I'd like to add some context to the "pressure to breastfeed" argument, especially regarding the history, which is missing from these experiments. In the 1970's Nestle launched a worldwide marketing campaign promoting formula feeding as better than breastfeeding. With big money behind the campaign and profit incentives, it was effective. This resulted in numerous bacterial illnesses and child deaths in Africa as the water being used was contaminated. Nestle had no reason or fiscal incentive to educate people in local communities or supply clean water. The controversy with formula is often not framed as one about private sector incentives and how profit margins dictate sales tactics. After this major f up in Africa, corporations were somewhat more careful. However, even today, they will inundate expecting mothers with formula samples. This is strategic. It's observational, but I'm willing to bet that most new mothers hold on to the samples, "just in case," even if they intend to breastfeed. Breastfeeding is difficult for most women in the first few weeks, causing pain and discomfort. The companies understand that during this time of vulnerability, one might reach for the samples to get a reprieve. The more often you do this, the less milk you produce, until you end up effectively nudged to make the switch. The facts and figures shared here assume that we are all acting as "rational man" weighing the pros and cons of breastfeeding and the impact of child wellbeing. There is an underlying profit motive to formula that does impact our behavior on this issue through our interactions with formula companies. Our decisions are not always made in a rational manner. It is worth understanding the context behind why some people are very passionate about the breastfeeding debate. And yes.. it is cheaper.
I'd like to add some context to the "pressure to breastfeed" argument, especially regarding the history, which is missing from these experiments. In the 1970's Nestle launched a worldwide marketing campaign promoting formula feeding as better than breastfeeding. With big money behind the campaign and profit incentives, it was effective. This resulted in numerous bacterial illnesses and child deaths in Africa as the water being used was contaminated. Nestle had no reason or fiscal incentive to educate people in local communities or supply clean water. The controversy with formula is often not framed as one about private sector incentives and how profit margins dictate sales tactics. After this major f up in Africa, corporations were somewhat more careful. However, even today, they will inundate expecting mothers with formula samples. This is strategic. It's observational, but I'm willing to bet that most new mothers hold on to the samples, "just in case," even if they intend to breastfeed. Breastfeeding is difficult for most women in the first few weeks, causing pain and discomfort. The companies understand that during this time of vulnerability, one might reach for the samples to get a reprieve. The more often you do this, the less milk you produce, until you end up effectively nudged to make the switch. The facts and figures shared here assume that we are all acting as "rational man" weighing the pros and cons of breastfeeding and the impact of child wellbeing. There is an underlying profit motive to formula that does impact our behavior on this issue through our interactions with formula companies. Our decisions are not always made in a rational manner. It is worth understanding the context behind why some people are very passionate about the breastfeeding debate. And yes.. it is cheaper.