The costs associated with not breastfeeding a child in the first year of life are many and varied, ranging from economical to medical and environmental.

Firstly and most importantly the health benefits of breast milk must be fully understood. Breastfeeding saves lives by providing first immunity to a baby. It provides immunity for many viral diseases and respiratory infections, and to some bacterial diseases. Formula milk does not. The stimulation a baby’s immune system receives in those first impressionable months is thought to protect him throughout his entire life. Breastfed babies become adults, who are healthier, have lower cholesterol levels and less chance of developing asthma. They have fewer incidences of diabetes, ulcerative colitis, crohn’s disease, dermatitis and certain chronic liver diseases, to mention but a few. Thus the health care savings in the future avoiding many of society’s chronic illnesses is beyond estimation.

Allergic reactions are far less common among breastfed babies and it is highly superior for oral development. This leads the way to less dentist and orthodontist bills in the teenage years. One study has found that formula fed babies are hospitalized 3 times more often than breastfed babies in the first 3 months of life. The American Academy of Family Physicians cited in their official journal that 97% of bottle fed babies need medical care in the first 6 months of life as opposed to only 25% of breastfed babies. Obviously, the financial savings to both the family and society are tremendous. The costs associated with doctor visits, medications and parents time ‘off-work’ to care for sick children is substantial.

Breastfeeding, thanks to LAM, reduces total potential fertility as much or more than all other contraceptive methods. Again, the financial savings of sanitary and contraceptive items in that first year is notable. Breastfeeding and the resulting amenorrhea reduce the mother’s risk of fatal postpartum hemorrhage, the risk of breast and ovarian cancer and anemia. By spacing the births of her children, breastfeeding gives a mother time to recuperate before conceiving again. This increased natural spacing between siblings is beneficial to parents, children and society.

Breastfeeding is probably the most cost –effective of child health interventions. Families save money, institutions economize by reducing the need for bottle and formula, and fewer hospital or doctor visits takes a burden off health systems and a psychological burden off parents caring for continually ill babies.

Breastfeeding provides total food needs for the first 6 months of a child’s life so it maximizes food resources, is self renewing, does not waste scarce environmental resources or create pollution. It is a ‘liquid gold’ resource that requires no packaging storing, shipping or disposal.

Parents who make the decision to use formula milk should calculate the costs associated with bottles, milk powder, teats, sterilizing equipment and all other associated paraphernalia. There is also the environmental cost of aluminum for formula tins, plastic for bottles, paper for instructions, packaging and promotions. The by-products of the factories, damage to land by cattle grazing, and damage to the ozone layer by methane emissions.

There is also the question of ethics involved in the advertising of formula milk to countries with sub-standard hygiene and water supplies and poverty line family income. This successful marketing leads to an increase in both child morbidity and mortality rates worldwide. I consider the cost of a child life to be the greatest of all and any step that could be taken to prevent it should be implemented.

Fortunately, that step is available. It is abundant and it is cheap. It is breast milk.