"'I think we've conquered the social media thing," says Barston, who has witnessed the evolution of online discussion of infant feeding go from 'beast is breast' to 'fed is best' since launching her blog, The Fearless Formula Feeder nearly a decade ago." --interview of Suzanne Barston at mother.ly
https://www.mother.ly/news/formula-feeding-mamas-need-support
The Fearless Formula Feeder Conquers Social Media or
The Beast is Breast
I think the author of this article, "Formula Feeding mammas don't feel supported--and that needs to change," at mother.ly meant "Breast Is Best" not "beast is breast," but I am not sure. Was it a Freudian slip? Did the author know that Suzanne Barston, the Fearless Formula Feeder, who she was interviewing is now a corporate journalist for an infant formula company (AbbVie--parent company is Abbott Labs marketer of Similac infant formula)?
The Fearless Formula Feeder's constant attacks on breastfeeding advocacy now appear obviously slanted because she really was a shill for an infant formula company. People believed that her statements were legitimate. Breastfeeding advocates turned against their own advocates for "shaming" formula feeding mothers. I can see the infant formula industry clapping their hands in joy. Not only was this media blast of Barston's encouraging more formula feeding but she turned breastfeeding advocates against each other with accusations of shaming. Barston is quite proud of herself and her accomplishment and in this article shares the spotlight by giving thanks to the Fed Is Best Foundation.
"According to Barston, moms who physically can't breastfeed or who don't produce enough milk are more supported now than ever before, thanks in large part to the efforts of organizations like The Fed Is Best Foundation and its co-founders, Dr. Christie del Castillo-Hegyi and B. Jody Segrave-Daly, who advocate against formula stigma in an effort to protect babies from dehydration and starvation."
A month later (August 7, 2018) Suzanne Barston is interviewed by PR News (a Public Relations news outlet) and asked, "Why healthcare communication professionals have been slower than other industries to make the transition to social media?" Her response,
"Typically it comes down to two things: regulations and fear. Social is a wild animal, and once you let it out of the cage, you need to be prepared to fight back. This makes all corporations uncomfortable, but when you add in the intense scrutiny healthcare is under (and I’m not just talking about pharma, but hospitals, insurers, and even individual physicians – have you seen the backlash when doctors advocate for vaccinations, for example?), it brings it to a whole other level."
https://www.prnewsonline.com/abbvie-social-earned-media-suzanne-barston
Yes, I would say that the Fearless Formula Feeder let the animal out of the cage. No wonder AbbVie/Abbot Labs hired her. She did a great hack job on breastfeeding promotion and now she gets to enter the big time arena, pharma.
I find it fascinating that she gets to play the Fearless Formula Feeder while getting paid by a company that makes its profits from the destruction of breastfeeding. Who needs ethics these days?
Iatrogenically-caused inadequate breastfeeding in the newborn
Meanwhile, the Fed Is Best Foundation, social media buddies of the Fearless Formula Feeder, continues to spread the media message that exclusive breastfeeding is not safe. Their stories of infant starvation caused by exclusive breastfeeding are horrifying. Yet are these tragic stories the result of exclusive breastfeeding or the result of iatrogenic events?
What is an iatrogenic event? Here's is a definition,
"When medical or surgical treatment causes a new illness or injury, the result is considered to be iatrogenic."
https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-iatrogenic-2615180
How did the human race survive, if exclusive breastfeeding caused dehydration and starvation in babies? We know that breastfeeding newborns/infants before the advent of the infant formula industry meant infant survival. Few infants fed foods or other animal milks back then, survived.
Is dehydration and "starvation" in breastfed infants caused by exclusive breastfeeding? Fed Is Best uses the term, starvation-an emotive word that is not truly an accurate term. Do formula fed infants get dehydrated? Yes, they do. And formula fed infants also starve to death, particularly in famines, wars and disaster zones where the supplies of infant formula are non-existent or severely limited due to the chaos of war, hurricanes, floods, or earthquakes.
Are the causes of dehydration and starvation in breastfed infants the same as formula fed infants? Yes and no.
Diarrhea is a known cause of dehydration in infants and children. It has a high rate of infant morbidity and mortality. Infants fed infant formula are at a greater risk for dehydration due to the renal solute load (high protein and sodium load) of infant formula. Cow's milk has a higher renal solute load than infant formula and is the reason why cow's milk is considered an inappropriate substance for infants. Breastmilk has the lowest renal solute load and therefore is less of a stress on a young baby's immature kidneys.
