subgenius wrote:[are] the decades of science behind baby formula good or bad?
Good quality baby formula, correctly and hygienically prepared, and fed to the infant in appropriate amounts, enables children to be adequately nourished when:
(a) The mother is medically unable to breastfeed the baby.
OR
(b) The mother's work or social circumstances make it difficult to breastfeed the baby.
OR
(c) The mother simply does not wish to breastfeed the baby.
Of course it is a good thing that such products have been developed, since if circumstances like (a) (b) or (c) obtain, it is no longer necessary for the child to be fed on inadequate or harmful preparations such as cow's milk (fresh or otherwise) or 'pap' of various kinds.
What is bad is when mothers who would otherwise be able and willing to give their babies the benefits of breast milk are dissuaded from doing so by marketing campaigns that give them the impression that formula is nutritionally superior to breastmilk, or is otherwise to be preferred as a sign of sophistication, and truly caring 'scientific' parenthood.
If the result is that the baby is fed on good quality baby formula, correctly and hygienically prepared, not much is lost, although breast milk gives the child some things that cannot be bought in a tin.
But if the result is that a poor woman trying to do her best for her baby ends up buying cheap and perhaps adulterated products, which she has not got the facilities to prepare hygienically, and of which she cannot afford to buy enough to nourish her child adequately, the result is a malnourished or even sick child who would have been much better off breastfed.
