TAXPAYERS pay hundreds of millions of dollars for infant formula for unmarried mothers who are healthy and capable of breastfeeding. These mothers often refuse to breastfeed because it is too much trouble. Why bother? The government provides formula gratis.

Here is an interesting look at this phenomenon by a dietitian who has worked with young, unmarried mothers. The most important issue here is not the money spent by taxpayers, but the cultural effects of that money, which is mindless, wasteful, destructive, anti-child, anti-social behaviors.  Let’s face it. Our government is at war with children.

Writing for the Weston A. Price Foundation, the dietitian recounts her experiences:

I conducted my own small study. During my first year working in the NICU [Neonatal Intensive Care Unit], 94 percent of infants were discharged with a diet of commercial infant formula. One hundred percent of the new mothers of these infants were able to breastfeed or pump their breast milk. And 100 percent of these same mothers were provided with prescriptions to enter the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) government program. This program provides free formula for the infant for the first six months of life.

The geographic area of this NICU has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Many young mothers confess their intention for having a baby was a larger government paycheck for the family unit, or the fact that they would receive free health insurance if they were pregnant. Often one would find a teen mother living with her parent or grandparent. The infant’s father was rarely present or involved, and was in fact usually unknown.

The average taxpayer cost for an infant in the NICU per day is approximately eighty-five hundred dollars. The average stay in our NICU was thirty-two days. The cost to taxpayers for infant formula provided by the WIC government program in 2009 was approximately eight hundred fifty million dollars.

When I asked these moms why they did not want to breastfeed the typical responses were:

“Breastfeeding is gross.” (This was the most common response.)

“My mom did not breastfeed and I want to do as she did.”

“It is easier to use the formula.”

“Why should I take my time? I have other things going on and I get the formula free.”

“The company says the formula is better for my baby.”

“I don’t get enough milk from the breast pump.”

When I asked nurses, other dietitians and physicians why they do not insist on breastfeeding the typical answer was: “It is not my job. That information should have been discussed at their gynecologist’s office before delivery.”

I feel the true reason many caregivers do not encourage breastfeeding is simply in order to feel better about their personal decisions regarding this topic. Many did not breastfeed their own children and seeing other women choose not to breastfeed helps them justify their own choice….

The author also addresses the issue of prenatal nutrition:

The foods that these mothers believed were nutritious were almost always products that they had heard advertised on television. When I asked them to define a nutritious food, the answers I most often received were: granola bar, nutrigrain bar, cereal, orange juice, oatmeal, and skim milk. The typical proteins these mothers consumed were fried chicken, hamburgers, or other types of processed meats found in fast food sandwiches. All of the mothers routinely consumed sodas. Their breakfasts typically consisted of sugary cereals.

I surveyed one hundred seventy moms regarding their diets and found that 86 percent did not think a poor diet related to preterm labor or an infant’s development; 100 percent did not know that what they ate would affect breast milk production and quality; and 45 percent did not believe that what they ate affected their own health.

                                     — Comments —

Gail Aggen writes:

I have been attending WIC and other meetings with a young unwed mother, and I have to say, that the girls are required to attend a one hour class on breastfeeding, wherein they are given lots of information on the advantages, and they are strongly urged to nurse. They are given lots of material to take home to read and supplied with a breastfeeding hotline number that operates 24/7, as well as being given information and phone numbers for visiting nurse and in home parent training services. They must also attend pregnancy/childbirth/baby care classes that run once a week for an hour and a half for ten weeks. I was able to get this girl involved in our local crisis pregnancy center, which is a fabulous Christian ministry run by volunteers on donations from the local Protestant and Catholic churches. She and the father attend the classes there, which have a heavy spiritual focus, by the way. So the agencies are trying, I believe, to help these girls make the right choices, but I think it isn’t enough if there is not a wise, mature person personally involved in the girl’s life. They need someone to be there, coaching and supporting them, especially if proper nutrition for them and baby, and an orderly life is foreign to them.

Laura writes:

That is wonderful and important to offer help and advice to young mothers.

A one-hour class on breastfeeding will probably not do much good for the sort of mothers described in this entry or in the article above though I don’t doubt it may be beneficial for some. Regardless, it is not the government’s role to do this or to fund these programs, particularly for unmarried mothers. It is wrong and ultimately not compassionate. Charity, churches, family and friends can provide for a woman when government is not there. The public expenditure itself is not the biggest problem, but the encouragement of illegitimacy, maternal detachment and fatherlessness.

It is precisely because the government provides infant formula that it must also provide the classes and literature to discourage the use of infant formula. There is no incentive for those wise persons you describe to come forward when all this is left to paid employees. That these basic things are simply given to unwed mothers would have been unthinkable in most of Western history. But then previous eras had a better understanding of what was best for children.

