New York Times Watch: Exclusive breastfeeding may not be best for your baby. Ugg.

I am so appalled by this New York Times article. There is an absolute public health consensus that exclusive breastfeeding through six months is best and highly beneficial (see WHO guidelines, AAP guidelines) and breastfeeding (with introduction of some solid foods) through one year (AAP guidelines) or two years (WHO guidelines) is ideal.  The Times article raises questions about vitamin D deficiency in exclusively breastfed babies.  The author writes:

Physicians have known for more than a century that exclusive breast-feeding may be associated with vitamin D deficiency and rickets, and that the condition is easily prevented and treated with inexpensive vitamin drops or cod liver oil. But doctors are reluctant to say anything that might discourage breast-feeding.

Now some researchers are also linking vitamin D deficiency with other chronic diseases like diabetes, autoimmune disorders and even cancer, and there have been calls to include blood tests of vitamin D levels in routine checkups.

There is nothing wrong, of course, with pointing out that there are low levels of vitamin D in some mothers and breastfed babies and that this should be attended to. But I just kept waiting for the punch line when the author of the article points out that, “Although there is a risk of vitamin D deficiency, it is always far better to exclusively breastfeed babies through six months, and partial breastfeed through at least a year, and deal potential vitamin D deficiency through regular exposure to the sun, a balanced diet on the part of the mother, and supplementation (either of mother or infant, depending on situation), than to not breastfeed due to potential vitamin D deficiency.”

But the author never says anything like this.

She does quote a mom who says, “I thought I was doing the best thing for her,” after blood tests showed her daughter had no detectable vitamin D. Implying, of course, that she was not doing the best thing for her by breastfeeding.

And the author quotes a doctor who says, “I completely support breast-feeding, and I think breast milk is the perfect food, and the healthiest way to nourish an infant. However, we’re finding so many mothers are vitamin D deficient themselves that the milk is therefore deficient, so many babies can’t keep their levels up. They may start their lives vitamin D deficient, and then all they’re getting is vitamin D deficient breast milk,” which, if you read the first part, is sort of an endorsement of breastfeeding although it is quickly followed up by its “dangers.”

It isn’t as if anything said in the article is wrong. And if you already know how important it is to breastfeed (when possible, of course – some moms do not have the ability or luxury of breastfeeding, and this is in no way a critique of them) then this article isn’t going to discourage you. However, if you aren’t sure this article could be read as, “Better be safe than sorry and just do formula.” Which is not good for so many reasons (Mothering Magazine covers this well – see, for instance here, here or here.)

It reminds me of this new style (or maybe it is old, but I notice it more these days) of writers trying to be somehow “neutral” by saying, “Well, so and so says this,” and “another so and so says this” and leaving it at that like, “Well, we’ll just let the reader decide,” even when it comes to things where there is a clear consensus.

I just feel like the slight gains in making mamas and families feel like breastfeeding is a good, viable option for feeding their babies are fragile and I wish the Times would be a little bit more careful in their approach to such important topics. And, although I don’t like the Times article, it is mostly upsetting in the wider context that there is a lack of awareness of the importance of breastfeeding and climate of non-support of breastfeeding mothers. And this just doesn’t help things much.

Advertisements

4 Responses to New York Times Watch: Exclusive breastfeeding may not be best for your baby. Ugg.

  1. Kari says:

    OK, really? Do we all know that Vitamin D is really more of a hormone and that you get it from being outside in the sun?? This makes me just livid. I have three “babies” who are now strapping teen aged boys that were exclusively breastfed forever, or for many, many months at least. The NYTimes makes me angry at least once a week now, and you’re dead on E. that this is a trend to leave any actual facts totally out of any piece. Vitamin D is hugely important, so go walk to the store every day with your baby in a sling and ha, there you go, it’s taken care of!

  2. jacqueline says:

    This is how “misinformation” gets into the psyche. I hate this. I breastfed my daughter for 4 years and she is fine. We, like Kari, went outside. Goodness!

  3. Tracey says:

    What a disappointing article. You would think the Times could do better. Why not report a natural solution – like the suggested going outside – instead of suggesting drops or some other “manufactured” source? I just don’t ever remember Vitamin D deficiency being a big concern 100 years ago! People just were not barricaded in their homes.

  4. Winnie says:

    It isn’t a Vitamin D definciency, it’s a sunlight deficiency! It’s just another way that things are worded to make artificial feeding seem the norm and breastfeding a “nice little extra”. In toomany cities, air pollution does decrease the amount of sun exposure we can get. Fear of other dangers outside forces too many to stay inside longer than is really healthy. In addition, political correctness creeps in. Many of us no longer live in the climate where our skin tones were established in our ancestors. Light skinned people now live in areas where there is much longer and stronger sunlight available and many dark skinned people live in climates further from the equator which is the opposite of where their ancestors lived. Light skin developed where the risk of sunburn was lower and allowd for maximum absorbtion of the natural Vitamin D. Darker skin developed as protection against the harmful aspects of the sun while still allowing for sufficient Vitamin D. Sunlight (Vitamin D) deficiency occurs more in darker skinned individuals living in northern climes, but due to PC, it wmight be controversial to give different recommendations for persons of African heritage.
    Of course the message comes across than human milk is deficient while artifical baby milk is just fine. The truth is thal it is probably a good idea to give all babies who are not able to get sufficient safe sun exposure need additional vitamin D. It does NOT occur in sufficient amounts in animal milks either, so it is ADDED TO formula and may be necessary to be added to the diet of normally fed infants.
    IT’S ALL IN THE WORDING!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: