Breast is Best!

Why breast is Best!

Climate change is a reality, even a 1.5 °C global temperature rise will resulting in extreme temperatures, floods or droughts, and increased climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth. Go back in time to COP 21 in 2015 when the Paris Accord was adopted and all nations agreed to work to a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change. Interestingly, many conversations addressed the links between human health, climate change, and the environment, however, none of the World Leaders or Scientists mentioned the environmental consequences of breastfeeding and food insecurities. 5 years have passed and formula milk production has dramatically increased and we have now lived through several natural disasters and major emergences’ (such as COVID 19). The net result is an increasing environmental burden as breastfeeding continues to be undermined by the creation of new markets for milk formula.

Please join me and my co-host Stuart Moore on Spectrumonline for Climate Rage to discuss this very topic and let us know whether you believe that “Breast is Best”. We talk to our 3 expert guests Rosamund McFadden founder of Keeping Mum and Mum Pod, Dr. Shabnam Delfani, mother and environmental professional who holds a Ph.D. Waste Management and Millie Morris, a Doula and Midwife about why the environmental, social, and health impacts resulting from the global manufacturing of infant milk. 

Dr. Shabnam Delfani

Opening our conversation, Dr. Shabnam Delfani has told me how frustrated she is that globally two-thirds of babies are given milk formula. “This has resulted in a dramatic decline of breastfeeding across Asia and the Middle East. This is a serious social concern but of equal importance is the environmental impact that the manufacturing of infant formula is having on both the food chain and climate change.”

Dr. Shabnam Delfani explains that “the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for every kilogram of raw milk are substantial as it is made from dairy milk. The high environmental impact of this mass dairy industry has resulted in clearing the land for dairy farming reduces biodiversity, polluting the waterways and deforestation is removing the earth’s ability to act as a carbon sink In fact, meat and dairy producers are now catching up with oil companies as the largest global emitters of greenhouse gases and therefore a major contributor to climate change. Infant formula also has a negative impact of using significant amounts of energy, plastic packaging, and other waste during the manufacturing process”.

Rosemund McFadden

Ros McFadden, added “in a report in 2015, published by International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and the Breastfeeding Protection Network of India, with support from the Swedish and Norwegian development assistance agencies showed evidence that the emissions from just six Asia Pacific countries were equivalent to 6 billion miles of car travel. In simplified terms each 1 kilogram (kg) of milk formula generated 4 kg of (carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent) greenhouse gas during production”.  In everyday terms this means that by the time the formula is fed to babies and young children the real environmental impact is that each kilogram (kg) of infant formula adds between 11 and 14 kgs CO2 eq. of GHG to the planet. Shockingly, recent researchers believe that the full product lifecycle, including consumer use, GHG emissions per kg are actually three times higher than these estimates.

Roz goes on to say that she finds it “disappointing that there is not enough public awareness of these issues and wants to campaign to raise awareness about the scale and impact of the baby food industry, especially in major food-exporting countries”. Ros believes that there should be an awareness campaign about two key issues

1)    The unnecessary consumption of follow on milk and the misleading marketing of the product. These follow on products cater to demand created by ‘life pressures’ such as on mothers returning to work, and the ‘health’ marketing appeal of these industrialized milk powder products

2)    The GHG of infant formula for the whole of the product lifecycle i.e. manufacturing and post-manufacturing costs, sterilization, transportation, preparation, and waste.

Millie Morris

Millie Morris a breastfeeding expert with over 8 years as a Doula and more recently as a midwife, strongly agrees with Ros about how two-thirds of babies are inappropriately fed processed food in early life. Throughout life, these children often continue to eat a poor diet with ultra-processed foods which eventually lead to diseases and obesity 

A worrying reality is that the milk formula passed stage one (follow on milk) is unlicensed and totally unnecessary and possibly even dangerous to toddlers, but this is a growing market with breastfeeding rates dramatically decline in Australia and China. With China recently amending its “one-child” policy to three, globally the governments need to find ways to address these emerging challenges to tackle breastfeeding practices before it is too late.

Millie’s other argument in favour of breastfeeding is the evidence that breastfeeding populations are more resilient in emergencies, lactating mothers provide the essential and only truly safe nourishment for human infants. Perhaps this is due to Leptin, Leptin, a hormone that regulates food intake and energy metabolism, is present in breast milk.

Our Challenge

That leads my entrepreneurial brain to the argument that we need to support some ethical entrepreneurs to build a “human milk farm” in order to support mothers to be paid to breastfeed or even to be paid for their breast milk. Why not have an environmental programme similar to the plant a tree to offset carbon? This programme will promote “buy more: milk and offset your carbon footprint”. Like planting trees to support villages we could sponsor bottles of breastmilk to support villages;

In fact, milk sharing/ wet nurses have been practiced throughout history when mothers have been unable or unwilling to breastfeed. It can provide life-saving potential during humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters. Scaling up a milk sharing system could disrupt the infant formula market. Globally governments should support such schemes based on the true cost of the impact on natural resources i.e much commercial baby food is manufactured in countries that are hundreds, even thousands of miles away from where it is sold. Farming dairy has a huge impact upon the earth due to the vast swathes of land that are deforested, plus the huge quantities of water they need for their pastures and ensuring hygienic production.

Conclusion

As an environmentalist, I research many topics and I believe that Supporting more women to breastfeed globally makes both financial and practical sense because we living in a world where we are witnessing climate change events such as changing weather patterns and related floods, droughts, fires, storms, and other crises. Sadly, the environmental impact of manufacturing formula milk in the poorer countries also exposes the new mothers and their young children to face heightened risks of food insecurity, undernourishment, ill health, and diseases which are greater when they are exposed to when using formula milk or bottle feeding.

In the wealthier countries, we should recognise that the highly sustainable and efficient food system provided by lactating women for infants and young children through breastfeeding is unvalued and taken for granted. Breastfeeding advocates like Rosamund McFadden and Milly Morris will help drive the change but only if they have the support of the government, non-government organisations, and employers.

Ros has built the MumPod as she wants to engage employer support by focusing on their Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Women should be supported by their employers to be able to continue to breastfeed in the workplace by providing them with better-paid maternity leave, private breastfeeding facilities, and skills to be able to continue to provide milk for as long as possible. The employers should then be able to offset their carbon emissions and claim tax breaks or are able because they are helping to reduce the greenhouse gas problem, improve human nutrition and health, and stop inequitable vulnerabilities relating to the equalities at work and the gender gap.