Karen writes:

I don’t think the only reason mothers don’t breastfeed is because the government will pay for it. There is very little education in hospitals about the issue. I had never even held a baby and had no idea other than from books on how to care for one when I had my first in my late 20s. My first child was born by c-section and was given a bottle before he was even brought to me. The same thing happens to countless other mothers every day, especially c-sections, which now account for about a third of births. 

With my second, I was given a fifteen minute basic consult by impatient nurses on the issue. The baby was frustrated and so was I. Mothers are placed under great pressure to feed the baby right away and unless a mother is very capable and committed to breastfeeding, the bottle soon follows. It is very hard to be totally committed to breastfeeding when you have a 6-inch or bigger c-section incision full of stitches and you can’t hold the baby without pain. 

The attitude that the government or a bottle provided by the parents will feed the baby seems to begin in the hospital, with their staff. If that attitude is going to change, it needs to start at that level. The government would be wise to invest taxpayer money into breastfeeding education and not free formula, which many infants cannot tolerate.

Laura writes:

It is true that many women who receive no government-subsidized formula do not breastfeed, sometimes because they have received poor advice or no one to help them. That is a separate issue. However, I will say that there is no need for a vast breastfeeding industry. Mothers can teach other mothers how to do this. The main point here is that government needs to get out of the business of being surrogate fathers and nannies to unwed mothers. When families assume the cost of children, there is much more incentive for breastfeeding, which is much cheaper.

Kendra writes:

I completely agree with your statement. Aren’t you mostly talking about black teen mothers here? I don’t know many white women who do not breastfeed, at least for a few months. The transfer of information about effective mothering requires 1.) a caring mother/grandmother and 2.) a supportive family unit. Most unwed mothers on welfare and WIC in my city are black girls who had teen mothers themselves. The black “family” is non-existent today. Most black girls have no family unit for support, and most do not have mothers who care much about them, and there are no fathers in the picture at all. I was taught from early childhood by my white mother that I would breastfeed my children. My girls will do the same. It is a lesson in basic economics, pro-family, and we consider breastfeeding to be the only option for feeding babies. All of my relatives breastfed their babies and it was a family value for us. Black women find breastfeeding to be something only poor people do, and so trying to not look poor, they choose formula because of the status it holds in black culture. Anything natural is normally tossed aside and something unnatural and artificial is preferred.

I was nursing my infant daughter poolside at our inner-city public swimming pool a few summers ago, and a group of black women swam right up to me and said, “Ooooh! That baby is suckin’ on her titty! That’s nasty!” I laughed and asked the women if they were Christian and they said yes. I asked them if they believed that God created “titties” to feed babies and they were not sure, but still thought it was “nasty” and too sexual. They seemed very confused and completely disgusted, but very interested in watching anyway and one woman told me she tried but the baby did not like it. They worried that my baby would be “spoiled” from nursing. One girl said that she did not think that she made any milk after her baby was born and that her boyfriend would not have let her breastfeed anyway. These are huge cultural obstacles to overcome, in my opinion.

I think that when it comes to nurturing babies, there is a disconnect in the black community, and many black women are unable to bond with their babies in such an intimate way. Babies are often used like a pawn as a way to get a man to commit to the mother. Breastfeeding is completely discouraged in the black community and is considered “acting white” and therefore rejected. I have personally heard this type of language used. My in-laws are black, and I received zero support and some discouragement when I was breastfeeding my babies. They did not understand why I birthed at home, co-slept, carried babies in a sling, nursed on demand and did not leave my babies in the care of others. My babies would surely be spoiled. My black mother-in-law felt left out because she could not bottle-feed my babies, and so she never even attempted to bond with them and could not support me in any way.

I know there are a few black women out there who breastfeed and practice natural mothering, but there is a huge negative stigma attached to “acting white.” It will be up to black women to change this, not a white nurse at the NICU. How many generations of black women will dry up their milk after birth before evolution takes over and the future generation of breasts stop making milk completely? What is the future for black babies after ten generations of not breastfeeding? We are on generation four or five right now.

While I know she means well, this liberal NIC nurse will not change the deeply held cultural values in the black community regarding breastfeeding. Defunding the WIC program, or only offering nutrition to the breastfeeding mother, is the only solution in my opinion. We need to stop this abuse and let the natural consequences of bad decision making play themselves out. Seems harsh, but it is the only option. We shall reap what we sow.

Laura writes:

Kendra makes important points.

When government takes over the role of the black man and subsidizes promiscuity, it creates insecurity and chaos. Government subsidies makes it all the more unlikely that black mothers will treat their children well. That is not to say that the elimination of government aid would eliminate all social pathologies, but there is no question it would seriously reduce them.

