Breast milk is no better for a baby than formula, an expert has claimed, reigniting the "breast is best" debate.
Professor Sven Carlsen last week said breast-fed babies were slightly healthier, but it was not the milk that made the difference. Instead, babies who are breast-fed have benefited from better conditions in the womb before birth.
The professor, an expert in the hormonal changes of pregnancy, claimed: "Baby formula is as good as breast milk."
The bold statement will enrage the "breast is best" lobby, who say a mother's milk wards off a host of ills. It will also confuse mothers who are under pressure from the Department of Health to feed their babies on breast milk alone for the first six months of life as it would help protect their baby against obesity, eczema and ear, chest and tummy bugs.
But Carlsen, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, spoke out after carrying out a review of more than 50 studies into the relationship between health and breast-feeding.
Most concluded that the longer a child is nursed, the healthier it will be. The professor said this may be the case, but it was because of a healthier pregnancy, not the breast milk.
His research shows that high levels of the male sex hormone testosterone in the womb affect a woman's ability to produce milk and to breast-feed.
With testosterone levels affected by the health of the placenta, which ferries oxygen and nutrients to the baby, he believes high amounts indicate poorer conditions in the womb overall.
This means that any differences in the health of a baby bottle-fed because its mother finds breastfeeding difficult are set before birth, rather than afterwards. - Daily Mail