Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Submitted by
Elizabeth Ping
For thousands of years, mothers have relied on breast milk for the survival of their babies
and young children; however, today more mothers than ever now choose to formula-feed their
infants for the first year of their life. Infant feeding can take one of four forms: breast milk
received directly from the mother’s breasts, breast milk received from expressed milk from the
mother’s breasts, artificial formula from a bottle, and breast milk received from a donor either
through wet nursing or from milk banks.1 This change from natural to bottle feeding in
nineteenth and twentieth century America occurred as a result of a variety of factors highlighting
the role that women play in the home and the expected norms to which women should adhere.
Ultimately, the interplay between the declining use of wet nurses; the wide-spread introduction
of nipples and advent of artificial formula; and changing social attitudes of breastfeeding in favor
for the scientific model promulgated the near extinction of breastfeeding in the United States.
Before the advent of artificial formula in the 1860s, women had limited choices in how
they chose to feed their infants.2 These choices included “dry nursing” which meant feeding an
infant the milk from cows, goats, mares, and donkeys with a variety of utensils ranging from
spoons, cups, and make-shift bottles. Those were wealthy employed a lactating woman to feed a
baby until the child was weaned. Although wet nursing, or the act of a lactating mother feeding
an infant not directly hers, was almost a necessity for infants whose mothers could not provide
nutrition themselves either due from death or sickness of the mother, there were religious and
1
Michael Seear, An Introduction to International Health (Toronto, Ontario: Canadian
Scholars’ Press, 2007), 85.
2
Ibid., 85.
3
social consequences families who chose this method of infant nutrition. In colonial America,
religion dictated that women who hired wet nurses were in disobedience with God because they
were essentially neglecting their children in favor for increased freedom.3 These religious
undertones carried through to the nineteenth century as wet nursing became viewed as a selfish
Women who conscientiously chose wet nurses in favor over feeding their own infants
using natural means did so in order to be able to resume sexual relations with their spouses who
were often socially proscribed during the period of lactation during this era, the perception of
increased social status, and alleviation of the never-ending duties of motherhood. Wet nursing
fell out favor for several reasons other reasons. Upper and middle class women often disliked the
expense and inconvenience of having a lactating woman in the home. Furthermore, the use of
formula became refuted as cheaper and superior to the milk provided by wet nurses and relieved
the mother of the possibility that her infant could contract a disease or character flaw by suckling
on another woman’s breasts. The risk of endowing the lowly character of the wet nurse onto the
baby was enough for many women to choose bottle feeding than to expose her child to traits of
the wet nurse who most certainly had to be worse than the traits of the wealthier mother.4 By
1920s, wet nursing had become nearly extinct of in the United States.5
3
Janet Golden, A Social History of Wet Nursing in America: From Breast to Bottle,
(Columbus: Ohio, Ohio State University, 2001), 12.
4
Ibid., 74.
5
Ibid., 179.
4
It had been observed by the nineteenth century that proper infant feeding was critical to
the development and welfare of the child.6 Without the correct mix of nutrients, the rate of infant
percent of infants at some foundling hospitals in America and Europe succumbed to inadequate
nutrition from hand-feeding efforts during the 1700 and 1800s.7 Recognizing that a relationship
existed between the approach to infant feeding and the wellbeing of the infant, Johann Simon,
made the first comparison between human and bovine milk using chemical analysis. Justus Von
Leibig would later confirm earlier findings that different foods provide varying quantities of fats,
carbohydrates, and proteins.8 He speculated that the human body needed these nutrients in
specific amounts, and these findings would later influence the commercial baby food industry to
decide what recipe or formula should be used for making artificial milk. Nestle became one of
the first successful manufactures of artificial milk in the 1860s and began widespread marketing
campaigns of their product which consisted of flour, cow’s milk, and sugar.9
Formula became “the most perfect substitute for mother’s milk,” and with the
combination of the rubber nipple by Elijah Pratt in 1845, mothers had a viable new option for
feeding their infants.10 Nestle and other formula companies took advantage, and advertisements
endorsed the safeness and ease of bottle feeding. 11 In 1890, advancements in formula came
again when Thomas Rotch discovered that human milk varied according to the age of the infant
6
Michael Seear, An Introduction to International Health (Toronto, Ontario: Canadian
Scholars’ Press, 2007), 85.