Kendra says, “We need to stop this abuse.”

That’s right. And, white liberals don’t give a damn about the hell they have created. It may seem compassionate for social workers to teach black women breastfeeding, and there may be the occasional convert to breastfeeding, but in general they are wasting their time. Blacks have to want to do it. They won’t want to do it if there is a cheaper alternative and if they are always treated like children themselves.

Mabel Le Beau writes:

Weston Price, first of all, is a crock! Or, close to a crock…or drinking from a crock, etc. (And, anyone who cites their ‘research’ is drinking or sitting next to or in the same crock.) [Laura writes: This isn’t formal scientific research and I did not present it as such. It is one nurse’s findings.]

When my sons were born two and three decades ago, the reason children were not widely breastfed was because of social acceptability; fads, and current levels of thinking. Just like the acceptability of whether drinking coffee is beneficial or not. A fad is something that changes with time. Remember, how long it took for people to decide that smoking really was bad for one’s health and that secondhand smoking was bad for one’s health, and that it could be outlawed in places of general public congregation for those who experienced it without their permission, and for a definitive warning to come from the Surgeon General to be placed on smoking materials? [Laura writes: Breastfeeding is affected by attitudes and norms. Regardless, it remains the cheapest and healthiest way to feed babies.]

Breastfeeding was and is a debatable issue based on individual mothers’ convenience (even 10 years ago facilities for ‘pumping milk’ were not widely available in the workplace), educational level and ability to discern the chaff from the wheat, i.e. ‘priorities’ such as whether transmission of mother’s IGM is an important factor in immunity, oxytocin, and other hormones. When major political forces push the government to come up with means to cut the budget, the first things to hit the fan are medical and educational issues. As if to imply, perhaps, that if the general masses were well-educated on medical issues, they would realize that a certain level of Public Health and medical services needs to be provided in a civilized society, and it’s easier to provide propaganda about withdrawing funding for maternal health, newborn care, chronic illness, mental health issues for a widely uninformed population.

(Hence, the mushrooming of organizations like Weston Price and the anti-vaccination crusaders that ‘seem’ to flourish in times of misinformation, uninformation, and knowledge deficits.)

Breastfeeding is a medical and educational issue, and incidentally, a social issue, as well. However, the day that government mandates human breastfeeding for the mothers using USA public welfare programs i.e. Medicaid, WIC, is the day that there is mandatory use of male contraceptivess for men who provide sperm for the women that perform illegitimate sex acts resulting in offspring they are unable to fully care for by themselves. Or, worse, the day for full-blown funding for abortions. [Laura writes: No one here has advocated compulsory breastfeeding. You are way off the mark. The issue is government subsidies for formula that cost taxpayers and constitute a disincentive to breastfeed.]

Even as recently as twenty-five years ago, breastfeeding was still a matter of personal choice and therefore debate, and I find the ‘white’ issue now, of public breast exposure when feeding laughable. [Laura writes: Breastfeeding is still a matter of personal choice. Has anyone ever seriously suggested it should not be? As for public feeding, that is a private issue in which government is not involved. It is unrelated to the larger matter here.]

Y. writes:

The well-written article cited was by a registered dietitian. The foundation publishing the article is named after the dentist Weston A. Price, who travelled around the world studying the effects of nutrition on health and who wrote Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, published in 1939.  

Those who want to know why the foundation, and anyone associated with it, causes such an over-the-top response would do well to read further on the WAP site. 

Mabel writes:

My apologies for becoming unhinged about the nurse’s statement. She came to her conclusions based on her direct observations and what she overheard in opinions of mothers of newborns, just as my opinion is based on what I have observed over the past 30 years in my home and healthcare setting.

What I take umbrage with is the fact that she criticizes a certain group of people, namely ‘blacks’ as if they do anything differently than anyone else in modern society today. It’s almost as if she is attempting to ‘tar’ a whole group of people because she wants to make a point, the point that any Americans in this day and age who would not want to have their children breastfed is wrong.

However, I have no regrets about seeming to go over the top with disparaging remarks about a non-profit organization based in Washington D.C. I have had occasion to review the website with regard to several issues and in reexamining it at the suggestion of Reader Y., I find nothing new nor enlightening. Perhaps, most telling is a statement from the group; “Specific goals include establishment of universal access to clean, certified raw milk and a ban on the use of soy formula for infants.”

Nothing about research into better alternatives for feeding the world or more specifically, any particular location in the world, or ensuring access to adequate nutritional resources throughout the world. Just the statement about raw milk and no soybean-based formulas for those babies under one-year of age. Merely, they will push their agenda on anyone they encounter.

