View Full Version : Is breast milk from a smoking mother better than formula?
What do you think?
DO you think the breast milk of a smoker is better for a baby than formula?
sam's mum
19-06-2009, 17:59
The hierarchy of supply by the ABA is:
Breastmilk from a non smoking mother
Breastmilk from a smoking mother
formula from a non smoking mother
formula from a smoking mother.
I agree with this. I think that the benefits from the breastmilk outweigh the negatives. especially because a lot of the negatives come from the second and third hand smoke, and the baby is going to get those regardless of whether they are breast or formula fed.
Of course it is.
It absolutely staggers me that anyone has voted no.
i think formula would be better
Breast milk is always better.
Even donated ebm from a smoker is better then formula
Hootenanny
19-06-2009, 18:40
Definately breastmilk. :yes:
Sids even had this on their website;
Sources of environmental tobacco smoke exposure
A case-control study found that cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) levels in body fluids and
hair of babies were not significantly higher in breast fed babies whose mothers smoked than
compared to bottle fed babies with mothers who smoked, suggesting that the transfer of
nicotine and cotinine in breast milk was not a significant factor and that passive smoking was the major cause of the observed high levels.
Research has also shown that it is not just smoking around the baby that is dangerous but also smokers being in close contact with the baby as they continue to exhale toxic fumes after smoking.
I can't believe that with all of the publicity surrounding Sids that parents are still misinformed or unaware, they might need to do some more promotion on this subject.
Makes it sound like people will think it's ok to smoke while breastfeeding then?
If the facts are there to back them up?!?!
Blueberry Crumble
19-06-2009, 19:52
I would rather my baby had formula that smokers breastmilk <text deleted by mod>
These threads always end in tears!
Im not voting because I wouldnt care either way. <text deleted> Each to their own...
This has been done before.
Hootenanny
19-06-2009, 20:07
Makes it sound like people will think it's ok to smoke while breastfeeding then?
If the facts are there to back them up?!?!
I don't think most breastfeeding mums would see it that way
Phyllis Stein
19-06-2009, 20:07
This has been done before.
Ah, the great Smoking BF vs Formula debate of '08. I still have the scars!
Phyllis Stein
19-06-2009, 20:09
Oops, meant to add, smokers breastmilk is better, of course!
These threads always end in tears!
It doesnt have to! :no:
This has been done before.
where? :confused:
It doesnt have to! :no:
You didnt see the last time this thread came up then!! :D It got very......ah......heated.
Hollywood
19-06-2009, 20:17
The hierarchy of supply by the ABA is:
Breastmilk from a non smoking mother
Breastmilk from a smoking mother
formula from a non smoking mother
formula from a smoking mother.
I agree with this. I think that the benefits from the breastmilk outweigh the negatives. especially because a lot of the negatives come from the second and third hand smoke, and the baby is going to get those regardless of whether they are breast or formula fed.
:iagree:
This has been asked before
where? :confused:
Last year....it went down like a lead balloon....people just couldn't get it, despite the facts being laid in front of them.
Poor Phyllis, she still carries the scars.
I don't remember which section it got posted in...the whole thing possible got deleted. It was nasty.
Okay found them:thumbsup: sorry i must have missed them!
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=199850&highlight=smoking
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=200885
This is very good information, thanks Phylis
infants born to smoking parents are better protected by breastfeeding than by formula feeding.
http://sjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/3/284
:yes: that was the answer i was looking for.
Tam-I-Am
19-06-2009, 20:35
Makes it sound like people will think it's ok to smoke while breastfeeding then?
No, it's not okay to smoke when breastfeeding, and nobody's said that. What they've said is that if a mother is going to smoke anyway, it's far better for the baby to be receiving the benefits and protection of breastmilk while being exposed to the damaging effects of cigarette smoke (ie through skin-to-skin contact and clothes-to-skin contact with a smoker), than it is for that same baby to be formula fed by a smoker.
The benefits of breastmilk - even breastmilk from a smoker - outweigh the dangers of being fed formula.
As for fact, yes, there are any number of sources who back this up - the World Health Organisation, the Australian Breastfeeding Association, the La Leche League, the International Lactation Consultants Association, and the list goes on.
