"...[I]n an effort to encourage breast-feeding, what the American Academy of Pediatrics has deemed the healthier food source for newborns, 11 public hospitals in the city have decided to stop giving free formula samples to new mothers.

Similar actions have been taken by hospitals in California, Colorado, Massachusetts and Texas. Fueling this movement are studies that have shown that new mothers who are given free samples of formula are less likely to stick with breast-feeding after they leave the hospital. As a reference point, the academy recommends that women breast-feed their infants exclusively for the first six months, citing that a half year of breast-feeding reduces the risk and duration of infectious illnesses as well as the risk of chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel diseases and juvenile-onset diabetes.

With all the evidence in favor of breast-feeding, I can understand why New York City hospitals are concerned. Surveys show that although 75 percent of New York City moms begin breast-feeding, more than half, 38 percent, quit before six months. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also concerned about these statistics and has joined the breast-feeding crusade, recently beginning a multimillion-dollar parenting campaign that includes $2 million for initiatives in city-run hospitals to promote breast-feeding. Part of that campaign involves banning free formula samples to new mothers."

"When Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5 pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty.

This particular calamity - at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years - may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.

...The fact remains, though, that humans prefer animal proteins and fats to cereals and tubers, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in quantity and quality - even soy.

A vegan diet may lack vitamin B12, found only in animal foods; usable vitamins A and D, found in meat, fish, eggs and butter; and necessary minerals like calcium and zinc. When babies are deprived of all these nutrients, they will suffer from retarded growth, rickets and nerve damage.

Responsible vegan parents know that breast milk is ideal. It contains many necessary components, including cholesterol (which babies use to make nerve cells) and countless immune and growth factors. When breastfeeding isn't possible, soy milk and fruit juice, even in seemingly sufficient quantities, are not safe substitutes for a quality infant formula.

Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development.

A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium. Too often, vegans turn to soy, which actually inhibits growth and reduces absorption of protein and minerals. That's why health officials in Britain, Canada and other countries express caution about soy for babies. (Not here, though - perhaps because our farm policy is so soy-friendly.)

...An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow."

The advantages of breastfeeding are now so well established that serious scholars no longer dispute them.  What some American feminists do dispute, however, is the relationship between maternal employment and breastfeeding.  Some American feminists assert that the low level of breastfeeding among employed American mothers is anomalous, a sorry reflection on the singular backwardness of the policies that American lawmakers and corporate executives have put in place.  Two new studies - one from Greece and one from the Netherlands - indicate, however, that maternal employment creates a serious impediment for maternal breastfeeding in lands far from the United States.

The authors of the Greek study - published in Acta Pediatrica - begin by emphasizing that "breast milk is nutritionally and immunologically superior to any known substitute" and by citing the World Health Organization's recommendation of "exclusive breastfeeding for 6 mo[nths] as a global policy in order to achieve optimal maternal and infant health."  But when the Greek scholars look at data for 1,603 healthy women who delivered normal-weight babies in Athens in 2001, they find indications that maternal employment is preventing even initiation of breastfeeding.  More specifically, they find that over half (56%) of the 62 women in the study who did not breastfeed at all in the hospital after giving birth were employed, while less than half of the 306 women who breastfed exclusively in the hospital (43%) were employed.  Of the 1,117 women in the Greek study who departed from the WHO's recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding by giving their newborn babies a combination of breast milk and formula while in the hospital, almost two thirds (61%) were employed.  Commenting on their findings, the Greek scholars remark, "Employment is generally considered as a factor that has a negative impact on breastfeeding initiation." 

But it is the maintenance more than the initiation of breastfeeding that appears to be negatively affected by maternal employment in a Dutch study published in the same issue of Acta Pediatrica as the Greek study.  Analyzing national data for 9,133 Dutch infants under the age of seven months, the Dutch researchers find that although a very high percentage of employed Dutch mothers begin breastfeeding, relatively few continue it for even four months, two months short of the duration recommended by the WHO.  The data for four-month-old infants indicate that "mothers who did not leave the house to work, or who had a less than part-time job (i.e. < 16h/wk) were more likely to mainly breastfeed their infant at 4 mo[nths] compared to women who worked outside the house for more than 16 h/wk" (Odds Ratio of 1.57).  Almost half (44%) of mothers with no job or less than a part-time job were still mainly breastfeeding their infant at four months compared to less than a third (29%) of mothers employed full-time.  "Maternal job status," observe the Dutch scholars, "is an important predictor for longer duration of breastfeeding."

In country after country, it appears clear that maternal employment means infants are denied the benefits of breastfeeding.