When one delves a little into why or how or when or wherefrom, their reference is a hodge-podge of naturopaths, homeopaths, chiropractors, osteopaths, massage therapists, acupuncturists, yes, a few registered dieticians, etc.; folks that at their best use the 20-40 percent efficacy of the placebo effect. Whenever I see someone referencing their opinion based on Weston Price it is suspect. No one would fault the guy for what he happened to notice, but to build up an entire body of unscientific knowledge around it is reckless. His followers then go from his original observations to make claims about nutritional content of foods, herbal remedies, autism, value of vaccinations in public health, chronic mucous production, and even the cure for acne.

Laura writes:

As for your first point, the dietitian never even mentions blacks or that she is talking about a black population. It is probable she is. She says the area has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the country. Blacks do have a much higher rate of illegitimacy and, at least in this country, do not breastfeed their children often. Perhaps you are referring to Kendra’s remarks, which come from years of living in a black neighborhood and being married to a black man.

You have not established that what the dietitian said is inaccurate. Weston Price’s philosophy and its advocacy for healthier food do not appear radical, but I am only superficially acquainted with both. I see nothing extreme in this particular article or in the foundation’s advocacy for raw milk and breastfeeding.

Laura adds:

The Weston Price Foundation is not obligated to solve world poverty because it is interested in nutrition.

Kendra writes:

I take full responsibility for the comments I made about some black women and their cultural beliefs. I have lived with black family members for over 20 years and I believe that I can confidently comment and express my expertise on the subject without holding a Master’s Degree in “race relations.”  In her haste to disagree, Mabel does not even know who has said what in the posts.

Race relations, immunizations, breastfeeding and proper nutrition are all very hot button subjects, and I am very used to the controversy.

I do not have to be a trained medical expert with a license in order to understand and practice the basics of proper nutrition, or to feed my children a diet full of nutrient dense foods. In my quest for the truth, I have searched high and low for the information that would enable me to give my children the best start in life. I found local farmers who can supply the goods I need to property feed my family. I believe that more mothers should be brave enough to take charge of the health of their families, and the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) empowers women with correct information. My family has a history of degenerative diseases such as diabetes, low birth weight, arthritis, crooked teeth, obesity, Alzheimer’s and heart disease. I wanted to make sure that I was not perpetuating these problems because of my ignorance about health and nutrition. The WAPF literally fell into my lap at the right time.

I have closely followed the Weston A. Price Foundation for at least ten years now. I have seen the tragic effects of feeding children the Standard American Diet. I own a share of a cow in rural Indiana which provides organic raw milk for my family. I take very seriously the teachings of the WAPF, and I know from personal experience that the information presented creates major controversy, especially among registered healthcare workers and those who support immunization and other pharmaceuticals. Many mothers I know incorrectly rely on pediatricians and other so called “experts” who are not properly trained in proper nutrition. They give women some of the most dangerous advice. I hear excuse after excuse about why it is too difficult for women to master the basic methods of proper nutrition, how busy mothers are today with work and other obligations and are unable to cook for their families, how everyone is in such a hurry to get somewhere, and how they don’t have the “luxury” as I do to read all of the books and website articles. There are so many excuses women give for not doing the right thing.

I would highly recommend the book Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon. It is the encyclopedia of proper nutrition, in my opinion, and explains the concepts in great detail. I served on the board of directors for our local chapter, and taught many classes about the preparation foods using traditional methods and the feeding of children properly on a single income. I have seen with my own children the amazing benefits of proper nutrition, and I have found that those who criticize the information are afraid of mothers who take charge of the personal health of their families. Our world would be a different place if woman would stop listening to the so called “experts.” It could lead to great unemployment in the medical industry!

Y. writes:

Mabel writes: Nothing about research into better alternatives for feeding the world or more specifically, any particular location in the world, or ensuring access to adequate nutritional resources throughout the world. Just the statement about raw milk and no soybean-based formulas for those babies under one-year of age. Merely, they will push their agenda on anyone they encounter. “ 

One of the reasons WAP opposes soy formula is because soy has phystoestrogens which have, as the National Institute of Health says, the “ability to act like the hormone estrogen in the body…Also, infants go through developmental stages that are sensitive to estrogens. Therefore, infants are more likely than adults to be vulnerable to the estrogen-like effects of the phytoestrogens in soy.” WAP gives alternate formulas.

If I had an infant with feeding problems I would be grateful for the information and would hardly think it was pushed on me. I don’t agree with WAP about everything, but I don’t therefore blindly write them off. I appreciate the good they do. 

WAP, as their site shows, supports nutrient-dense food and small farmers, and consumers’ access to their products, around the world. Their winter 2010 Journal tells what is happening to family farms in Poland since Poland joined the EU. Also, via their link with Real Milk, there is a growing list of farmers around the world who sell not only raw organic milk but other organic food.

Please follow and like us: