hundred years ago supporting medical claims seem very suspect except when talking about the history of understanding in the area. The sentence it supports seems like common sense but shouldn't really be included without a better reference. I recently removed the sentence just below that used a non-notable website as a reference to support a claim of how to combat such "compromise". WikiProject Medicine are currently working on some good guidelines for references for medical and scientific claims which it would be good to start working towards:Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources. -- SiobhanHansa 13:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is a better reference in the article and this century-old reference should be removed forthwith. Michael Glass (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Improving diversity of images

Does anyone have access to images of women breastfeeding their infants? Although the lead photo is of a caucasion mother/child, I'm concerned that we have three images from Africa - while diverse in the ages of the children, there may be an implied perception that this is a "primitive" thing to do, rather than something done worldwide by mothers in all countries. Also, the polar bear video is of negligible quality in my opinion; it's difficult to tell what the baby and mother bear are doing and this is specifically an article about human breastfeeding. Images of toddlers nursing, different latch techniques, alternate holding positions, etc., would be appreciated if anyone can obtain them. Lcwilsie (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Organisational endorsements - delete?

As this article is already overly-long, can we delete this section? It is covered succinctly in the first section. Lcwilsie (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Latching on how-to

I'm rewriting the latching-on and positioning section so as to make it encyclopedic rather than prescriptive. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts that while you should be able to make it encyclopedic, it is not actually notable - perhaps merely noting that there are many different positions would be enough. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Men

It's a proven fact that men can breastfeed and there are men who do so. It's not even that uncommon in some cultures. I'm not say switch all uses of the term "women" to "people". I'm just saying that it should be mentioned that men can and do breastfeed. And the reason I suggest this is because it is a commonly believed idea that men CAN'T. Even if they wanted to they couldn't. Well that's untrue. I think that it should be a minor fact mentioned at one point in the article. Maybe even a short section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.154.130 (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the relevant articles - lactation and male lactation which already discuss this. Since the vast majority of breastfeeding occurs between infants and their mothers, I don't think this already-long article needs to address what is discussed elsewhere. Lcwilsie (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Allergies?

"Breastfeeding does not appear to offer protection against allergies.[26]" Then, 3 lines later.. "Breastfeeding has been proven to lower the risk of asthma, protect against allergies"

No attempt is made to even reconcile these opposite conclusions, making the article appear haphazard at best. 98.222.61.151 (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "dubious" tag. A close reading of the section in question showed that the studies have been mixed, with some studies showing benefit and others showing no significant effect. This is normal in scientific investigation and doesn't make either study dubious. moink (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Breastfeeding and censorship

Don't ask me why they do this but I've seen references to breastfeeding are in productions such as video games are censored. May someone help find information on this relevant fact as it's not mentioned in the article.--Quinceps (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Useful source

Here a recent New Yorker piece with lots of sources within it, if anyone wants to add bits to our article: [2].

Eight babies??

The article California octuplets quotes a media source[3] in which a neo-natologist appears to be saying that a woman can in fact nurse eight babies. It seems amazing to me that she would have the milk... or the time... but it looks like the section on "tandem breastfeeding" will need considerable expansion! Wnt (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted some of the edits by Pistan after noticing the unexplained deletion of sources and sourced content, and the replacement of phrases contrary to those used in sources: "at least" changed to "up to," etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, new to editing, I was trying to clean it up and make things more concise, there is also a great deal of redundant information I took out because it is used again in other sections, or is just odvious--66.94.94.154 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)--Pistan (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The article could definitely use some trimming, and many of your improvements still remain. One reversion I made, however, replaced the sentence you removed from the lead paragraph: Most mothers can nourish their infant (or infants in the case of twins and multiple births) by breastfeeding for the first six months or more, without the supplement of infant formula milk or solid food. While you observed correctly that this information is covered elsewhere in the article, it is also one of the hot-button issues of some importance discussed here. It is common practice to raise the important points of the article in the lead section, and then cover them in more detail in the body of the article. With that said, the lead section could still be written more concisely. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nursing bras - delete?

