Hacker News Reader

Comment by SkyPuncher | Hacker News Reader

> Baby formula isn't some magical combination of ingredients.

This is overlooking an incredibly important piece - composition and reliability. Infants, particularly those under 6 months, have very specific nutritional needs. A subset of that population has extremely strict nutritional needs. Even in a health baby, "stretching" the formula with too much water can cause a dangerous drop in electrolyte levels.

For the average person, it's going to be extremely difficult to source, process, mix, and hydrate ingredients (and test it all) to properly feed their baby.

----

To put things in perspective, toddler formula is _extremely_ similar to infant formula, but the ratios are slightly different. This slightly difference means you cannot safely use toddler formula as a replacement for infant formula.

View on HN

So, if infant formula is unavailable the course of action you recommend is simply letting the child go and making another one, because it won't be possible to guarantee that any alternative food source is 100% perfect?

That's the weird thing about these interactions. If someone's asking for an alternative to infant formula - because they can't get any - the situation is already unsafe. Starvation has a 100% fatality rate.

Infant formula isn't part of the scenario being discussed. Alternatives are to be compared against starvation, as that is part of the scenario being discussed. Do alternatives have a 100% fatality rate? No. So why all the weird 'there's just no viable alternative' comments?

I'm tempted not to respond because you're clearly not applying a good faith argument here. Nobody in this thread, besides you, is suggesting that it is preferable to let a baby die than to feed them partial nutrients. Of course, if your child is literally starving, you should look to a less than ideal, short term solution.

This thread is in the context of "why isn't the media providing alternatives". I'm refuting the point that "it's simple and easy to replace baby formula" - which supports your argument, highlighting the severe and dire consequences of this situation.

I'm making an argument that highlights the severity of this situation for parents with young infants.

>Of course, if your child is literally starving, you should look to a less than ideal, short term solution.

Yes. That's the issue we're having here. People are encountering that situation of being unable to find formula, meaning that their children are literally at risk of starving, asking for alternatives and being told 'there's just no viable alternative' by the media as though that information will make formula appear out of thin air. They are looking for that less than ideal short term solution from the media, which is responding oddly.

It is quite simple to provide short-term replacements for infant formula. Famine relief, missionary and other charities do have reliable and nutritious recipes for baby formula alternatives that can be made in bush conditions and over open fires in metal pots.

> 'there's just no viable alternative' by the media

This isn't the media's job. Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor. This is realistically the only safe suggestion since all of the alternatives are bad.

> Famine relief, missionary and other charities do have reliable and nutritious recipes for baby formula alternatives that can be made in bush conditions and over open fires in metal pots.

Please, please, please, cite your source on this. I have a really hard time believing this as simple as "this one trick from Africa". I believe what you're referring to is literally infant formula. You're simply describing the process of sanitizing water then mixing in standard, powdered infant formula.

The introduction of formula to impoverished regions was extremely controversial. As mother's used formula, their milk production decreased. This forced them into a dependency on formula manufacturers or milk-donors (wet-nurses, milk-banks, etc). This would not be a problem if there were viable solutions.

------

EDIT: Lastly, I would like to point out that this isn't an argument about "feed the baby" or nothing. If you are that desperate to feed your baby, go to a fucking hospital. They _will_ be able to help you.

> This isn't the media's job. Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor. This is realistically the only safe suggestion since all of the alternatives are bad.

I wish people would lay this blanket advice to rest, unless they are doctors themselves and can give relevant advice immediately. I live in Germany, a country that everyone praises for its healtcare system and it is incredibly hard to get a doctor's appointment here that is not months down the road. Sure there are emergency options, like the hospitals that you mention, but imagine what happens if millions of deperate people try to tap into the strategic formula reserves of hospitals...

During a catastrophic event, I absolutely expect the media to spread ideas for creative solutions. You can always say that talking to an expert is the best option, but what is plan B if plan A is no realistic option?

> This isn't the media's job.

