Viewpoint: The Breast-Feeding Police Are Wrong About Formula

Lactation activists alienate new moms with their all-or-nothing approach, leaving most women to figure out a way to combine breast milk with formula on their own.

  • Share
  • Read Later
NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP/Getty Images

Women breastfeed their babies at the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington on February 12, 2011 during a "nurse-in" organized after a woman was stopped from nursing in public at the museum by security guards.

Pediatric researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have just discovered something that anthropologists (and moms around the world) have known for years. You do not have to go all or nothing on breast-feeding in the very beginning in order to breast-feed successfully long term.

(MORE: How Formula Could Increase Breast-Feeding Rates)

In fact, a new paper in the journal Pediatrics has found that early limited formula feeding actually increases the rate of long-term exclusive breast-feeding. The difference was quite dramatic. A total of 79% of 3-month-old infants who received early supplementation were being breast-fed exclusively, while only 42% of babies who received no supplements were still being exclusively breast-fed at 3 months old. The study involved only a small number of infants, all of whom were losing weight at a rapid rate as newborns, but the findings may have implications for all breast-feeding mothers.

Breast-feeding activists have long argued that supplementation is detrimental to breast-feeding. It is a position that has been codified in the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (“Give infants no food or drink other than breast milk, unless medically indicated”) and programs like New York City’s Latch on NYC, which goes so far as to lock up formula as if it were a dangerous drug.

(MORE: Breast-Feeding Wars: Why Locking Up Baby Formula Is a Bad Idea)

What’s interesting to note is the fact that many other cultures — some with much higher breast-feeding rates than ours — infants are given other liquids until a mother’s milk comes in. According to a review of 25 previously published studies of tens of thousands of mother-infants pairs in such countries as India, China, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, a significant portion of women (from 25% to 50%) delayed breast-feeding for an average of 66 hours. Many of these infants received supplemental fluids, some of which are even imputed to have ritual significance.

One of the greatest barriers to breast-feeding in this country is the unreasonable expectations set by breast-feeding advocates. They are loathe to admit that many babies may benefit from supplementation in the first days after birth, that some babies will require more milk than their mothers produce, and that many mothers must return to work within weeks and simply cannot breast-feed exclusively. Instead of acknowledging those realities, they have alienated new mothers with their all-or-nothing approach, leaving most women to figure out a method of combining breast and formula feeding that works for them on their own.

(MORE: Dr. William Sears: Meet the Man Who Remade Motherhood)

According to the most recent numbers available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 25% of breast-fed children are given supplemental formula in the first two days of the child’s life, 37% of breast-fed children are given supplemental formula by 3 months and 43% by 6 months of age. Those are some large numbers, and yet women who combine breast-feeding with any formula at all are basically anathema to the lactation police.

The Pediatrics study is both small and preliminary, but the results accord with breast-feeding practices both around the world and in our own backyard. It’s time to put what we know to good use to stop making women feel guilty about combining breast-feeding and supplementation if that’s what works for her baby and herself.

40 comments
KateieB
KateieB

Yes! Formula isn't poison and moters shouldn't be made to feel guilty for using it. I wasn't producing enough for my daughter. She had a tongue tie with a terrible latch on top of that. I knew formula was a safe a viable alternative to supplement her with. Even so, I felt so guilty for resorting to it initially. I knew better. I tokd myself I knew better. Didn't help. I was failing her. I felt like I was feeding her poison. Fortunately, my saner self soon took over and the feelings of wretchedness soon passed. No parent should be made to feel like that. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. The middle ground is a valid option, too.

ShamsAci
ShamsAci

Any substitute claiming as an alternative of breast-milk formulated from time to time would probably be good but not as ideal as breast- milk for the newborn because the former is natural, while the latter is artificial.

- A.R.Shams’s Reflection – Creative Living Spirit – Press / Online Publications – Moral Messages for Humanity – http://www.arshamssreflection.blogspot.com

boydchelsea1021
boydchelsea1021

I believe in breastfeeding, even though formula is a great substitution if you research it they use a lot of different chemicals to help process the formula so your baby is getting a healthy dose of damaging chemicals that can affect it at a later life. I cant produce breast milk so I had no choice but sometimes you should really be cautious and really know a product before you use it. 