Since nursing bras aren't an essential part of breastfeeding, this subsection could be deleted. Any objections? Happy Obscurity (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, from what I see they are a pretty important part. Once articles get large and comprehensive, they can get into a lot of detail. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me more about their importance. The article says, "are not always necessary and certainly not required".Happy Obscurity (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted this subsection. I'm not aware of any published evidence that nursing bras are a central part of breastfeeding.Happy Obscurity (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Nursing" for breastfeeding is confined to American English

Nursing is not a synonym for breastfeeding in Australian English or in British English as far as I know. The link at the beginning of the article goes to an article about the nursing profession. This is confusing. I think the usage should be tagged as a feature of American English that is not current elsewhere. Michael Glass (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The link at the beginning of the article goes to a Disambiguation Page, which includes several related terms, such as Wet nurse, from which this use of nursing is derived. While the use of the term nursing to mean breastfeeding may be most popular in American English, it has been in use since at least the 1700s. Is the term wet nurse used in British or Australian English? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The term "wet nurse" is used, but usually in a historical context but nursing is not usually used to refer to breastfeeding even though it is listed in the dictionaries as one of the meanings. The link that goes to the article on nursing is the first reference of the article. Sorry. I should have made that clearer. Michael Glass (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the disambiguation link, and totally missed the first footnote. I agree, that footnote is indeed confusing and inappropriate. I am going to remove it completely. I don't know enough about the usage of the term to identify it as "a feature of American English" only. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the "(or nursing)" appropriate at all? It comes from the days where the article did not precede this first sentence with stating the two synonyms now present, and now seems a bit redundant... I suggest deleting it. Gorton k (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. Michael Glass (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Breast Is Best: New WHI Data

New research from a very RS:

• Breast Is Best: New WHI Data Extend CV Benefits of Breast-Feeding to Mom CME/CE News Author: Lisa Nainggolan, CME Author: Désirée Lie, MD, MSEd

April 24, 2009 — Women who breast-fed for a year or more were less likely to develop hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and cardiovascular disease when postmenopausal than women who were pregnant but never breast-fed, a new analysis of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) has found [1]. Dr Eleanor Bimla Schwarz (University of Pittsburgh Center for Research on Healthcare, PA) and colleagues report their findings in the May 2009 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

-- Brangifer (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Breastfeeding Orgasm

Some women experience orgasm during breast-feeding, despite not being sexually aroused, due to the stimulation of the nipples and the release of oxytocin, a hormone that causes uterine contractions. Source: Touch Me There! By Yvonne K. Fulbright http://books.google.ca/books?id=ngakMuLJO7wC&pg=PP1&dq=touch+me+there+by+yvonne+k+fulbright .

Breastfeeding Past 6 Months of Age

I think the way the WHO's endorsement of breastfeeding past six months is represented in this article is highly misleading, which in turn, will misinform new mothers and leave babies with inadequate nutrition. Whoever wrote the blurb failed to mention that the WHO strong suggests breastfeeding exclusively only up to 6 months of age, at which time they encourage mothers to continue so long as the breastmilk is supplemented with other solid foods. The way it's written suggests that the WHO endorses only breastfeeding for the first two years of life, which is incorrect. If needed, I can go dig up the article on the WHO's website so the correction can be made. JerseyGirlMedia (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about adding an image

I would like to upload a picture of tandem nursing to this page (incidentally, a white woman, although I'm personally doubtful that this is in any way relevant) however as a new member I'm unsure if I'm allowed to do this. I own the copyright of the image. I'd be grateful if someone could let me know.Mommaloveuk (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit about 2 medical studies

I've reverted this edit for a number of reasons. The prose was confusing and the findings of the studies were misrepresented ("Some of the mixed feeding practices caused diarrhea and respiratory infections that lead to death quickly." - "replacement" feeding ≠ "mixed" feeding, etc.). After noting several such errors, I opted against re-writing it and reverted it instead. However, there is some good, relevant information in the studies which can be accessed online here and here. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kwashiorkor from premature weaning of infants from breast onto starch or vegetables

The Kwashiorkor article says:

(Kwashiorkor) ... is derived from the Ga language of coastal Ghana, translated literally "first-second"[4][citation needed], and reflecting the development of the condition in an older child who has been weaned from the breast when a younger sibling comes.[5] Breast milk contains proteins and amino acids vital to a child's growth. In at-risk populations, kwashiorkor may develop after a mother weans her child from breast milk and replaces the diet with foods high in starches and carbohydrates and deficient in protein. )