:)
No, it's not okay to smoke when breastfeeding, and nobody's said that. What they've said is that if a mother is going to smoke anyway, it's far better for the baby to be receiving the benefits and protection of breastmilk while being exposed to the damaging effects of cigarette smoke (ie through skin-to-skin contact and clothes-to-skin contact with a smoker), than it is for that same baby to be formula fed by a smoker.
The benefits of breastmilk - even breastmilk from a smoker - outweigh the dangers of being fed formula.
As for fact, yes, there are any number of sources who back this up - the World Health Organisation, the Australian Breastfeeding Association, the La Leche League, the International Lactation Consultants Association, and the list goes on.
:)
Oh it's like deja vu....oh hang on....:p
No, it's not okay to smoke when breastfeeding, and nobody's said that.
What they've said is that if a mother is going to smoke anyway, it's far better for the baby to be receiving the benefits and protection of breastmilk while being exposed to the damaging effects of cigarette smoke (ie through skin-to-skin contact and clothes-to-skin contact with a smoker), than it is for that same baby to be formula fed by a smoker.
The benefits of breastmilk - even breastmilk from a smoker - outweigh the dangers of being fed formula.
As for fact, yes, there are any number of sources who back this up - the World Health Organisation, the Australian Breastfeeding Association, the La Leche League, the International Lactation Consultants Association, and the list goes on.
:)
That makes sense. The breastmilk would be better if the Mother was going to smoke whether bf or ff.
I was sort of thinking of it as breastmilk from a smoker compared to formula from a non-smoker? Whats peoples opinion on this?
Boobycino
19-06-2009, 20:43
I voted yes, but I dont know, its just to the best of my knowledge.
I was sort of thinking of it as breastmilk from a smoker compared to formula from a non-smoker? Whats peoples opinion on this?
Go and read the links Morrigan posted....this has all been covered.
*runs away from thread screaming...'why why why'*
Sorry Jensha...but first time round was bad enough!
Tam-I-Am
19-06-2009, 20:47
That makes sense. The breastmilk would be better if the Mother was going to smoke whether bf or ff.
I was sort of thinking of it as breastmilk from a smoker compared to formula from a non-smoker? Whats peoples opinion on this?
As I said - breastmilk, even that from a smoker, affords great protection than formula - and therefore the benefits outweigh the dangers from formula.
And in any case, that point would be moot - if a parent were choosing formula because they were a smoker, then they would be a smoker, so there would be no non-smoker to care for the baby, if you see what I mean? In that case, breastmilk would be the superior choice.
The World Health Organisation is pretty clear that there are very very few situations where breastmilk is NOT the superior choice (ie one of the being where the mother is infected with HIV. Then her breastmilk is NOT superior for the baby, because of the high risk of maternal transmission). In this case, donor wetnurse would be the first choice, donor EBM the next, and then formula the last.
:)
Tam-I-Am - I know if they were a smoker then they would still be a smoker if they chose formula...it was more just hypothetical:o.
DoubleAce - :yes:Most threads like this don't seem to end nicely. I'll have a look at the links. And hopefully this thread manages to stay nice:thumbsup:
hailsntwang
19-06-2009, 20:55
I said no
Facts or no facts I wouldn't want my baby around smoke let alone drinking breastmilk from a smoker
Um, I would say I have no idea.....
UmmInayah
19-06-2009, 21:32
You can't argue with the ABA! :)
I said no
Facts or no facts I wouldn't want my baby around smoke let alone drinking breastmilk from a smoker
that is what i thought too :yes:
You can't argue with the ABA! :)
I guess not!
What is very good to know for women that are breastfeeding and just find it too hard to quit the smokes... at least for them, it gives a little peace of mind that by continuing to breastfeed is still good for the baby.
I doubt there are many women that breastfeed and smoke that dont worry about the effects. Same with anti-depressants or a glass of wine or even coffee (they are all drugs)
but for some women a smoke (when addicted) can save their sanity and being a sane Mummy is very important..
so I think to alleviate the guilt a little and encouraging them to breast feed is a very good thing and good things dont happen often, especially to smokers
I answered NO....