AB68
AB68

I thought this was an excellent article. I only wish it had been around shortly before I had my first son, back in 2003. My initial intention was to breastfeed my child, but I was unable to. I had been induced in order to give birth, and I believe that due to a lot of drugs in my system, my milk did not come in until about 4 days after his birth. I tried in earnest to breastfeed him, but I was producing no milk whatsoever. The pressure from the lactation specialists and from the hospital staff itself, was nothing short of intense. My husband's Type-A siblings and their adherence to experts' advice, were of no help either. I fully understand why the author of this article would refer to the breast-feeding advocates as the "breast-feeding police". That they were; I witnessed it full force. After four days, I finally decided to give my child formula, and when I made that decision, it felt like an enormous weight had been lifted from me. I could no longer watch him get dehydrated and jaundiced. I only wish that once my milk had come in, that perhaps I could have tried the breast-feeding, but I thought that due to what I was told by hospital staff, that I could not do that. In retrospect, I think it would have been better for me to trust my own instincts. Furthermore, if the formula supplementation works in other countries and mothers are still able to breast-feed, that is enough proof for me that it can work. I truly feel fine with my decision to formula feed, and despite what others might think about formula, my pediatrician assured me that the products on the market are excellent and there was no reason for me to feel guilty. I only wish, however, that I had not been under the "all or nothing" approach of the hospital staff and that I could have tried the breast-feeding after the fourth day of my son's birth. It's ironic that, given the approach in other countries, women might actually breast-feed more often and longer if not locked into a rigid mindset by yes, the breast-feeding police.

skepticcat
skepticcat

I think that there is a very unbalanced view in this article, since I happen to know that there's plenty of data out there to support the hypothesis that formula has detrimental effects on breastfeeding, if incorrectly administered especially.  I smell more publicist than journalist.  Single studies require context, and this journalist treats a development more like an argument, with unnecessary political spin (aren't the "breastfeeding police" those doctors and nurses and researchers who responded to the established body of evidence up to the point the referenced study was printed?  What do they say about this?)  Without context I think "lactation police" is a term from someone with a personal ax to grind.  I guess I can't expect journalism in an opinion article but still I would expect more research from a doctor.

aweekinthelifeofaredhead
aweekinthelifeofaredhead

I made my own formula because I simply couldn't provide enough breast milk for my son and at 6 weeks I had to go back to work.  I used an old pediatrician's formula recipe and substituted goats milk. (which is fortified) and my son LOVED it.  I raised him on it for 3 years.  He's now 6'3", graduating from high school.  He was hardly ever sick - never any ear infections, only broke a finger once - even though he was active in sports, esp football.  Contrast this to his cousin who was only breast feed for 2 years, who was always sick, had ear tubes in his ears, is so thin, has ADHD, struggled in school and a host of other issues.  I remember how the lactose specialist and the pediatrician (who I left) gave me such a hard time, even when it was obvious how well my son was doing - he was thriving and how happy he was.    

mjbjjt
mjbjjt

If the author is trying to reconcile breastfeeding with formula supplementation, then why the anti-breastfeeding reference to "the breastfeeding police"? The facts are clear that breastfeeding benefits both babies and mothers (here's yet another study showing that:http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/05/15/can-breastfeeding-protect-from-adhd/54853.html)  AND that there are many, many social pressures -- mostly having to do with the structure of employment -- that make it very difficult for women to breastfeed. When you add to that mix normal physical variation across women (for example, in when milk comes in) and the toxic self-righteousness that so many Americans seem to think they have the right to tell a pregnant woman or a new mother what she ought to do, then it is little wonder that there are few real conversations about breastfeeding and way too much hype. This article adds to the hype and the pressure without adding to the solutions. We need to be supportive of women breastfeeding -- including in federal employment regulations -- without assuming every woman must conform to some idealized breastfeeding schedule.

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

To the breastfeeding police, here's why this is all BS: The Baby Boomers were mostly raised by formula.  Gosh and gee, we had a higher five day infant SURVIVAL rate than today.

Infant mortality in the United States is UP.  It's THE HIGHEST among industrialized nations.  Premature births are down, which means more babies are born full or near full term than before.  But the five day survival rate of infants in the US is awful compared to other first-world countries.