The Ga language meaning is closely tailored to the most common presentation. The very rare cases found in developed countries almost invariably occur when an infant is weaned off of breast milk after only a few months, but the needed protein and plethora of other breast milk nutrients (EFAs, etc., etc. -- the list of know benefits of nursing and mother's milk is very long and growing) is not replaced. Rather than willing neglectfulness, the parents are generally well-educated, know that the protein needs of adults can be amply satisfied by a purely vegan diet, but tragically lack the information that developing children need the protein and other ingredients in breast milk for normal health and development. A vegan mother may be able to supply these nutrients in her breast milk while the mother continues to consume a purely vegan diet, but an infant or toddler cannot do the same during the several years that breast feeding is recommendable. (Actually, a nursing mother who supplements her own vegan diet with fish oil and fish may provide her milk with more of the DHA needed for optimal brain development). If anything, vegans should breast-feed longer than meat-eaters, and this information is tragically not everywhere available, even to the well-educated, leading to very rare prosecutions for abuse or neglect if the Kwashiorkor is not diagnosed in time to save the child's life and health. Occasionally in the absence of breast feeding or other protein sources, fears of allergy to cow's milk, may also lead to Kwashiorkor's.

If the mother is severely malnourished, or has a second pregnancy advancing while nursing, her milk dries up. If this happens while the first child still needs nursing and other protein sources (particularly fish sources) are not available (but starch sources are) the result is Kwashiorkor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.31 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Red links maybe associated with the following....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=breastfeeding+diet&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.67.218.80 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+maternal+diet+infant&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.218.80 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Several Google hits containing one or more of those words in a search field, but appears vague as to a specific subject. Are you suggesting a specific article topic here? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) - American Bias

Is AAP the only authority prescribing breast feed. If this association is cited is there a particular reason why it alone is cited. iS this article meant to be read only by Americans? Are other countries where jimmy wales does not belong to not "countries"? or is it that doctors and associations of doctors in other countries are not recognized or blacklisted on Wikipedia.

This is important because if one association is cited for no good reason except that it is American this article needs to be retitled "Breast Feeding by US Mothers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.76.196 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Breast feeding and sexual arousal

there could be a section on how many men get aroused and milky breasts being suckled by babies? Something which is nutrcious to the baby is sexual to adult men. This fact cannot be changed by "noble intentions" of mother to suckle a baby however big public propaganda is brought in mass media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.76.196 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Past use of bromocriptine

To explain my edits:

• the use of BCS for weaning was very frequent (afaik millions in the US alone) - not just "sometimes"
• the presumed 500 serious complications were never conclusively shown to be related to BCS and in summary a connection is not very likely as
  • it was an extremely rare event obviously also occurring in untreated women with some frequency
  • no mechanism of action has been ever proposed for this side effects
  • the alleged side effects would require a mechanism of action that is exactly opposite to the well known mechanism and side effect profile of BCS. I.e. BCS is well known as vasodilator, often causing hypotension
• to my knowledge BCS was withdrawn for lactation suppression mainly because
  • it has "minor" but very frequent and unpleasant side effects
  • was practically ineffective in the "back than predominantly used dosage" of 2.5mg/day
  • conservative management was good enough

Richiez (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction (Neutrality)

Right now, this article is blatantly pro-breastfeeding. There probably should be a section that at least mentions the studies that have shown that breastmilk isn't superior to formula (I'm sure there are some; whether or not they're garbage marketing propaganda is not ours to decide). Remember to be neutral...

As a clarification, by "pro-breastfeeding" I don't mean to imply that there is an "anti-breastfeeding" side. The argument is more over whether breastfeeding is superior to formula, not whether breastfeeding is healthy or not. 192.83.228.119 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears reliable sources (and reliable science) indicate breastfeeding is usually superior to formula-feeding, when there is a choice. If you know of information to the contrary that is conveyed by reliable sources, you are encouraged to provide it. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How much milk should/does a baby drink (perhaps depending on its weight/age)

The other side of this, which is more relevant is how much is produced. I would have thought that information that answers this general inquiry should be close to the top of the article. --Dmg46664 (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)