(NaturalNews) A recent NY Times
(NYT) article covered the trend of more and more hospitals no longer giving out free samples of infant formulas to birthing mothers provided by the manufacturers.
The article cited expert consensus for the benefits of breast feeding and the infant formula manufacturers' understanding that breast feeding is "the gold standard." But it also focused considerably on the mothers who protest the ban.
Considerable commentary both in the article and in the comments displayed the pro and con sides of this issue. The con-side declared some mothers cannot breast feed, and formula is expensive. They weren't reminded how inexpensive breast feeding is.
But the pro side points out that when a hospital provides free samples of infant formula, it makes it appear that there is no difference in how someone feeds an infant. And it also makes it seem there is no support for overcoming actual breast feeding difficulties.
Here's one example of support from this pediatric guide for breast feeding issues. (http://pediatrics.about.com
Granting longer periods of paid maternity leave would be helpful. The US.. ranks lowest among industrialized nations for paid maternity leaves, which emphasize the mother's recovery more than giving her space and time to breast feed for at least six months.
Comparing infant formula with mothers' breast milk
One weakness displayed both in the NYT article and its comments was the lack of nutritional awareness. Soy-based infant formulas were often referred to as a good solution. But the fact is that soy
, even non-GMO soy, has problems. And most soy is GM.
The only soy that's beneficial is fermented, organic soy, such as that which comprises natto, tempeh, misso, and some
soy sauces. Soy as a health food is a con. Even non-GMO soy, which is very rare, has several anti-nutrients that block or impede the body's ability to absorb nutrients.
Soy products dampen thyroid activity, promote excessive blood clotting, contain phytoestrogens that create hormone imbalances, and carry toxic levels of aluminum and manganese. Soy crops, especially GMOs, are very heavily sprayed with toxic chemicals. Even non-soy milk
infant formulas contain some soy products.
Infant formulas contain massive amounts of sugar that may be GMO (beet sugar) and even worse, GMO corn syrup compounds or HFCS (high fructose corn syrup). Unlike sugar, corn syrup or HFCS is not fully metabolized into energy. Almost half of it is stored in the liver as fat.
Mike Adams jumps all over what Similac contains after analyzing the label. Similac had to be recalled around that time because beetle larvae was found in some of their formula products.
But Mike asserts the bugs are not the issue; the formula itself amounts to "nutritional child abuse." (http://www.naturalnews.com/029863_Similac_infant_formula.html
Water needs to be added to instant formula powders. Unless a family resides in a non-fluoridated water supply area, they'll be poisoning their children further without using reverse osmosis filtered water. The child's IQ will be lower in addition to suffering some brain damage and other health consequences. (http://www.naturalnews.com/032129_fluoridation_intelligence.html
One solution is for the mothers who find it impossible to breast feed to purchase infant formulas with added prebiotics and probiotics, which can also be added to standard infant formulas (http://www.naturalnews.com
Goat's milk colostrum powder may be a way to replace the mother's milk colostrum that's missing from infant formulas. Goat's milk resembles human mother's milk more than cow's milk. Colostrum protects the infant's fragile immune system. Lactoferrin supplements can also be added.
Even pediatricians agree that breast feeding for at least the first six months is vital for you child's overall future health. Just say no to pediatric pushiness on vaccinating your children. (http://www.naturalnews.com
)Sources for this article include:http://www.nytimes.comhttp://pediatrics.about.com/od/weeklyquestion/a/04_supp_prob.htmhttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/1/8http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121313791751362341.html