Is this due to breastfeeding?  Or more to the point, is it due to a delay in breastfeeding while "waiting for the milk to come in"?  We know that babies do adequately on formula.  Is our obsession with "perfection", or being better than everyone else by avoiding formula like a vampire avoids garlic, standing in the way of the kids actually surviving?  Is the militant advocacy over breastfeeding actually killing kids?

We can't answer that question unless we are open to making sure kids are fed and hydrated as they should be in those first days of life.  And if there's a delay, women need to realize that the kid has to eat even if she can't provide the chow.

Don't call this idea absurd until you can prove it to be wrong.  There are no studies that prove it (I checked).  And there are some studies that indicate it's possible.  Think about it.

LisaAJK
LisaAJK

The study itself touts that the supplements increased the mothers' confidence in breastfeeding, not that the baby actually benefitted from the supplements.

Would similar results have happened given other efforts to improve mothers' confidence that didn't involve supplementation?

Why not supplement in this tiny study with donor breastmilk?

lordofthefly
lordofthefly

Shouldn't this article be in "Being a Better Mommy" magazine?

liquiddiamondzzzz
liquiddiamondzzzz

Also you are forgetting that these babies were being weighed frequently (is this normal?? My babies were not weighed so often, they looked for wet diapers instead) and had losses. The moms were already being undermined by the hysterics that usually surrounds normal weight losses. I'd like to see a study where they lie to women and tell them the baby has gained weight when they've had a normal loss. Let's see what happens then.

liquiddiamondzzzz
liquiddiamondzzzz

But.. it doesn't usually work out and it alters the gut flora. I think this study shows that pumping up mom about her milk supply being bountiful when it finally comes in, using only a tiny amount to supplement, not using bottles, and setting a point to stop supplementing can be best practice if mom wants to supplement or is apart from baby for too long. What usually happens, though, is supplementing is with bottles, it is way way too much, and usually has no encouraged end point.. which means moms switch to formula very early or after a short struggle because they killed their supply or babies latch/patience by supplementing. We can see this in other research and breastfeeding stats. Also, breastmilk would be better to use since it wouldn't alter the gut flora and in these situations would be used for such a short time the price would not be as prohibitive and may be covered by insurance in the future. This study would've been saying what you are saying it does if the control group hadn't been treated so differently. I think that the formula itself had little to do with success, what led to success was the other factors, the encouragement/hyping around milk coming in and the very limited/best use nature of the supplementation in the experimental group. If supplementing always was so limited it'd rarely lead to lactation failure, but at present supplementing is usually a recipe for failure and there are very real concerns about gut flora and formula.. particularly for babies that are premature.. And, the formula they used in this study was not normal cow milk formula but was sterile hydrolized, which is different from the average experience and almost as expensive as breastmilk. I think it is a disservice to say that the breastfeeding encouraging people are wrong about supplementing being a poor idea in most cases, particularly before supply is established.. because it is a poor idea in most cases generally because best use is not the norm. There is a huge difference between a syringe tsp of hydrolized after nursing for a few feeds and a set end point to stop using it and the 2oz bottles of cow milk formula with no end point or encouragement that is usually the case with early supplementing.

Gobot
Gobot

Women don't need any more "encouragement" to breastfeed. The pressure is there, coming at them from all sides - it is so intense that being unsuccessful at breastfeeding (with the excruciating pain and sleep deprivation that accompanies it) is now a leading trigger for PPD.

Baby formula is a perfectly suitable alternative to breastmilk. We should be letting women know that either food (or combination of the two) is fine for their babies. 

Jax74
Jax74

Ha, ha 38 babies studied, really? I could study more on a bus! Go ahead, mixed feed, but unless you take active, timely, preventative action to keep up your potential for breastmilk supply you will find formula WILL negatively impact on your ability to exclusively breastfeed if that is your intention and frequently sounds the death knell for breastfeeding, I have spoken at length to well over 38 Mums who could tell you this. Did a formula manufacturer sponsor this study by any chance? Mixed feed if you wish because every breastfeed helps your baby but you will find that stretching your babies stomach by giving formula in the amounts required to meet the known nutritional content of breastmilk (and forgetting the unknown or unsimulatible content of breastmilk) you will find your baby will have potential problems ever being satisfied as fully with breastmilk because his/her stomach has been artificailly stretched! As well as the potential for nipple confusion or rejection because bottle teets are easier to get milk out of because it litterally just pours in means you are dooming your own choice to breastfeed. Ultimately the supplementation in other cultures is because of some religious belief that colostrum is bad. Hmmm, you want to believe that crap then you really have no place talking science or fact. Lets just live in the dark ages....oh, wait, there's no formula...How will we feed our babies now???

