Rejoinder to judy m. Hopkinson.

摘要

In light of Judy Hopkinson's comments, my thesis regarding infant-feeding science bears repeating: breast-feeding might be better than formula-feeding for babies' health, but the evidence does not demonstrate it sufficiently enough to merit a public health campaign, especially one explicitly designed to frighten women. My analysis of the epidemiological literature suggests that confounding factors, especially parental behavior, could plausibly explain much of the benefit now attributed to breast-feeding; yet it is less concerned to advance a particular hypothesis than to demonstrate that the advantages of breast-feeding are not nearly as settled a scientific matter as many advocates contend. The majority of the article examines the relationship between public health, notions of risk, and an ideology of total motherhood, a discussion Hopkinson identifies as "ancillary" and therefore addresses only marginally. In focusing her commentary largely on lactation research, Hopkinson disregards my most basic argument: that the social dimensions of breast-feeding are as complex as the biology she takes great pains to describe. As a result, her remarks about both science and politics reveal many of the same problems apparent in the National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign (NBAC).