IMO formula would be better ... doesn't contain carcinogenics where as breastmilk from a smoker would... :yes:
Well see depends on the hypothetical, obviously if the mother smokes or if both parents smoke the babies risk of SIDS is doubled so therefore breastfeeding is very important as it can help protect against SIDS and many of the other nasty things in smoke.
But if the hypothetical was that say I was in hospital and DS was 6m old and could only be fed by either non smoking DH with formula or a smoking wetnurse I would pick DH and the formula.
I do respect what the WHO says on this but those are my personal feelings on the matter, not just because of any possible chemicals in the breastmilk but also ones that could be clinging to her clothes, hair etc, I think the negatives of a baby breathing those in would outweigh the positives of BM.
Of course that never happened and the chances of it happening to most people are pretty slim.
~Temet Nosce~
20-06-2009, 09:15
It's my opinion that formula from a non smoking mother is better than breastmilk from a smoking mother.
Hollywood
20-06-2009, 09:30
Just another quote from the ABA:
Smokers may choose to give up breastfeeding because they fear contamination of their milk is a greater risk to the baby than artificial feeding. It is important to remember that artificial milks do not have any of the unique nutritional or immunological advantages of breastmilk and that it is preferable to continue breastfeeding. It is actually more important to stop smoking in families where infants are artificially fed (Chen 1989).
sockstealingpoltergeist
20-06-2009, 10:06
Well see depends on the hypothetical, obviously if the mother smokes or if both parents smoke the babies risk of SIDS is doubled so therefore breastfeeding is very important as it can help protect against SIDS and many of the other nasty things in smoke.
But if the hypothetical was that say I was in hospital and DS was 6m old and could only be fed by either non smoking DH with formula or a smoking wetnurse I would pick DH and the formula.
I do respect what the WHO says on this but those are my personal feelings on the matter, not just because of any possible chemicals in the breastmilk but also ones that could be clinging to her clothes, hair etc, I think the negatives of a baby breathing those in would outweigh the positives of BM.
Of course that never happened and the chances of it happening to most people are pretty slim.
:iagree: My personal choice would be not to feed my child milk from a smoker. However I am not a smoker and cannot stand it, so that clouds my judgement on the issue.
Hollywood
20-06-2009, 10:10
People aren't realising, the issue is that if a mother is going to smoke anyway, the baby is better off being breastfed than formula fed, it's as simple as that.
Of course, ideally she would quit smoking, but if she can't/won't, the baby is better off being breastfed.
I have never smoked, can't stand the stuff either, but I get the above point.
~Temet Nosce~
20-06-2009, 10:13
Well see depends on the hypothetical, obviously if the mother smokes or if both parents smoke the babies risk of SIDS is doubled so therefore breastfeeding is very important as it can help protect against SIDS and many of the other nasty things in smoke.
But if the hypothetical was that say I was in hospital and DS was 6m old and could only be fed by either non smoking DH with formula or a smoking wetnurse I would pick DH and the formula.
I do respect what the WHO says on this but those are my personal feelings on the matter, not just because of any possible chemicals in the breastmilk but also ones that could be clinging to her clothes, hair etc, I think the negatives of a baby breathing those in would outweigh the positives of BM.
Of course that never happened and the chances of it happening to most people are pretty slim.
sorry, must have missed this post. But it pretty much sums up how I feel about it too :yes:
I very much realise that if a mother was to smoke regardless of how they feed, bf is the optimum choice.
Either way, because I'm choosing to ff again this time, I'm so very glad I was able to quit smoking :yes:
I'm sure most people would agree that if the mother was going to smoke anyway, then bf is definitely the best option.
BUT, I think the question is which do YOU think is better, a mother who smokes and bf or just ff (no smoking) - correct me if I'm wrong???
As other people have said, I, personally, would rather feed my baby formula from a non-smoker than give her contaminated breastmilk of a smoker:yes:
~Temet Nosce~
20-06-2009, 10:27
As other people have said, I, personally, would rather feed my baby formula from a non-smoker than give her contaminated breastmilk of a smoker:yes:
exactly, and I'm not sure why people have such a hard time accepting that this is how some people feel about it.