WilmurHamilton
WilmurHamilton

I love how anything that is referenced in "preliminary" studies is touted as gospel. Doesn't matter the subject. Continue talking in absolutes and you will continue to be incorrect.

rivkahchaya
rivkahchaya

@AB68That's similar to my experience, except I had a little more understanding from the staff. They advised us to give my son an ounce of formula or pumped milk from a bottle, and then try breastfeeding, when I wasn't having success, because they thought he might be so hungry he was frustrated, and not getting a latch. He got latches twice at the hospital, but mostly was bottle-fed, about 4-1 breastmilk and formula, and that continued at home for a couple of weeks, when suddenly he just "got" it. I think it had to do with him getting enough head control to do things his way. I never had any discomfort, though. He was a huge eater, who was born in the 75th percentile for size, but after his 1st birthday, was in the 90th, and since his second, has been above the 97th. So he still got one or two bottles of formula a week, if I happened to be asleep, and my husband was watching him, because there was never much pumped milk available. He started on food at 4 months (he was trying to eat off our plates, so his dr. OK'd rice cereal, and a few babyfood fruits), but he continued to breastfeed until past his 2nd birthday. He loved breastfeeding, but he needed formula to get enough calories when he was an infant. I am so glad no one told me I had to choose. I probably would have chosen breastfeeding long enough to make us both miserable for a few months, then reluctantly switched to formula, and felt like a failure. When my mother breastfed in the 1960s, which was fairly uncommon, the nurses didn't know what to do, really, until her milk came in, so they hit on the idea of giving us glucose and water from a bottle for a day, and my mother had little trouble breastfeeding.

aliberaldoseofskepticism
aliberaldoseofskepticism

This is Amy Tuteur. On Science-Based Medicine, she spent her time basically doing exactly this: One study says such and such, therefore medicine as practiced 80 years ago was right all along. So if someone says "Condoms? Abstinence? Sticking to one partner? Psh, just get circumcised and you can have over nine thousand prostitutes and never worry about AIDS!", she would support it. She was finally b& for diagnosing people over email (for a fee, of course), and SBM doesn't like that kind of quackery.

The biggest issue with this is, the supplement industry has a history of woo. My mother can tell you of when Nestlé was pushing formula on the WHO as a way to deal with hunger in Africa. It never occurred to anyone that formula is dehydrated and needs to be, well, hydrated. And in developing countries, that's dangerous because, well, no indoor plumbing.

That said, I do find "lactivists" quite disconcerting. Some women can't breastfeed. They're not horrible mothers by any means, any more than a man who opts for IVF because his junk was burned off in a freak accident is a horrible father.

liquiddiamondzzzz
liquiddiamondzzzz

We all have these anecdotes. Anecdotes are not trends. And, there is nothing wrong with formula feeding if you -have- or -want- to, but when a woman wants to breastfeed she shouldn't be being sabotaged.. Articles like this one are insisting that supplementation is okay without pointing out all of the factors that mitigated the supplementation, which could be problematic and encourage bad information to be passed to women.. In this study the experimental group vs control group. A. There was a weight loss that was documented/told to the mother in both groups (first of all, is pointing this out in the first few days even necessary if baby is having adequate wets/dirties?) but since it was pointed out, it is a perceived reason to supplement but it is not clear that the control group was hyped up that there was no need to use supplements, contrary it seems like they were encouraged to supplement. B. They used only syringes in the experimental group, not bottles C. They used hydrol sterile formula not cow milk formula in the experimental group D. They used a tiny amount in the experimental group whereas in the control group up to 4x as much formula was used to supplement with E. The experimental group only used it after nursing, and the women were actively encouraged to nurse prior but the control group had no such encouragement F. The women in the experimental group were not all taught the 5 S's, the women in the control group were (this can delay nursing frequency which can cause nursing problems) G. The women in the experimental group were encouraged to STOP supplementing when their milk came in H. and were told and encouraged to believe that their supplies would be good after their milk came in.. the women in the control group weren't necessarily encouraged to nurse, weren't encouraged to stop supplementing if they were, weren't given only syringes or only tiny amounts to supplement with if they did, nor were they told that their supplies would be bountiful after their milk came in. Now, tell me HOW the success of the experimental group had anything to do with formula use.. or even supplementing. It was -limiting- the supplementing and using best practice supplementation and talking up the mothers own milk supply that produced the success.

