The war on breastfeeding and anything "natural"

This is something I could never have believed unless I actually read it for myself.

An article in the American Academy of Pediatrics' journal urges physicians to nix the word "natural" when talking to new mothers about breastfeeding.

The authors Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill, of the Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, don't actually dispute the fact that breastfeeding is natural, nor are they challenging the idea that breastfeeding is healthy. Instead, they are concerned that the word "natural" has certain problematic implications, and that by using it, doctors are unknowingly leading their patients down a path of thoughts that lead to things like skepticism about GMOs in food, questions about the safety of vaccines, or worries about environmental toxins......things that Martucci and Barnhill seem to think doctors or their patients should NOT be thinking about.

Is this a Pro-vax propaganda machine at work? How many people will be influenced by this dangerous idea?

The authors of this paper feel that it is actually dangerous to label breastfeeding as “natural” because it may (gasp!) actually cause people to believe that doing things the natural way could be beneficial (not appealing to nature here people). Their main issue is that if humans view breastfeeding as natural (and it is) then they will automatically be drawn to other natural practices like not immunizing their children, or becoming skeptical about engineering the food we eat to withstand mass amounts of pesticides.

From their paper: “Promoting breastfeeding as “natural” may be ethically problematic, and, even more troubling, it may bolster this belief that “natural” approaches are presumptively healthier.”

The authors feel so strongly about the negative implications of referencing things as natural, that they feel "natural" should be removed from all breastfeeding promotions even if using it [the promotion] causes women to start breastfeeding.

"We should think twice before referencing the “natural” in breastfeeding promotion, even if it motivates women to breastfeed."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/137/4/e20154154

More from the paper: "Studies have shown that parents who resist vaccination tend to inhabit networks of like-minded individuals with similar beliefs. These pockets of anti-vaccination sentiment tend to overlap with reliance on an interest in complementary and alternative medicine, skepticism of institutional authority, and a strong commitment and interest in health knowledge, autonomy, and healthy living practices."

And?? What's the problem? I mean, aside from the fact the paper is attempting to give these things negative undertones. Of course, I am skeptical of institutional authority, of course, I have an interest in autonomy and healthy living practices - these are good things! JUST LIKE BREASTFEEDING!! (Does this feel twilight zone-ish?)

"Part of this value system is the perception that what’s natural is safer, healthier and less risky. This embrace of the “natural” over the “unnatural” appears in a variety of contemporary scientific and medical issues beyond vaccination, including rejection of genetically modified foods, a preference for organic over conventionally grown (I'm pretty sure "organic IS conventionally grown - not whatever the paper is elluding to it meaning) foods, and rejection of assisted reproductive technologies, as well as concerns over environmental toxins and water fluoridation."

Then there is this very left-leaning aspect of the paper itself.

"Referencing the “natural” in breastfeeding promotion, then, may inadvertently endorse a controversial set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate."

The concept of breastfeeding frames the mother as nurturing her child (traditionalism-oh the horror!).

There’s a very simple problem with this argument against referring to breastfeeding as natural: breastfeeding is natural. It’s not vague or confusing. It is a biological function, triggered by pregnancy and birth, sustained in relation to the infant so long as the source of nutrition is needed.
The physical interaction is perfectly designed, a mother’s milk offers initial immunity through her antibodies (making vaccines unnecessary), and its composition changes to suit the baby’s needs (move along, nothing to see here!).

The case for breastfeeding is being dismantled. The benefits are being downplayed, just as these authors state that “a spate of recent work challenges the extent of these benefits.”

Government with their insane institutions, brainwashing doctors and patients to believe in their toxic (lack of actual beneficial) care.