From GP comment it sounded like there are multiple mom's with infants in the building and statistically most of them should be breastfeeding. So if I run out of formula another mom is probably the best solution to not let my baby starve.
These numbers are actually surprising considering that natural breast feeding has health benefits for the baby. Although it says "only breastmilk" which can also mean formula is used as a supplement.
In lots of poorer parts of the world formula is marketed as being better than breast milk. In many developed countries adverts like these are banned but they used to be allowed. There were also problems with e.g. young children with well-to-do parents being given only canned food and getting scurvy. The theme was again about a supposed better-planned diet than what poorer people from less advanced times had to use.
Definitely true here in SE Asia and other parts of the developing world. In the Philippines for instance, you go to a supermarket and there are rows and rows of formula boxes and all you need to do is look at the packaging and advertising to see the message they're trying to convey: formula is for good-looking, light-skinned, smart, educated parents and only ignorant dark-skinned provincial poor people breastfeed because they can't afford formula. That's the thinking. There's almost no consideration that breast milk is more healthy for the baby.
America went through something similar about a century or two ago before birth control was prevalent.
Because breastfeeding mostly delays the return of fertility, formula popularity resulted in a huge spike of babies. (Ancient societies would often breastfeed for more than two years).
As society gathers more data on the huge health and IQ impact of breastfeeding, it will become the norm again as it is in the west (for the fewer mothers that do exist…).
Sure but how long can that last? I mean if no one is eating then the milk will stop and she's unlikely to sacrifice her kid's only food supply for yours.