As other people have said, I, personally, would rather feed my baby formula from a non-smoker than give her contaminated breastmilk of a smoker:yes:
Ah, but that is a whole other can of worms. Most ppl do not feel comfortable with the idea of someone else breastfeeding their baby. Let alone the idea of a smoker breastfeeding their baby.
nothanksbye
20-06-2009, 10:53
Of course it is.
Breast milk is still superior. It seems silly to argue any other way.
I think if you disagree then its more to do with opinion then fact.
~Temet Nosce~
20-06-2009, 11:01
I think if you disagree then its more to do with opinion then fact.
um.. yeah pretty sure I already said that. Most other people would agree.
Looshkin
20-06-2009, 11:12
I answered NO....
IMO formula would be better ... doesn't contain carcinogenics where as breastmilk from a smoker would... :yes:
Not being funny here, but I thought formula did have carginogenics, or worse things than the nicoteine from smoker in the breast milk, which is why the who and etc still recommend it over ff? The only thing I am aware of is I think it was manganese or something similar that was many times higher and studies had shown a link between that and adhd??
I'm interested in looking into it really, but have been way to scared to post a question on the negatives or risks or whatever you want to call it on formula feeding because it seems to start a war.
Disappointing because I want to know all the information, negative and positive so I am aware of the choice I make, when I have to make it. Might just start a thread anyway, tbh I'd rather find out the correct information for me, than walk on eggshells in fear of upsetting someone?
I was looking it up out of curiousity and this is from the Australian Breastfeeding ***.
NICOTINE
It is widely acknowledged that women who smoke during pregnancy do not tend to breastfeed, and are more likely to wean their babies earlier than non-smoking women. Interestingly, this phenomenon appears to be dose related: the more cigarettes smoked the less time spent breastfeeding (Saunders 1990).
Nicotine is quickly absorbed after maternal smoking and has a half-life in breastmilk of about 90 minutes. The extent of exposure of a breastfed infant is difficult to assess since at least part of the exposure is due to 'sidestream' smoke. Sidesteam smoke is not filtered and contains more nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide than 'mainstream' smoke drawn through the cigarette and into the mother's mouth and lungs. The median nicotine concentration in infant urine after exposure via breastmilk or via passive inhalation was 14 ng/ml and 35 ng/ml, respectively. It is suggested that the effects of these two modes of transmission are probably additive (Fulton 1990).
Babies who are 'smoked over' are more likely to be hospitalised and to suffer from respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses. Studies show that these infants are more likely to be colicky and irritable and to experience a wide range of problems from apnoea (short periods when the baby stops breathing), vomiting, poor growth, squint (strabismus, cast or lazy eye), hearing impairment and unexplained death. Smoking depresses the immune system, leaving both the mother and infant more vulnerable to infection, allergy and other immunodeficiency problems (Minchin 1991).
Nicotine reduces basal prolactin levels which may lead to a decrease in milk supply. Nicotine also causes an adrenaline rush which may inhibit the release of oxytocin and interfere with the let-down reflex. One study clearly suggests that cigarette smoking significantly reduces breastmilk production at two weeks postpartum from 514 ml/day in non-smokers to 406 ml/day in smoking mothers (Hale 1998). In a counselling situation it is always advisable to ask a mother with constant low supply whether she is a smoker.
Nicotine is an appetite suppressant and can alter the taste of breastmilk. Babies may express their distaste for the milk by fussing and struggling at the breast or even refusing the breast. If the mother smokes more than 15 cigarettes a day, infants can exhibit symptoms of nicotine poisoning (Bisdom 1937). These symptoms may include vomiting after a feed, grey skin colour, loose stools, an increased heart rate and restlessness. Classically, the infant can be observed to wiggle and squirm, giving the appearance of trying to frantically 'tread water' and though they appear very tired they seem to find it hard to keep their eyes shut. Symptoms are slowly reversed when the mother decides to cut back or quit her previous smoking habit. However, infants may also suffer withdrawal symptoms such as sleep disturbances, headaches and irritability.
