Brief examinations of changes in baby feeding patterns

Tianzi(Lily) Xiao 

HI303 Pro.Blower

May 4, 2023

Word account: 2765

Proposal

Last summer, my little cousin was born, and I was able to serve as a "temporary nanny" for her. The way she sipped milk from milk bottles was really cute, and it reminded me of the foods I ate as a child. I was largely fed by my mother's receipts as a child because I had a weakened immune system. My young cousin, on the other hand, was allowed to be fed several types of "commercial baby mud" and "baby jelly".  Baby food, which we give our infants on a regular basis, is essential for children's body upkeep in their early years. FBaby food has evolved dramatically, from mommy-made oatmeal to canned conserved chicken muck. Nowadays, baby food was a mature industrial chain that generated significant market value. In 2005, the global baby food industry was worth $21 billion (US), up from 9.5 billion in 2003. 

However, as more newspaper articles are published today, the topic of commercial baby food has become so divisive that many parents are concerned about what to feed their children for lunch. As a business major student, I understand how important business ethics are now for the survival of an industry, and how food health concerns have escalated with the arrival of the twenty-first century. I wish to conduct this study on commercial infant food, which did not become available until the 1920s, out of affection for my tiny cousins and other newborns, as well as seriousness about food health. How did such a product come to be? Did other historical events, such as the industrial revolution, have an impact on the creation of commercial infant food? How did individuals start using commercial baby food instead of making their own? And, more significantly, is commercial infant food today any better? Looking back in time from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, I'd like to investigate the evolution of commercial infant food in terms of formula modifications, advertisements, and people's attitudes toward it. 

About the Author

The University of Buffalo recently issued a news article titled "Toxic metals in baby food: Researchers discover find 'concerning' gaps in US regulations," pointing out that common baby foods such as rice cereal, formula, purees, and puffs are likely to contain harmful compounds. This discovery led thousands of parents to reconsider the good they are feeding their kids every day. In fact, if we trace the evolution of baby food, we can detect a significant shift in feeding style.[1] Though the contemporary debates about baby food might seem new, the history of the evolution of baby feeding patterns reveals a persistent alternation between the predominance of formulas and breastfeeding. The transformation is the result of regulatory and technological changes.

[1] David J. Hill, “Toxic metals in baby food,” Buffalo University, February 2, 2023, https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2023/02/005.html

This essay organizes the evolution of changes in feeding patterns chronologically into roughly four periods: Before the 18th century - early wet nurse period; Late 18th - early 19th century - development of formulae; Late nineteenth to Post WW2: Golden age of formula milk; Late twentieth century: breastfeeding revival(See Fig.1). As we all know, babies have a very weak immune system. As a result, it is especially important to pay attention to baby food safety at this time of year, when food safety is a top priority. By examining the process by which people feed their children in a historical context, this essay seeks to determine whether the formula today is more nutritious than in the past, as well as to serve as an inspiration for families and baby food developers to consider the future of baby food development.

In the 18th century, the developing natural sciences claimed that women, like animals, should stay at home to nurse and nurture their children. Breastfeeding was viewed as a "god's choice" that is thought to assist children to achieve good physical health in the future.[2] As author Londa Schiebinger noted in her book Nature's Body: Gender in the Creation of Modern Science "(Breastfeeding is) a new value to the female has been signed: women's particular role in reproduction."[3] Meanwhile, the milk produced by female humans has always been regarded as the nectar of gods, providing life, strength, and longevity. For example, breastfeeding (or "providing suck", "sucking", or "nursing") is mentioned numerous times in the Bible:

"...because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, a blessing of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb." [Genesis 49:25, NIV]

While breastfeeding is advised, wet nursing can be used as a substitute for breastmilk for mothers who are unable to produce enough. Wet nursing is the procedure of employing another woman to produce breast milk for the children. Despite wet nursing being common in the 16th and 17th centuries, and even after the 17th century when formulas were established, it received a harsh condemnation.

[2] Marylynn Salmon, “The Cultural Significance of Breastfeeding and Infant Care in Early Modern England and America”, Journal of Social History, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Winter, 1994), pp. 247-269 (23 pages), https://www.jstor.org/stable/3788897

[3] Londa Schiebinger. Nature's Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 56

To begin with, finding the ideal wet nursing was always a challenge for the family. A good wetnurse should not only be healthy but also have an impeccable moral character because, at the time, it was believed that a variety of ailments or personal flaws might be passed on to the kid via breastmilk. In addition, as one doctor noted, "The class of society from which wet nurses are selected is a pretty low one."[4] Wet nurses frequently receive slave-like treatment in the house due to their poor social position. For instance, they cannot bring their own children into the host's rooms. A woman named Fanny B. Workman complained in a letter to Babyhood magazine about having hired a "decidedly unattractive" wet nurse and being let down when, in defiance of her orders, the prospective employee showed up for her job interview with her own infant. Finally, the wet nurse "put out" the baby to accept the position. Two weeks later, she received a telegram informing her of the passing of her child.[5]

[4] Livia Gershon, “The Lifesaving, Horrifying History of Wet Nurses”, JSTOR Daily, August 3, 2015, https://daily.jstor.org/lifesaving-horrifying-history-wet-nurses/

[5] Jacqueline H. Wolf, “‘Mercenary Hirelings’ or ‘a Great Blessing’?: Doctors’ and Mothers’ Conflicted Perceptions of Wet Nurses and the Ramifications for Infant Feeding in Chicago, 1871-1961,” Journal of Social History 33, no. 1 (1999): 97–120, https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh.1999.0012

Given the severe criticism leveled at the wet nursing operation system, many parents at that time were eager to discover a new method of feeding their newborns that was more scientific and nutritional.

