• Words that imply breastfeeding isn't the expected norm: Best, possible, ideal, optimal, perfect

• Words that reinforce artificial baby milk as the standard:Advantages, disadvantages, pros, cons

• "Breast is best. Formula is second best." Not according to the WHO: 1. Breastfeeding  2. Mother's expressed milk 3. Donor milk 4. Artificial baby milk.

• "There is a need for standard formula in some cases." Only because we don't have milk banks like we have blood banks. If you were bleeding to death, would you want artificial blood?

• Breast feeding or Breast-feeding. Breastfeeding (as a single word) is nurturing. Nutritive verses non-nutritive sucking, how often, how much; transmission of nutrients are all the focus of ABM pamphlets. "We need to forget about the breast and the feeding and start mothering at the breast."

• Commerciogenic Nipple Confusion: Equating artificial sucking with natural suckling. Implying that babies need purchased objects to breastfeed. Saying a rubber nipple is "most like mother's." Nipple feeding to cover both breast and bottle feeding. Limiting options to breast or bottle when other choices are available.

• Encouraging parents to start bottle feedings after a given amount of time to prevent bottle refusal:  Supports the myth that breastfeeding is permanently established after a few weeks. The baby who refuses a bottle displays a clear and accurate judgment, not nipple confusion.

• Stop implying that breastfeeding is: fragile, easily lost, time consuming, difficult or complicated, unsuccessful.

• Avoid "weasel words" that deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment: Some, may, can, occasionally, most, many, usually, often ,should, might, could .We do not take such steps when referring to the dangers of not using car seats, laying baby down on its back, unprotected sex with a stranger, alcohol smoking and drug use.

• Would those who advocate more genteel, moderate language praising the benefits of breastfeeding also talk about:  the "benefits" of not using a car seat, the "benefits" of drinking, using cocaine, or smoking cigarettes during pregnancy, the "benefits' of not using a condom during sex with a stranger?  No talks about the "dangers" of doing the opposite of these activities.  Why is breastfeeding any different? (Email communication, Dettwyler August 28, 1995)

• Inverting reality: Breastfed children are, healthier,  smarter etc... Instead, artificially fed infants are unhealthy, aren't as intelligent.

• A vital first step toward breastfeeding as the norm is within our immediate reach. All we have to do is watch our language. (Wiessinger 4)

Professionals often present a two-sided attitude. The language we use to educate women about breastfeeding is riddled with semantics that place artificial feeding and breastfeeding on the same plane, with only a slight difference in the method of delivery.  The author believes that "breastfeeding is the norm and that artificial feeding is a deviation from the norm that brings about hazards to infant health (Riordan and Auerbach 135)."  The author has chosen to change her use of language within these pages to reflect the breastfeeding norm.  Language deeply influences our thoughts and actions.  Fallacies and myths about breastfeeding, quite simply, are born of, and perpetuated by, poor word usage (Auerbach 1998). As long as we continue to present the hazards of artificial feeding, candy  coated with euphemisms, health care providers and the general public will continue to believe that artificial baby milk is just as good as mother's milk.  "We cannot expect to create a breastfeeding culture if we do not insist on a breastfeeding model of health both in our language and our literature (Wiessinger 1)."

Health care professionals must also think carefully about their actions.  Our actions have a greater effect than our words.  Our innocent deeds resonate within the unconscious mind of the mother.  Occasionally we may find ourselves advertising for artificial baby milk (ABM) manufacturers.  Company representatives drop off pens, cups, posters and "educational materials" emblazoned with the name of a formula or the manufacturer's company logo
Few professionals recognize the negative impact on breastfeeding success through their (unintentional) endorsement of infant formula products by displaying breastfeeding materials (free gifts, formula coupons, booklets) produced by formula manufacturers. The conflict of interest presented when formula companies "advise" woman about  breastfeeding should be obvious . . .  (Powers, Naylor and Wester 517)."  Giving new mothers a sample of ABM at hospital discharge is a powerful tool to undermine her breastfeeding confidence.  In essence that sample says, "Keep this nearby; just in case you do not have enough milk." Discharge packs, diaper bags with ABM samples, videos, discount coupons etc.,  may seem like nice "gifts" for the mother but they have been repeatedly shown to decrease the length of exclusive breastfeeding (Frank 7-10), and are in direct violation of section 5.2 of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.  When I ask mothers why they use a particular brand of formula they tell me, "Its the one the hospital gave me." ABM  companies are well aware that when a hospital or doctor's office gives new mothers a sample, it is a tacit recommendation of their product.  Even non-formula related gift packs have anti breastfeeding implications. They often contain coupons for bottles and bottle feeding paraphernalia.

When a slight breastfeeding difficulty arises, if you are not educated in ways to support lactation,  the easiest solution is often a bottle.  Unwittingly, health care professionals are sending mixed messages when they insist on supplementation for normal, healthy, neonates who are breastfeeding.  Supplemental bottles loudly say to the mother, "your milk isn't enough."

Copyright Marie Davis, RN, IBCLC 1999 

[Index]

[references]
Last Reviewed:  Wed, Nov 8, 2006