Breastfeeding, Formula, and the Need for a More Honest Conversation

Genesis Perez-Melara, M.D.

---

​Infant feeding is still discussed as if it were a simple matter of personal choice. The familiar slogans, “breast is best” and “fed is best” dominate the conversation, yet neither fully reflects the realities facing families and clinicians. The better questions are: What do the data really show about the benefits of breastfeeding for infants, and what barriers determine whether breastfeeding is even realistic?

The evidence suggests that breastfeeding does provide real infant benefits, but the research is more nuanced than public messaging often suggests. A recent AAP-published systematic review in Pediatrics, accompanied by a full AHRQ evidence report, found associations between breastfeeding and lower risk of ear infections, severe respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, asthma, childhood obesity, childhood leukemia, and infant mortality. At the same time, the review emphasizes that much of this literature comes from observational studies, meaning that the strength and certainty of the findings vary. In other words, the benefits should not be dismissed, but they also should not be oversold.

That is where the current divide can become less helpful than it appears. The phrase “Fed is best,” popularized in part by the Fed Is Best Foundation, emerged from a legitimate concern: some newborns need supplementation quickly, and families should not be shamed when breastfeeding is not going well. This concern is grounded in real clinical risks. Insufficient milk intake in the early days of life can contribute to jaundice, dehydration, excessive weight loss, and poor weight gain, all of which may require prompt evaluation and, at times, supplementation.

At the same time, some breastfeeding advocates worry that an overly casual approach to formula feeding can obscure important differences between human milk and formula. That concern is also valid. Formula has become increasingly sophisticated, with additives such as human milk oligosaccharides, milk fat globule membrane components, and lactoferrin designed to mimic some of the biologically active components of breast milk. Early studies suggest these additives may offer benefits, including softer stools, fewer night awakenings, possible reductions in some respiratory infections, and potential immune or cognitive support. However, recent reviews note that the direct health impact of many of these additives remains less clear than the marketing surrounding them.

The challenge is that families are often navigating these decisions without enough support. In some clinics and hospitals, lactation consultants are not readily available, and clinicians may have limited time or training to address breastfeeding problems before they become urgent. As a result, many parents face high-stakes feeding decisions without the guidance they need to make informed choices. Understanding those decisions requires looking beyond individual families and the healthcare system to the broader social and economic conditions in which infant feeding occurs.

The United States guarantees only unpaid federal leave for eligible workers through the FMLA, while paid leave depends on states and employers. Although formula is expensive, breastfeeding is not “free.” A recent Journal of Perinatology perspective argued that once pumps, added food needs, supplements, and the value of a parent’s time are counted, breastfeeding can carry substantial hidden costs. For a parent working an hourly job with little flexibility, protected pumping time that is unpaid may still be a major barrier. That makes infant feeding not just a maternal-child health issue, but also a labor, benefits, and health policy issue.
​
My broader takeaway is that nutrition is rarely determined by knowledge or willpower alone. What people eat is shaped by the policies that govern them, the jobs they have, the benefits available to them, their income, and the environments in which they live. That reality applies even to infants. Clinicians should therefore talk about breastfeeding the way good scientists talk about evidence: with honesty, humility, and appropriate context. The infant benefits are meaningful enough to deserve recognition. The evidence is nuanced enough to require careful interpretation. And the barriers many families face are significant enough that counseling should be practical, supportive, and noncoercive, reflecting the realities of everyday life rather than idealized assumptions.

Author
Genesis Perez-Melara recently graduated from Harvard Medical School and is now a Family Medicine intern at Greater Lawrence Family Health Center. Her interests include community medicine, maternal and child health, and health equity. Her work focuses on how clinical care, public health, and social factors intersect to shape the health of birthing people, infants, children, and families. She is particularly interested in evidence-based, patient-centered approaches to care that recognize the many factors influencing health and healthcare decisions.