Should we talk about the ‘benefits’ of breastfeeding? The significance of the default in representations of infant feeding

Breastfeeding advocates have criticized 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 wellbeing 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. Keywords: Breastfeeding, Harm, Benefit, Risk-Based Language