7
Jan Riordan, Breastfeeding and Human Lactation (Sudbury: MA, Jones and Bartlett,
2005), 8.
8
Richard Meckel, Save the Babies: American Public Health Reform and the Prevention of
Infant 54.
9
Jan Riordan, 9.
10
Mary Spaulding and Penny Welch, Nurturing Yesterday’s Child: A Portrayal of the
Drake Collection of Paediatric History (Toronto: Ontario, Natural Heritage, 1994), 82.
11
Jan Riordan, 9.
5
and was in a state of constant transformation –an understanding very different from the static
view of breast milk. This led to a more complex system of feeding that relied on frequent
composition changes in the formula. Ironically, the goal of the formula makers became to devise
a milk product identical to human milk while persuading women that bottle feeding was easier,
more luxurious, safe, and even healthier than breastfeeding and using wet nurses.
Scientific View
Before the invention of formula, the act of infant feeding was directly linked to the role
feeding choices were further influenced by the changing scientific view that inventions and
modernity were always better than nature. These views were endorsed by physicians who
reinforced these views with their patients.12 Artificial nutrition was no different from other
discoveries in the nineteenth century, and the pubic felt that formula was nutritionally better,
more sterile, and safer than human breast milk. Once a mother made the choice to exclusively
bottle feed her infant the relationship between physician and mother became more closely
intertwined. This was because mothers needed the direct guidance of physicians to recommend
feeding schedules and alterations in formula according to the health and development of the
individual baby.
By the early twentieth century, the scientific view of infant nutrition pervaded child
welfare education. Accordingly, mothers were encouraged to bottle feed their infants at least
once daily which served two purposes –to make the eventual weaning process easier on mother
and baby and to afford the mother more freedom from her suckling infant.13 This advice was
even given to mothers who had no apparent deficiency in the amount or quality of their breast
12
Ann Oakley, Essays on Women, Medicine, and Health (Oxford, Edinburgh University
Press, 1993), 131.
6
milk. Likewise, those mothers who had difficulty with breastfeeding were given information of
formula feeding instead of trying to correct simple complications of breastfeeding first. Since
breastfeeding works by supply and demand (meaning the more that an infant suckles, the more
milk is produced), the less that an infant nurses resulted in more difficulties in breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding had been the mainstay of infant nutrition and well-being for centuries.
Today, initial breastfeeding rates are at an all-time low, and prolonged breastfeeding efforts
beyond the world health organization’s recommendation that babies should be breastfeed until
two years of age is extremely rare in economically advanced countries.14 The historical
perspective of the transition from breast to bottle lends to new insights into how the current
maternal care of infants has been influenced by a decline in the use of wet nurses during the early
nineteenth century, the advancements in alternatives of nutrition for infants, and the scientific
view of the mother’s role in the welfare of her child. By understanding the changing tides in
breastfeeding practice that have occurred, mothers can better evaluate the decision to either
13
Rima Apple, Mothers and Medicine: A Social History of Infant Feeding, 1890-1950,
(Madison: Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1987) 109.
14
Rebecca Black, The Support of Breastfeeding (Toronto: ON, Jones and Bartlett, 1990),
177.
7
Bibliography
Apple, Rima. Mothers and Medicine: A Social History of Infant Feeding, 1890-1950. Madison:
Black, Rebecca. The Support of Breastfeeding. Toronto: Jones and Bartlett, 1990.
Golden, Janet. A Social History of Wet Nursing in America: From Breast to Bottle. Columbus:
Oakley, Ann. Essays on Women, Medicine, and Health. Oxford, Edinburgh University Press,
1993.
Riordan, Jan. Breastfeeding and Human Lactation. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett, 2005.
2007.
Spaulding, Mary and Penny Welch. Nurturing Yesterday’s Child: A Portrayal of the Drake