Formulas, which are typically prepared from powder or liquid for bottle-feeding or cup-feeding, did not come to the public until the 1800s. The first stage in developing the formula, though, started with the early examination of the components of different kinds of milk. In 1760, Jean Charles Des-Essartz wrote his Treatise of Physical Upbringings contemporary debates about baby food might seem new but here's the long history of debate (except more clearly expressed, obviously)of Children (Traite de l'Education Corporelle des Enfans en Bas Age), saying that the understanding that animal milk differed chemically from human milk was aroused. With mother's milk as the ideal, many scientists attempted to create non-human milk that resembled human milk.

Baby formula was in its "golden age" from the 1940s to the World War II period. More than 70% of firstborn infants were nursed at birth in the 1930s, and 45% of these newborns were still breastfeeding at three months of age. Breastfeeding rates at birth had dropped to 38% by 1965, with just 12% of these babies still breastfeeding at three months.[9] There are two reasons that lead to the boom of baby formula: aggressive advertisement campaigns and women’s engagement in career life.

[9] Hirschman, C, and G E Hendershot. “Trends in breastfeeding among American mothers.” Vital and health statistics. Series 23, Data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 3 (1979): 1-39.

Furthermore, the World War opened up tremendous opportunities for women because so many men joined the armed forces and went abroad, leaving many jobs that had previously been restricted to women. While educated women can pursue careers such as engineering or other sciences, low-educated groups can also earn money through "pink-collar labor" such as becoming typewriters, teachers, or factory workers. As shown in Fig.4, women's labor force participation has been steadily increasing since 1950, with a rapid increase from the 1960s to the 1990s. "The man he no works two days, three days maybe in one week, two weeks," one immigrant woman revealed of her desire to introduce industrial piecework into her house. No work on Sunday, no money...My girl, we're making feathers. The youngsters must be fed." Another immigrant woman gave birth while returning her sister's washboard, "washed baby at sister's house, walked home, cooked supper for boarders, and was in bed by 8 o'clock." The next day, I got up and ironed..."I milked cows and sold milk the day after the baby was born.” [10]  As women work more, they have less time to prepare their own baby food (for example, homemade porridge), so formula milk provides a quicker and easier way to feed the kids.

[10] Elizabeth Ewen, Immigrant Women in the Land of Dollars: Life and Culture on the Lower East Side, 1890-1925 (New York, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1985).

Breastfeeding hit a low point in 1972 when just 22% of moms breastfed their children. However, breastfeeding began to "recover" in the late 1970s and early 1990s, and breastfeeding initiation began to increase from 33.4% in 1975 to 54% in 1980. The recovery of “breastfeeding” was a contribution of several factors. To begin, the "natural childbirth movement" was launched in the 1960s. This was a companion piece to the burgeoning women's movement, promoting "childbirth" in a natural, unmedicated manner. According to research, the adoption of these behaviors contributed to the early comeback of breastfeeding.[11] The prepared childbirth movement was frequently driven by middle-class, well-educated Caucasian women, who were also among the first to see increases in breastfeeding rates. Also, questions about health concerns, as well as the ethical issues related to the aggressive advertisements of those baby formula companies started to appear in the public. One of the most famous cases was Nestle’s boycott (1977). On July 4, 1977(See Fig.5), the United States banned Nestle, one of the leading corporations in the formula sector. It was said that Nestlé was so focused on marketing infant formula to mothers who didn't need — and were really better off without — the products that it ignored the fact that these families wouldn't be able to afford the formula in the long run. All this added up to hundreds of thousands of newborn deaths – babies who would have survived if Nestlé and other firms had not engaged in immoral marketing methods.[12]

[11] Anne L. Wright and Richard J. Schanler, “The Resurgence of Breastfeeding at the End of the Second Millennium,” The Journal of Nutrition 131, no. 2 (2001), https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/131.2.421s

[12] Tehila Sasson, “Milking the Third World? Humanitarianism, Capitalism, and the Moral Economy of the Nestlé Boycott,” The American Historical Review 121, no. 4 (2016): pp. 1196-1224, https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/121.4.1196

To react to the unethical marketing of the formula industry, the FDA passed the Infant Formula Act of 1980, which established testing and manufacturing standards as well as maximum and minimum criteria for numerous nutrients in formulas. Some regulations included the periodic reports to the FDA:

……the act requires manufacturers to notify the FDA, not later than the 90th days before the first processing of any infant formula for commercial or charitable distribution for human consumption…… [14]

With the publication and later modification of the law regulations towards the formula market, the requirements for the ormula industry leveled and people gradually accepted the way of feeding kids with formula again.

