An article on breastfeeding, with a similar tone as The Case Against Breastfeeding, has just been published in the U.K. This time the focus is a Norwegian researcher study claiming that breastfeeding has virtually no benefit to babies.
The Daily Mail reports:
Women should forget what they have been told about the health benefits of breastfeeding, it was claimed today.
A controversial new study has concluded that, contrary to the view of many experts, breast is not necessarily best for children in the first months of life.
Professor Sven Carlsen, who led the Norwegian team, declared: 'Baby formula is as good as breast milk.'
...Prof Carlsen's team reviewed data from more than 50 international studies looking at the relationship between breastfeeding and health. Most concluded that the more children were breastfed, the healthier they were.
On the surface this was correct, said Prof Carlsen, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. But he added: 'Even if this is statistically true, it is not because of breastfeeding itself. There are very few studies that have examined the underlying controls on breastfeeding ability.'
The largest study on breastfeeding was conducted in Belarus and involved more than 17,000 women and children who were monitored for six years. It 'cut the legs out from underneath most of the assertions that breastfeeding has health benefits' said the scientists.
Now, did you notice which research "cut the legs out from under" the evidence that breastfeeding benefits babies? It was research conducted by Dr. Michael Kramer. And what did he have to say when The Case Against Breastfeeding and another U.K. article similarly characterized his work?
He, according to this article, was "spitting tacks" over how his research had been "grossly misinterpreted." He stated "there really isn't any controversy about which mode of feeding is more beneficial for the baby and the mother." He called the articles "sensationalist" and accused the journalists of misquoting him in order to support their opinions.
Another curious thing about the conclusions reached by the researcher in this article is that they were based on a study which examined 50 studies before making their claim that there is no benefit to breastfeeding. In contrast, a 2007 U.S. meta analysis which reviewed over 9,000 studies from developed countries, found:
"A history of breastfeeding was associated with a reduction in the risk of acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, asthma (young children), obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis."
And while this topic wasn't discussed in the Daily Mail article, the 2007 study found: "For maternal outcomes, a history of lactation was associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, breast, and ovarian cancer...Early cessation of breastfeeding or not breastfeeding was associated with an increased risk of maternal postpartum depression."
But, all this aside, I have to wonder why are these articles all coming out now. Any ideas?
Want to get email updates from the Motherwear Breastfeeding Blog? Subscribe here. Want an RSS feed? Subscribe here. Want to subscribe to our breastfeeding podcasts on iTunes? Click here.
