Breastfeeding advocates have criticised the phrase ‘breast is best’ as mistakenly representing breastfeeding as a departure from the norm rather than the default for infant feeding. Breastfeeding mothers have an interest in representing breastfeeding as the default, for example, to counteract criticism of breastfeeding outside the home. This connects to an increasing trend to frame feeding babies formula as harmful, which can be seen in research papers, public policy and information presented to parents and prospective parents. (1) Whether we frame infant-feeding decisions in terms of harming or benefit, protection or risk matters because these distinctions are generally morally significant and thus (2) holding that those who decide to use formula ‘harm’, ‘risk harm’ to their babies or describing formula feeding as ‘dangerous’ is likely to contribute to guilt associated with formula feeding and thus to undermine the well-being of vulnerable women. It may undermine attempts to improve breastfeeding rates by leading women to reject information about health outcomes surrounding infant-feeding decisions. However, (3) these distinctions do not apply easily to infant-feeding decisions, in part because of difficulties in determining whether we should treat breastfeeding as the normative baseline for infant feeding. I show that neither the descriptive ‘facts of the matter’ nor moral or pragmatic considerations provide an easy answer before discussing how to respond to these considerations.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors This paper is the sole work of the author.
Funding This paper is associated with a research project funded by Program for Research, Development and Innovation Oriented to Societal Challenges, Ministry of Economy in Spain (grant no. FFI2016-77755-R).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement No unpublished data are used in the study.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Breastfeeding and defeasible duties to benefit
- Breastfeeding exposure is associated with better knowledge of and attitudes toward BF in Kuwaiti women
- Advertisements of follow-on formula and their perception by pregnant women and mothers in Italy
- Systematic review of infant and young child feeding practices in conflict areas: what the evidence advocates
- Women’s experiences of ceasing to breastfeed: Australian qualitative study
- Digital marketing of formula and baby food negatively influences breast feeding and complementary feeding: a cross-sectional study and video recording of parental exposure in Mexico
- Qualitative study of decisions about infant feeding among women in east end of London
- A serial qualitative interview study of infant feeding experiences: idealism meets realism
- Marketing breast milk substitutes: problems and perils throughout the world
- Association of breast feeding with early childhood dental caries: Japanese population-based study