I think maybe this is the problem both specifically here and more widely, there's a major outbreak of 'not their jobitis' going on. The media are 'not my jobbing' this and ignoring the fact that distributing health information has very much been the job of the media in the past.

Maybe a similar issue with the FDA who 'not my jobbed' the inspections of the facility and 'not my jobbed' the reopening inspections of the facility and 'not my jobbed' other things they could have been doing, such as distributing safe formula-replacement recipes.

Maybe - to take a tangent - a similar issue with the Uvalde police who 'not my jobbed' actually interacting with a scenario. Seems to be a whole rash of people forgetting you have to actually interact with the world and take actions if you want things to happen, not just observe and write reports.

> Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor.

That's purely because of liability.

> This is realistically the only safe suggestion

No, that's point of the contention here.

> Please, please, please, cite your source on this.

The recipes for infant milk start on page 93.

https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...

“…talk with your doctor. This is realistically the only safe suggestion since all of the alternatives are bad.“

What exactly do you think we did before baby formula even existed? Or doctors, for that matter? This absolute dependence on systems is disheartening. We need a drastic reconnection with nature.

> What exactly do you think we did before baby formula even existed?

Well, we breastfed.

Problem is that isn't actually a reliable solution since not all mothers produce milk at the quantities their child needs. This is particular true as a child grows, many mothers grow tired of breastfeeding and look to formula as an alternative. Problem is this deteriorates their milk production since the child is eating less breastmilk.

-----

The reality is this situation is primarily dangerous for mother's who cannot breastfeed or lack sufficient production - and require formula. There is no go, safe, reliable option because Option A (Breastmilk) is gone and Option B (Formula) is as well.

People keep acting like there _should_ be a backup to formula, without understanding that humans are the only animals on earth that have created an alternative to their naturally produced milk.

>People keep acting like there _should_ be a backup to formula

There are backups, which are safer than the alternative of starvation, which has a 100% fatality rate.

A homemade formula which killed 25% of children would still be 400% safer than the alternative of giving them nothing and having them all die.

>you cannot safely use toddler formula as a replacement for infant formula.

This needs to be repeated. Do not swap them.

My wife and I were trying to help a family by buying them formula - and we bought the wrong age range. It makes a big difference. Don't do it.

On a side note, we are going to donate the formula we can't use to a stranger. So. There's that.

I mean, that makes sense, but on the other hand, I'm pretty sure human breast milk doesn't change composition as a child ages. If it's possible to develop a formula that is "close to human breast milk as possible", the age range really shouldn't matter.

Actually, it changes a LOT over time. I'm a little removed from the breast feeding days, so I had to look it up. Here is a cool article [0].

I'll summarize some of the cool points. Breast milk changes to respond to 3 distinct ages of the baby. Newborn to 3ish days. 3ish days to 1 year. 1 year to "the end".

Milk changes to respond to growth spurts of your baby!

Milk changes to provide antibodies. Not covered in this article: it is hypothesized that kissing your baby can give the mom bacteria on the baby - and then the mom makes the antibodies for bacteria the baby was exposed to.

Milk changes throughout the day!

Milk changes in the middle of breast feeding

That's it. Those are the ones I enjoyed. Here is the link!!

[0] https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/magical-ways...

Regardless of whether the formula changes/doesn't change is essentially irrelevant. As a baby grows, their diet grows as well. A toddler can get by on infant formula (though less than optimal).

This situation primarily impacts 0 to 4 months olds and secondarily 4 to 6 months old. It's less than ideal fora 6 to 12 month old to use a sub-par diet, but it's much less critical than in a newborn.

Basically, the newborn range is growing so quickly that small deficiency can have huge cascading effects. Old babies are a bit more resilient because they're growing a bit slower (relatively) and have more buffer in their reserves for certain things.

In my opinion, what you're arguing is equivalent to saying "children should be allowed to drink alcohol. If it's safe for adults, it's safe for children".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com