There has been a lot of to'ing and fro'ing about how best to feed one's baby, yet I remained surprised to see the leukemia protection link recently resurfacing.  Nonetheless, this tidbit in the news did continue the same thread, with the most consistent support (based upon both scientific and intuitive reasoning) being to go the way nature intended. 

Nonetheless, it is a topic of multiple sides:

The personal:  Perhaps best summed-up by the "saggy boobs" fear, but also a concern of convenience and exposure.

The financial:  which costs most, in the long-run, the tin or the tit?

The nutritional: forumla is, after all, formulaic!  The nutritional consistency can be controlled, and enhanced...whilst breast milk does change during the early growth stages of the child, it cannot compare to the nuances that can be added to formula.  Plus, one might consider cultures where undernourished mothers may not have enough milk...

The pathological: albeit minor, there is a risk of some pathogens crossing the "milk-barrier", as well as, clearly, any toxins to which "Mother" may have been exposed (especially if she is or was a smoker).

There are, I am sure, many other rationalizations - ranging through socio-economic, cultural, cosmetic, emotional...and, although the debate rages on world-wide, it is now a debate more about why or to what extent, rather than one of whether or not breast is better...

But, what do you think?  Let's have a straw poll and see where the droplets fall!

Leave a Reply.