The breastfeeding mother who wishes to quit smoking may find this is an ideal time to do it. Prolactin and the endogenous opioids released during suckling may actually blunt the worst of her withdrawal symptoms (Minchin 1991). Transdermal nicotine patches used in nicotine withdrawal have been used in breastfeeding mothers. Nicotine levels can be expected to be less in patch users than those found in smokers, assuming the patch is used correctly and the mother abstains from smoking. The mother should be made aware that the patch is delivering nicotine into her system constantly and it may be desirable to only wear the patch for part of the day (manufacturer, pers comm 1997).
Exposure to nicotine can also alter the composition of breastmilk. Breastmilk from a mother who smokes contains many chemical by-products of smoking such as nitrates and nitrites, it may contain pesticides and dioxins and have higher cadmium and lead levels than breastmilk from a non-smoking mother (Minchin 1991). Breastfed infants, whose mothers smoke, may have lower levels of certain vitamins. For example, vitamin B12 may be reduced, as it is needed to detoxify cyanide from cigarette smoke (Saunders 1990).
Smokers may choose to give up breastfeeding because they fear contamination of their milk is a greater risk to the baby than artificial feeding. It is important to remember that artificial milks do not have any of the unique nutritional or immunological advantages of breastmilk and that it is preferable to continue breastfeeding. It is actually more important to stop smoking in families where infants are artificially fed (Chen 1989).
To reduce potential harm from smoking all parents should be encouraged to:
quit if at all possible.
smoke outside the house and car.
smoke only AFTER feeding to reduce nicotine exposure. Try to use other comforting techniques for the baby for 90 minutes after smoking. (This is difficult with a young baby who is feeding frequently, but may be possible once baby has established routines).
avoid vegetables containing considerable amounts of nicotine - eggplant, green and pureed tomatoes and cauliflower. Ten grams of eggplant provides the same amount of nicotine obtained in three hours in a room with minimal tobacco smoke (Laurence 1985).
breastfeed exclusively for the first six months to maximise the infant's protection against respiratory disease, and continue to breastfeed as long as possible.
do not take the baby into smoky environments.
avoid vegetables containing considerable amounts of nicotine - eggplant, green and pureed tomatoes and cauliflower. Ten grams of eggplant provides the same amount of nicotine obtained in three hours in a room with minimal tobacco smoke (Laurence 1985).
Wow..
Opinionated
20-06-2009, 11:30
Tobacco, eggplant and tomatoes are all part of the deadly nightshade family of plants. I was surprised about nicotine in eggplant etc, but it makes sense.
yeah I mean, have you seen that episode of the Simpsons! haha They had tabaco tomatos hehehe. What a conspirisy. :P
*Obviously* breastmilk from a smoking mother is superior to formula. Its a fact. How could anyone think otherwise:confused:
Blueberry Crumble
20-06-2009, 18:41
Who's to stay these studies are accurate anyway? Studies are always being proven wrong and I wouldnt be surprised if this is one of them, considering the toxic properties of cigarette smoke.
Looshkin
20-06-2009, 19:46
Who's to stay these studies are accurate anyway? Studies are always being proven wrong and I wouldnt be surprised if this is one of them, considering the toxic properties of cigarette smoke.
What do you mean the studies aren't correct?
You mean proven medical trials?
If we can't have faith in the results from multiple medical trials, as we do with medications and etc.. then what can we have faith in..?
I've been reading over some trial and case studies as someone lovely provided me some links and I wanted to find out what it was about formula that was risky/what negatives
Turns out my insticts were right on this one, I'm pretty shocked anyone would knowingly say it is superior to breast milk if you were aware of this??
Sorry.. I just don't understand.. it's like reading a study on effects of eating totally processed food verses fresh food and then arguing the results of the case study or trials were wrong anyway..?
reAllytee
20-06-2009, 20:37
Who's to stay these studies are accurate anyway? Studies are always being proven wrong and I wouldnt be surprised if this is one of them, considering the toxic properties of cigarette smoke.
Of course things are always being researched & the likes but we arent talking about a couple of studies done on a few babies or the likes ....