Jade
Jade

@mjbjjt Are you and I even reading the same article?

liquiddiamondzzzz
liquiddiamondzzzz

@DeweySayenoff   What.. are.. you.. talking.. about?!?!     "Don't call this idea absurd until you can prove it wrong."  o.O  There are no studies saying that breastfeeding exclusively increases neonatal death.. ANYWHERE..  AT.. ALL..    There are plenty of nations with better exclusive breastfeeding rates and MUCH lower neonatal mortality rates (SEE: Japan, for one.).  Sigh.

Jade
Jade

@LisaAJK Because there are no compelling reasons to use donor breastmilk, and several compelling reasons not to (comparative lack of availability, possible health risks and probable distaste toward the idea)?

sondeguerra
sondeguerra

Because nothing that has to do with women and children belomgs in Time?

jennell
jennell

@Gobot Women don't need any more encouragement, they need more support if they choose to breastfeed.  We live in a society that shames women for not breastfeeding, but at the same time tells them that they shouldn't be breastfeeding in public.  Its a lose lose situation.  


liquiddiamondzzzz
liquiddiamondzzzz

@Gobot You are right about the fact that women don't need more encouragement to breastfeed.  They do, however, need more accurate information about it and help doing so if that's what they want to do. 

Best practice supplementation shouldn't be regarded with the horror that it is.  But, most of the time the supplementation isn't best practice and if someone wishes to breastfeed.. supplementing too much/too soon/too long/with bottles is a recipe for difficulties.  And, the same thing that was accomplished in this study could very likely be accomplished with donor breastmilk if what some women need, due to our culture of fear regarding all that is normal, is their baby to be a little less grouchy in the first few days.  It wasn't about the formula.. so why are you, this author, and so many others making it about the formula? 

Jade
Jade

@Jax74 You seem to have missed the irony in your reply--a study with 38 subjects may have limitations, but your personal anecdotes are completely worthless as scientific data. You are ready to pooh-pooh this study, but have no evidence for your own claims.

phoenix1920
phoenix1920

@Jax74   When you close your mind against an idea, you risk speaking without having all the information.  Your mind is set so clearly on the one "right" answer that you think everybody else must do whether it works for them or not, that you are very likely hurting your own cause of helping to encourage moms last longer with breast feeding.  When I started back to work, my child care provider required a certain number of bottles and I had difficulties with pumping.  Neither of children preferred formula, and didn't care to drink too much, but they drank the minimum.  When you are in a room, surrounded by other women nursing, you learn first hand how different people are--and how some babies obtain the full feeding in few minutes (or less) from nursing while others take a while.  My girls could nurse faster than bottle-fed babies.  There was no artificial stretching!  no nipple confusion or rejection.  In fact, none of my friends that did the same had this issue.  If you want to live in science or in fact, you shouldn't close off your mind when science and fact speak differently to your preconceived ideas.

sondeguerra
sondeguerra

I re- read this three times and I still can't figure out where you think Dr. Tutuer is "talking in absolutes". Do you mean the people who think formula should be a controlled substance talk in absolutes?

rivkahchaya
rivkahchaya

@liquiddiamondzzzzthere's already good research by neonatologists on how much weight loss is tolerable for a newborn. it's a percentage, and factors are taken into consideration, like BMI, how actually small the baby is (the baby isn't supposed to get under a certain weight, period), factors that may have affected the baby's appetite, whether the baby is healthy, full-term, etc. Formula in't pushed on breastfeeding women by dice-roll; it's suggested when the baby gets below the "OK" weight loss. I'm sure some doctors push harder than others, but ultimately, it's up to the parents. So is how it is administered. It can be from a bottle, a syringe, or from a device that simulates breast-feeding.

sondeguerra
sondeguerra

Some Lactavists actually objected to orphaned babies or babies of injured mothers being given formula after the earthquake.

liquiddiamondzzzz
liquiddiamondzzzz

@phoenix1920 @Jax74   Phoenix:  These babies were supplementing tiny amounts compared to what is often given (teaspoons vs oz), were not supplemented with bottles (syringes), and the women were encouraged both to breastfeed before supplementing and to stop supplementing after their milk came in..   And, all this could've been accomplished with breast milk.      Just because best practice supplementation probably won't lead to lactation failure in most people doesn't mean that poor practice supplementation won't.