"There is strong epidemiological evidence that the feeding of cow's milk or formulas with similar potential renal solute load places infants at an increased risk of serious dehydration." --EE Ziegler
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17664905
One would suppose that breastfeeding, particularly exclusive breastfeeding, would lessen the risk of dehydration in newborn infants. Unless the baby for various reasons has: a birth defect or infant birth trauma, tongue-tie, excess sleepiness due to maternal medication, first time mother or first time breastfeeding mother of subsequent babies; and is at higher risk for breastfeeding difficulties that could lower milk supplies. A medical staff that does not prioritize a first-time breastfeeding mother as needing more assistance, or is ill-informed about how to observe actual breastfeeding, looking for suck/swallow patterns creates greater risk for inadequate breastfeeding. Infants younger than 39 weeks at birth are at a higher risk for complications such as lung immaturity, jaundice, difficulty with feeding, digestive difficulties and various other risks. Therefore the need is for greater observation of the infant while supporting breastfeeding. Infants that have sustained bruising during birth, will have higher jaundice levels due to red blood cells being processed out of the newborn's body.
Birthing medications and practices impact breastfeeding and inadequately trained medical staff compound the problem. Is a hospital birth reflective of a normal birth? Is birth a medical event that must be managed, timed, and quantified? Does managing birth with drugs and machinery improve health outcomes for mothers and babies? There is reason to question the current birthing practices used in US hospitals because statistically maternal and infant mortality is increasing, particularly for African American populations. Despite all the machinery and drugs and testing, birth has become a risky business in the USA. And likewise exclusive breastfeeding like natural childbirth is medicalized, considered too risky, and cannibalized into a medical version that traumatizes mothers and babies.
For example the standard use of IV fluids in laboring mothers can have side effects to the mother and to the newborn. There are 3 common IV solutions used for laboring mothers who are not allowed anything by mouth (normal saline/sodium chloride, Ringers lactate, dextrose). Side effects mentioned regarding saline/sodium chloride IV's for adults: hypernatremia, heart failure, kidney damage, electrolyte abnormalities, etc. Side effects mentioned for neonates is intraventricular hemorrhage.
https://www.medicinenet.com/sodium_chloride_solution-intravenous/article.htm#what_is_sodium_chloride_solution-intravenous,_and_how_does_it_work_(mechanism_of_action)?
or
"In neonates or in very small infants even small volumes of fluid may affect fluid and electrolyte balance. Care must be exercised in treatment of neonates, especially pre-term neonates, whose renal function may be immature and whose ability to excrete fluid and solute loads may be limited. Fluid intake, urine output, and serum electrolytes should be monitored closely."
https://www.drugs.com/pro/dextrose-and-sodium-chloride-injection.html
The use of IVs in labor within hospitals is so common that one may be unaware that IV solutions carry risks for some adults. Consider that the IV solution used for a laboring mother is adjusted to the weight of the mother not the neonate in utero. After the birth, the newborn appears disinterested in nursing, losing incredible amounts of weight, or is diagnosed with hypernatremia. The assumption by Fed Is Best followers is that these problems are caused by exclusive breastfeeding. Reality may be that IVs in laboring mothers have side effects and seems highly likely that side effects may be unrecognized in newborns. Studies are now showing that the huge weight losses we are seeing in breastfed newborns after birth are related to IV solutions given to laboring moms. A 150-pound mother loses 1 pound in 24 hours is of little concern. On the other-hand a 6-pound infant loses 1 pound in 24 hours represents a huge amount weight for its body size. Rapid weight loss in adults may cause electrolyte imbalance, dehydration, fatigue, irritability, muscle loss, etc. The recommendation for weight loss in adults who want to lose weight is 1-2 pounds a week. Yet some newborns may lose up to 1 pound in 24-48 hours after birth. Might IVs be a far more serious risk for newborn problems than pinning the blame on exclusive breastfeeding? Do many US medical institutions and staff have the knowledge to support exclusive breastfeeding in the newborn period? Inadequate breastfeeding in the US is caused by iatrogenic factors during the early postpartum period. Change birthing practices (like standard IV use-let moms drink and eat according to their thirst and hunger) in the US would lower the risks of dehydration and jaundice. Educate medical staff and parents to recognize the importance of more support and care for first time breastfeeding mothers.
Organizations that have no credentials in supporting breastfeeding and in some cases are linked to infant formula companies should not have a seat at the table of US government breastfeeding policies. People who have credentials such as CLC or IBCLC who are involved in these organizations should have their credentials revoked. It is obvious that these people have chosen to blame breastfeeding for iatrogenic issues that cause inadequate breastfeeding. They are ill-informed and don't deserve the credentials that they use and it dishonors all of us who have worked for years to promote and protect breastfeeding.
The Beast is the Breast, seems to me to be an accurate description of the fears that these organizations promote. They fear the Breast because it represents a nature that must be controlled, conquered. It must be isolated, weighed, measured and lo and behold it is found deficient. Blinded by our artificial world, they blame the very thing that they should support.
Copyright 2018 Valerie W. McClain
No comments:
Post a Comment