We are talking indepth stuff done over many years with things still ongoing & nothing changes in regards to it
Its not like it is somehow going to dramatically change overnite.
Yes MAYBE in time if our world becomes more polluted as does our systems itself as mothers producing the milk there is a chance that it will become dangerous but I would say being that this is something that has already been recognised its something that many are looking into & changing themselves.
We also arent talking about something that has only been around a few hundred years thats being used we are talking about something thats the biological norm & thats something we have been using for centuries.
HelenHasTwins
20-06-2009, 20:47
I would rather my baby had formula that smokers breastmilk <text deleted by mod>
Me too:rolleyes:
This thread has just had a good clean due to lots of posts getting lost in the familiar landscape of bm v formula and the like. Let's stick to one controversial topic at a time please, people :dizzy:
Good job staying nice, though :thumbsup:
a bit scared to bring this one up again even though it's only a few days old but...
The World Health Organisation is pretty clear that there are very very few situations where breastmilk is NOT the superior choice (ie one of the being where the mother is infected with HIV. Then her breastmilk is NOT superior for the baby, because of the high risk of maternal transmission). In this case, donor wetnurse would be the first choice, donor EBM the next, and then formula the last.
This sounds like what the WHO would say, but I wanted to add that some research that I have heard about even seems to point to breastfeeding being a good choice for these babies in situations where it (breastfeeding) is exclusive. It seems that exclusive breastfeeding is protective of the gut and the HIV is not as likely to be contracted through breastmilk as was once thought, unless the infant is fed other foods/milks. It is the damage done to the gut wall through formula or early introduction of solids that then leads to HIV being caught by babies of infected mothers through breastfeeding.
and on topic I would choose to breastfeed if I was a smoker, rather than choose to use formula and a non smoker to feed my baby. if that was the question? ;)
Phyllis Stein
22-06-2009, 15:22
Wow, that's interesting, meme! I remember reading about a program that helped rural HIV+ women living in developing nations express and pasteurise their own or others breastmilk using basic equipment. The HIV virus is destroyed by pasteurisation. So even in that situation, breastmilk is seen to be the safer choice. :)
HIV pregnancy and breast feeding info (http://www.waaids.com.au/images/stories/factsheets/fact%20sheet%205%20-%20hiv%20aids%20and%20women.pdf)
Of course it is, the benefits in breastmilk make it soooo much more superior then the good stuff would outweigh the bad.
I would also take EBM from a smoker too.
Makes it sound like people will think it's ok to smoke while breastfeeding then?
If the facts are there to back them up?!?!
I don't think it is okay, but it is better then formula.
bronny-jane
25-06-2009, 09:23
well i smoke, and breastfeed...
Fuchsia!
25-06-2009, 09:27
The hierarchy of supply by the ABA is:
Breastmilk from a non smoking mother
Breastmilk from a smoking mother
formula from a non smoking mother
formula from a smoking mother.
I agree with this. I think that the benefits from the breastmilk outweigh the negatives. especially because a lot of the negatives come from the second and third hand smoke, and the baby is going to get those regardless of whether they are breast or formula fed.
:iagree:
Ah, the great Smoking BF vs Formula debate of '08. I still have the scars!
:hair: me too
As far as im concerned, breastmilk trumps all :D
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/Press_Releases/2005/Humphrey_breastfeeding.html
here is some info regarding the research that has been done into exclusive breastfeeding vs partial breastfeeding in regards to HIV transmission.
I am not recommending HIV positive mothers take this as medical advice, as it's obvious if formula is available in a safe way it is a lower risk of transmission, but for many hiv mothers they are in countries where formula poses as many health risks as possible hiv transmission may. it is interesting to discuss on a discussion board.
if you google HIV and exclusive breastfeeding you get many links, they may all refer to this one study and i have no idea how good a one it was, but I have no real reason to doubt the findings.
recently i also heard that breastmilk contains something that may even destroy HIV cells ( may have this slightly wrong) and that scientists are looking into creating a topical cream (if they can work out what it is in the breastmilk i guess and utilise it) that could be applied before intercourse to decrease risk of hiv transmission.
sorry completely off topic :) .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.