The Fed Is Best Foundation was started by mother and physician, Dr Christie del Castillo-Heygi, whose newborn baby had been severely dehydrated after four days of ineffective feeding.
At age three, Christie’s child was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, sensory processing disorder, low IQ, delayed fine and gross motor skills, and a seizure disorder.
Christie’s story is certainly a tragic one, and it prompted her to petition public health leaders to warn parents about the risks of insufficient breastmilk intake.
The question is, need parents worry?
Is Christie’s story something that parents really need to take significant heed of, or is it rather a tragic, but isolated occurrence?
Christie’s warning contradicts efforts made by leading health organisations around the world, who have emphasised the importance of exclusive breastfeeding.
Before getting into the detail of this, let’s explore the idea that ‘fed is best’.
“Fed Is Best”
Sounds pretty straight-forward, right?
Well, if compared with not being fed, yes, fed is most certainly best.
But being fed is the bare minimum standard.
Being fed is actually more complex than the words ‘being fed’ imply.
For example, in infancy, being formula fed, compared with being breastfed, carries risks. This is not a judgment by any means – the whole team at BellyBelly fully supports all women, no matter how they feed their babies. It’s simply being honest about the facts.
As Maureen Minchen says, “Breastfeeding is a highly evolved bridge from the womb to the world. The opposite of ‘fed’ is ‘not fed’, i.e., starved, and presumably dead. Alive is better than dead, we all agree. But if we are talking about the food that is to be fed, breastmilk IS best and also normal and, in fact, necessary for normal physiological development, so that anything else is not best, but worse, a second-rate substitute for a complex living tissue.”
She continues, “Yes, some infants survive and grow on second-rate products…. But the baby not fed breastmilk will not be the child it would have been if it had received the unique milk its mother was capable of making for it. The obesity epidemic is proof of that, and it is relevant that the formula makers have steadily reduced protein levels to try to reduce their massive contribution to that epidemic.
Some infants grew up on the old bread and cow’s milk sops that were once usual. Some were even brought up on the raw fish and cream diet the advantaged parents of Iceland once thought best for babies. But the baby not fed breastmilk will not be the child it would have been if it had received the unique milk its mother was capable of making for it.”
So, is supplementation ever required, or can all babies be exclusively breastfed?
Most Babies Can Exclusively Breastfeed
Leading health organisations recommend babies be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months and then for breastfeeding to continue alongside suitable complementary foods for 2 years and beyond.
These recommendations are based on solid evidence that doing following these guidelines optimises health outcomes for both mothers and their children.
Most babies can be exclusively breastfed. Nevertheless, there are certain circumstances where supplementation might be medically necessary. You can read more about these reasons here.
Unnecessary supplementation, however, can interrupt the ‘supply and demand’ basis of breastfeeding, reduce a mother’s breastfeeding self-efficacy, and expose a baby’s gut to non-human components that might affect lifelong health.
Health systems are commonly in place to ensure a baby’s weight is checked regularly in the early weeks of life. In this way, babies who might be at risk of insufficient intake can be identified and receive the appropriate care to ensure their intake remains at a healthy level.
Unfortunately, in rare circumstances, these systems might fail, leading to health concerns. So, how often do these events occur?
Rates Of Insufficient Milk Intake Leading To Severe Dehydration
Research studies have looked at how often exclusively breastfed babies suffer from insufficient milk intake.
One study found that 0.007% of babies suffered severe hypernatremia – elevated blood sodium levels, which can be associated with dehydration. In this study, none of the babies with this condition suffered any long-term complications. Other studies have found that between 0.03–2.77% of babies suffer moderate hypernatremia.
So, do these studies, and Christie’s story, suggest we need to supplement all babies? No, they don’t and here’s why.
Routine Supplementation Equals More Health Problems
Overall, it has been estimated, by combining reports from all the published literature on this topic, that 0.1% (or 1 in 1000) babies develop hypernatremia. Therefore, if all newborns were routinely supplemented, this would mean that for every 1000 healthy babies, one case of hypernatremia could be prevented.
Hypernatremia is a serious condition. However, supplementing all newborns with formula is not risk free. For example, how many more infections (e.g. ear, gastrointestinal, and respiratory) might occur due to routine formula supplementation, to prevent one case of hypernatremia?
So what can be done?
Adequate Health Care Systems
Adequate health care systems need to be in place, to help identify any babies at risk, and to ensure adequate follow up is performed for all babies. In this way, babies’ intake can remain at a healthy level. If you are concerned about your baby, be sure to seek prompt medical advice.
