Breastfeeding her child, for the love of the planet Receive the last hour alerts of duty

The benefits of breastfeeding on the health of the newborn and that of the mother have been known for a long time.This time, a scientific article published in the British Medical Journal stresses that the ecological imprint of breastfeeding is minimal, even zero, compared to that of the preparations of natural milk whose production contributes to environmental degradation and changesclimatic.

According to this article signed by the Dre Natalie Shenker of the Imperial College London and his colleagues, breastfeed a newborn in the first six months of his life would prevent the production of 95 to 153 kg of co₂ caused by the use ofmother's milk.Encourage and help British women would reduce carbon emissions between 50,000 and 77,500 cars per year.

The authors emphasize that most of the preparations of natural milk for infants are made up of cow's milk, and that cattle breeding gives off methane, a greenhouse gas (GHG) which traps 30 times more powerfully heatin the earth's atmosphere that carbon dioxide."The food industry, particularly dairy and meat production, is responsible for almost 30 % of GES generated on the planet," they recall.Researchers also point out that the production of one kilogram of cow's milk powder requires 4,700 liters of water.

In addition, as cow's milk powder alone is not enough for the optimal development of the baby, this powder is enriched by the addition of sunflower, rapeseed, coconut and palm oils, fungal oils, fish and algae, as well as minerals and vitamins."Although it is not clear that these supplements are really appropriate from a nutritional and development point of view, their production, on the other hand, has an undeniable effect on the environment," they said.

What is more, the researchers add that, to prepare a bottle of natural milk in a safe manner, the powder must be dissolved in water having been heated at least at 70 ° C.The energy expenditure required to boil the water necessary for the preparation of milk to feed a baby for an entire year corresponds to that which can be used for recharge of 200 million smartphones, each year.

The authors also relate a study having shown that in 2009, 550 million cannedness of humilies, which corresponds to 86,000 tonnes of metal and 364,000 tonnes of paper, were poured into the landfill sites each year.And they say that the infant preparation industry has more than doubled since 2009.

Currently, only 40 to 50 humanized milk processing plants exist around the world and produce around 3.8 million tonnes of milk preparations for infants each year.The transport of basic ingredients to these factories and that of finished products to consumers all over the world are another important source of GHG emission, write researchers.

On the other hand, "breastfeeding requires little resources and produces very little, or even no waste".What is more, it improves "the health of the mother and children who, therefore, use less health care services", point out the authors of the article.

According to the latter, the important ecological imprint of preparations of humilies is an additional argument to encourage women to breastfeed and to help them when they have difficulty doing so.Because breastfeeding is still not adopted as often as often as the World Health Organization (WHO), since only 40 % of the 141 million babies which arise annually are breastfed exclusively within six during the sixFirst months of their lives.

Canada and Quebec are also poor in this area.According to the most recent data available on the rate of breastfeeding in the country which date from 2011-2012, only 26 % of Canadian women practiced exclusive breastfeeding for six months, and as little as 19 % of Quebecers have done so.According to the pediatrician Jack Newman, Toronto, a breastfeeding specialist since 1984, these rates have probably not increased since 2012 and remain representative of the current situation.However, "breast milk and natural milk, it is not at all the same thing.They may have the same white color and are both liquids, but the similarities stop there.All the additives that are added to cow's milk in humilies are not important, "he said.

Precisely, "the WHO asks the speakers not to use the expression" humanized milk "which gives the impression that it is almost the same, what the pharmaceutical companies which promote it fight to make us believe.WHO rather recommends using "milk substitute" or "infant formula", "says Christiane Laberge, specialist in family medicine.

This lack of breastfeeding membership is largely explained by the fact that "the majority of doctors have never learned what you need to know to help mothers succeed in breastfeeding.And in most hospitals, mothers are not given good information that would allow them to adequately breastfeed their baby.For example, they are told that they are normal for their nipples to be painful, when it is not true, and that this problem must be held as soon as possible in the hospital before it becomes too difficult.In addition, doctors often decide to give supplements to babies who seem to have lost a little weight, without having observed whether babies suckle well or not, "said Dr. Newman who insists on theimportance of "treating breastfeeding problems in the first week after birth or at the latest during the second week.Otherwise, it will probably be impossible to continue breastfeeding.»**** The following precision was brought after the posting: the publication of the British Medical Journal whose words in the article above is an editorial.In addition, in the fifth paragraph, it was necessary to read that "the energy expenditure required to boil the water necessary for the preparation of milk to feed a baby for a whole year corresponds to that which can be used for 200 million unique rechargescell phones ".-Pauline Gravel