Advertisement
Panasonic
Panasonic

Breastfeeding Toddlers Okay

A provocative Time cover featuring a breastfeeding 3-year-old sparks anger from doctors.

By | May 16, 2012

WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, ELLYWA

The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, an independent organization of physicians that promote breastfeeding, has issued a statement criticizing Time Magazine for its provocative cover photograph depicting a 26-year-old mother breastfeeding her 3-year-old son. The cover has triggered “widespread and damaging misinformation about biological norms for breastfeeding,” according to the statement.

All major medical organizations recommend at least 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding and many encourage breastfeeding beyond infancy, said the ABM. Additionally, there is no scientific basis to claims that breastfeeding beyond infancy is harmful to mother or infant. Yet many readers reacted to the Time cover with disgust at the idea of a breastfeeding 3-year-old: the Atlantic Wire called the image “PG-13,” and The Right Scoop went so far as to call it “soft porn.”

The cover, and the subsequent reaction it sparked from the general public, is “a terrible disservice to women’s health,” Alison Stuebe, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, wrote last Friday (May 11) on the ABM’s blog. She references the fact that the photo depicts a young, attractive woman in a tank top and skinny jeans and a boy wearing “big kid” clothes and appearing tall by standing on a small chair. “Every aspect of the photo is engineered to evoke sexual undertones,” she wrote, “and Time’s tabloid approach has (predictably) brought out a mob of people saying breastfeeding is ‘sick’ and ‘perverted,’” when it is simply normal physiology, Stuebe argued.

“Ideally, Time Magazine should have featured a photograph of breastfeeding that would have supported the concept of breastfeeding as both the cultural and biological norm,” ABM president Arthur Eidelman said in a statement. “However, by using a staged, provocative picture of an atypical situation, Time chose to generate controversy for commercial ends at the potential expense of well-accepted public health recommendations.”

 

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Bill

Bill

Posts: 1457

May 16, 2012

"...that would have supported the concept of breastfeeding as both the cultural and biological norm."

Only problem is that breastfeeding a nearly 4 year old child is neither the cultural nor biological norm.

Avatar of: C Curtis

C Curtis

Posts: 1457

May 17, 2012

I think that's the point of the criticism. If they had shown an infant breastfeeding, it woud have supported the idea that this is a cultural and biological norm. By using an atypical model, it raised a furor that is bad PR for breastfeeding in general. 

Avatar of: Betsy Johnson

Betsy Johnson

Posts: 1457

May 18, 2012

As a mother who breastfed her son, I was delighted to continue well past the 6 months my mother and mother-in-law said was enough. They bottle-fed their children as do many women. Unless you have been in the situation, you have no say on the cultural or biological norm. The norm is what I choose. It's my child's physical and mental health that matters, nothing else.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement
Panasonic
Panasonic

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist