[...] Remember just last week when a group of scientists announced that breastfeeding doesn’t necessarily make babies healthier? It may be that the benefits are more mental than physical. [...]

Um. You conveniently left out the part where other scientists and agencies in the UK dismissed this as overblown and not true. If women can’t/don’t want to breastfeed, fine. No one should be judged. But don’t try to pretend that formula is just as good as breastmilk.

But it is a fact that babies are made to eat breastmilk. Sure, we have a “safe” alternative in formula. BUT instead of trying to justify why it is ok to formula-feed we should be spending time, energy and money educating and supporting all new and expecting moms’ efforts to breastfeed. And the “boob nazi” comment is ridiculous.

No mention that regardless, we should all breastfeed for environmental reasons? What, we should focus on healthcare but not worry about global warming and toxins in everything, including formula and breastmilk?

It does read a bit like controversy-bait, Jeanne. Sorry.

You know the only way to quell the mommy wars is to just stick a cork in it already and get on with rearing your own kids in the way you choose. I realize the point of the blog is to talk about childrearing, but the “Hey! Look! Another study that says you’re an idiot!” approach is counterproductive.

I see others have made the point already, but using “nazi” to describe people whose opinion you do not share is in poor taste. And since this is a blog, I would assume the bloggers on it are chosen for their facility with words, so find some other way to say what you mean.

I too was going to complain about the offensive, lazy “boob nazi” phrase in this post, but I see others have beat me to it. So let me second their cries: get a more journalistic vocabulary, of get a different job.

From paragraph one to paragraph three, we go from the study “determined” to the study “posits”…single study doesn’t “determine” anything. Why, oh why, do they keep doing studies on whether breastmilk is beneficial or “just as good as” formula? That’s like doing a study to show that real legs are as good as prosthetic legs or that contacts are as good as being able to see 20/20…the natural state of things is the natural state of things. All else is just trying to approximate…

I agree with a lot of the commenters who object to the terminology used by Babble in this article. I worked really hard to breastfeed and have been an exclusive pumper for eight months. I’m constantly being hit with terms in Babble stories like “boob nazi” and being lumped in to some rich, white group of helicopter moms. It’s tacky, Babble, as well as alienating. If Babble staffers have issues with their own parenting choices, go see a therapist.

You know, “Boob Nazis” as a term for describing women’s health activists is really rude. And offensive. And kind of unoriginal to boot.

This is an interesting single study. Lots of factors make for healthy babies. But the conclusion that this one study obviates a huge and growing body of peer-reviewed medical research demonstrating the health differential between populations of breastfed and non-breastfed babies is a flawed conclusion. I’ll give you, however, that it makes for one hell of a sensational blog post and blog post title. Excellent search engine optimization, to be sure.

-Katie Allison Granju
http://www.mamapundit.com

As a mom who breastfed as long as possible, attempted pumping and then had to switch to formula – there is no way I would ever consider formula equal to breastmilk. Not only is breastmilk designed from that specific child, the closeness of feeding a baby from your breasts is a wonderful experience for most people. I’m glad formula was available to supplement with my 6 month old, and for my own mother who had a medical condition that made her feed me formula – but no one should ever kid themselves that it is “just as good.” It keeps our children alive, but so did grain gruel and goat’s milk for centuries – it didn’t make that the optimal food!
As someone who both formula and breast fed, I find “boob nazi” offensive. Doing what is best for your child doesn’t harm anyone!

The first time I heard this phrase was when a mother chastised her son for dictating how all the other children at a playdate could or could not play with the garden hose. After they’d gone back to play she muttered “hose nazi.” I thought it was pretty funny, because it is a reference to how the National Socialists tried to control even the tiniest parts of citizens personal lives. Murder isn’t the only horrible thing the Nazis did – just the most horrible. I’m sure if the Nazis thought breastmilk (or formula) would turn out more perfect Aryan babies, they would have forced German women to use breastmilk (or formula.)

Fantastic link! Thank you.

Blissfully, by the time I got to the articlr, there were no more boob nazis, so I will address the issue at hand.
One study does not prove anything per se, it can only be used in conjunction with similar studies to help determine causal relationships. Further, I feel that this study is a little over the top with assuming that if it happens after the fact, it must be because of said fact. Is it not possible that the correlation is like ice cream and drowning? And the assertion that breastfeeding and socioeconomics are intrinsicly linked irritates me because it suggests that breastfeeding is classist, and as a woman who aspires to one day be “middle class,” lately, I don’t appreciate being lumped in with the pampered wealthy.

This study is being called out by his peers, FYI. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/01January/Pages/Hormones-and-breastfeeding.aspx

“However, this study did not compare levels of male hormones during pregnancy to the baby’s health, but only to whether the mother breastfed after giving birth. The researchers have supplied no evidence to back up their claim that there is no benefit from breast milk.”

And again, from the end of the article:

“Based on this one small cohort study, the claims that breast milk is of no benefit to health are unfounded. The study did not investigate whether breastfed babies were healthier or not, but looked only at levels of their mother’s hormones during pregnancy and their breastfeeding after giving birth. The finding that women are more likely to breastfeed if they have lower levels of male hormones during pregnancy warrants further investigation. But for women who can breastfeed, the advice that ‘breast is best’ stands.”

Read the whole thing. The actual focus of this study has NOTHING to do with the actual health of infants. N.o.t.h.i.n.g. So to conclude from this one (small) study that breastmilk isn’t all that important is nothing short of LUDICROUS.