Sometimes a Comment Launches a Post

I had to share this comment I received on my latest posting about nontoxic cribs and BPA-free baby bottles. Miranda wrote:

Isn't a better solution just not buying all this crap in the first place? If you cosleep, you don't need a crib or crib mattress. A bed with a towel thrown on is just as effective as buying a changing table. You don't need BPA-free bottles if you breastfeed exclusively.

I don't think she meant it to sound quite as harsh as it sounds, but I'm glad she posted this comment because it brings up an argument I find maddening. First of all, women who breastfeed exclusively also utilize bottles. As I told her in my reply, I breastfed my son exclusively for twelve months. He self-weaned and was moved directly on to cow's milk. However, I also pumped extensively (ask my husband--the sound of the motor kept him up at night) because I also had to leave the house from time to time without my son--client meetings, hair appointments, doctor's appointments, and so on. My mother watched him during these times and certainly couldn't breastfeed him herself. My son ate every two hours. I had to leave bottles of expressed breast milk for him, hence the BornFree baby bottles.

However, what I find much more disturbing is this idea (and I don't know that Miranda meant this idea to come across, but it's there) that if we'd only breastfeed our babies, we wouldn't have to worry about BPA or if we'd only change our babies on our mattresses, we wouldn't have to worry about formaldehyde. Such an argument lets chemical companies off the hook--let them continue using BPA, we'll just breastfeed our babies. And to hell with the babies who have to use baby bottles because, oh, their mothers are, say, single mothers who have to work in order to feed and shelter that baby. Or because their breastfeeding mama had to run out to do a chore and grandma needed a bottle. Such an argument is so inward looking that it rings horribly unfair. I would hazard a guess that the majority of mothers up in arms about BPA in baby bottles are breastfeeding mothers who care about all babies--formula fed or breast fed. We come together as a community to get rid of these toxins because they are what's best for all of us, not just those of us who chose (or even had the luxury) to breastfeed or co-sleep.

And it goes without saying, of course, that the vast majority of canned foods contain a BPA lining. If only we'd stop eating canned foods, then we wouldn't have to worry about this, right? What about the people who eat food from cans--pretty much everybody in the world, at least once in a while? Damn 'em. Let us not pressure the bottle makers and the furniture makers to use different components. What's left unsaid in this argument, too, is that the obstacles to breastfeeding are most numerous in the poorer classes of this society. Single mothers have to work; few workplaces make lactation rooms available. Two income households--same problem. Believe it or not, many women have to work in order to provide for their children, and they do not have the luxury at McDonald's or even at big firms, to retire to a lactation room and pump out a supply of breastmilk. Telling them that if only the'd breastfeed their children would be safe is disingeous and ungenerous. And this comes from a woman who was lucky enough to be able to breastfeed her baby for as long as he wanted.

Miranda's comment, innocent though it may be, did give me an excuse to post about this idea as well as the more minor issue of baby bottles = formula and breastfeeding = no baby bottles. Not only are those equations false, but a comment like hers suggests that we shouldn't even worry about the babies being fed formula for whatever reason--let them ingest the chemicals due to their mothers' "bad behavior."