By the twenty-first century, there appears to be a balance between the use of formulas and the use of breastfeeding. Though parents' primary concerns remain safety and nutrition, data show that today's formula is far more nutritious than previous formulas. Fig.6 and Fig.7 compare the nutritional values of Nestle formula milk in 1980 and 2022. Today, we can see that formula milk contains not only essential nutrients like iron or Vitamin B but also probiotics and DHA to aid in the body and brain development of children.

[14] Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration, "Infant Formula Reporting Requirements: Notice To Manufacturers," Federal Register Vol. 45, no. 227 (November 21, 1980): Page 77136, https://media.proquest.com/cdn/media/hms/PFT/3UnA?_tm=1683155325310&_cfs=kwIZEWO0lzDesfkZc9oOaeVjuQQRIgA8A5JgkVf9vg8%3D

To summarize, we can witness a steady change between breastfeeding and formula milk by looking at the historical evolution of children's feeding patterns. Though formula milk was popular in the early 1900s, it also experienced a decline due to ethical and safety concerns. Despite the fact that the quality of formula milk has improved over time, there should be stricter rules on the production of infant food.

Bibliography

Hill, David J. “Toxic Metals in Baby Food: Researchers Find 'Concerning' Gaps in U.S. Regulations.” University at Buffalo, February 2, 2023. https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2023/02/005.html

Salmon, Marylynn. “The Cultural Significance of Breastfeeding and Infant Care in Early Modern England and America.” Journal of Social History 28, no. 2 (1994): 247–69. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh/28.2.247

Schiebinger, Londa. Nature's Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004.

​​Gershon, Livia. “The Lifesaving, Horrifying History of Wet Nurses - Jstor Daily.” JSTOR Daily, August 3, 2015. https://daily.jstor.org/lifesaving-horrifying-history-wet-nurses/

Wolf, Jacqueline H. “‘Mercenary Hirelings’ or ‘a Great Blessing’?: Doctors’ and Mothers’ Conflicted Perceptions of Wet Nurses and the Ramifications for Infant Feeding in Chicago, 1871-1961.” Journal of Social History 33, no. 1 (1999): 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh.1999.0012

Stevens, Emily E, Thelma E Patrick, and Rita Pickler. “A History of Infant Feeding.” Journal of Perinatal Education 18, no. 2 (2009): 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1624/105812409x426314

Nummer, Brian  A. “Historical Origins of Food Preservation.” National Center for Home Food Preservation | NCHFP Publications, May 2002. https://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/nchfp/factsheets/food_pres_hist.html

Ewen, Elizabeth. Immigrant Women in the Land of Dollars: Life and Culture on the Lower East Side, 1890-1925. New York, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1985.

Annual report of the American Dairymen’s Association (1871). Photograph. 1865, January 1, 1871. Amherst.

McVean, Ada. “Sweetened Condensed Milk Was Popularized by Soldiers.” Office for Science and Society, May 24, 2019. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/did-you-know/sweetened-condensed-milk-owes-its-popularity-soldiers

Rosenberg, Chiam M. Goods for sale: Products and advertising in the Massachusetts Industrial Age. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007.

Hirschman, C, and G E Hendershot. “Trends in breastfeeding among American mothers.” Vital and health statistics. Series 23, Data from the National Survey of Family Growth,3 (1979): 1-39.

Wright, Anne L., and Richard J. Schanler. “The Resurgence of Breastfeeding at the End of the Second Millennium.” The Journal of Nutrition 131, no. 2 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/131.2.421s

Sasson, Tehila. “Milking the Third World? Humanitarianism, Capitalism, and the Moral Economy of the Nestlé Boycott.” The American Historical Review 121, no. 4 (2016): 1196–1224. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/121.4.1196

Malloy, Michael H., Anne Willoughby, Heinz Berendes, Barry Graubard, George G. Rhoads, Howard Moss, Mary McCarthy, Susan Gwyn, and Peter Vietze. “Hypochloremic Metabolic Alkalosis from Ingestion of a Chloride-Deficient Infant Formula: Outcome 9 and 10 Years Later.” Pediatrics 87, no. 6 (1991): 811–22. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.87.6.811

Okie, Susan. “Dangerous Formula.” The Washington Post. WP Company, December 10, 1979. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/12/10/dangerous-formula/e3ce7300-53c0-4c19-8b64-93afd9b208d3/

Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration, "Infant Formula Reporting Requirements: Notice To Manufacturers," Federal Register Vol. 45, no. 227 (November 21, 1980): Page 77136, https://media.proquest.com/cdn/media/hms/PFT/3UnA?_tm=1683155325310&_cfs=kwIZEWO0lzDesfkZc9oOaeVjuQQRIgA8A5JgkVf9vg8%3D