Jax74
Jax74

@sondeguerra Formula is a 4th rate baby food. Breastmilk from the breast is the natural choice. Expressed breastmilk in a cup or bottle next. Then donor breastmilk and finally formula. I love the idea of locking it away, making it a prescription item. After all in the US breastmilk from donors is available on prescription as a successful treatment for prostate cancer. Formula should be used when medically necessary, under the professional advice of a specialist doctor qualified to advise on how to support mothers to breastfeed their babies and overcome the bs problems people keep citing as excuses why they gave up. Your baby - you chose but stop justifying your choice to give up bf - no one is asking you to people.

liquiddiamondzzzz
liquiddiamondzzzz

@ergsfgbdy @liquiddiamondzzzz   I was curious where you got that anyone who encourages breastfeeding thinks women who don't are bad parents..  I was trying to make sure it wasn't my reply you were referring to.. but now I see you probably haven't read any of them!  Question.  Answered.

liquiddiamondzzzz
liquiddiamondzzzz

@sondeguerra Because they didn't have clean water to prepare it with, they objected to cans of unmixed formula being sent.  I've not met anyone who objected to sending pre-prepared formula, though.

liquiddiamondzzzz
liquiddiamondzzzz

@sondeguerra First of all, where did I use the word "wet nurse"?   Second of all, what is wrong with one?   No.  I was more referring to prescription donor breastmilk, which isn't much more expensive than the hydrolized sterile (which is really different from normal cow-milk formula) pre-prepared formula that was used in this study and is likely to be covered by insurance companies, particularly in small amounts after a significant weight loss post-birth OR to breastmilk pumped by the mother herself.. But, many times lactating family members, should a woman have one, would be happy to provide a small amount of breastmilk to help out.  Or, even a friend.  I don't necessarily think the average person would use a stranger.. but that wasn't even what I was referring to.

sondeguerra
sondeguerra

You seriously are proposing that women find wetnurses to help feed their babies?

sondeguerra
sondeguerra

Breastmilk on prescriptionfor prostate cancer? That doesn't sound crazy at all.

Jade
Jade

@Jax74 @sondeguerra The long-term outcomes of formula versus breastmilk are actually  much slighter than you think. The impact of quality early childhood education is probably far greater, so I presume you also (to be consistent) think all preschoolers should attend compulsory classes from 3 years onward?

Sanveann
Sanveann

@Jax74  If this were a prosperous country with universal healthcare, the idea of formula being prescription-only might not be so nutty. But in a country where many poor families have no access to affordable healthcare, it's just insane.


Say a mom works at a fast-food joint. She gets minimal maternity leave -- she might be entitled to take 12 weeks off, but she can't afford for it to be unpaid so long. She might start breastfeeding (assuming she has the support and inclination), but she doesn't get pumping breaks at work. Maybe she's supposed to, legally, but there's really no place to pump, and she doesn't want to make waves and risk losing her job. Or maybe she has an understanding boss and CAN pump, but she can't afford to shell out $300 for one. Or maybe her supply tanks. Or maybe she makes plenty of milk but can't pump effectively.

So breastmilk isn't an option anymore. (Because we all know how crazy expensive donor milk is if you're getting it from a milk bank, where it's been tested for safety. And most of us don't know dozens of moms willing to donate enough THEIR own milk.) And she needs to go to the doctor for formula. But she can't afford to. So she gives her baby ... what? Milk mixed with corn syrup? Whatever other concoctions people used to feed their babies before formula? Because, hey, her grandma or great-grandma used to do it, and it's cheaper than formula, plus she doesn't have to pay for a doctor's visit ...

And this is all assuming our hypothetical mom actually gives a crap and is trying her best. Many parents don't.

Locking up formula isn't going to make more people breastfeed. It's going to lead poor and desperate parents to make bad, bad decisions.