¶ … pregnant women go through stages of what is good to eat and what isn't. It is stated that eating organic food is healthy for the baby's growth, and development. Mothers are said to eat vegetables, fruits, and other foods in order to maintain a healthy diet. Research has shown that eating organic food is healthy for babies and many claims by marketers suggest that formula for babies is a good approach to healthily feeding them. This paper will show how while some products attempt to "cash in" on the organic food craze by promoting themselves as organic, even though the food itself is not very healthy (such as "organic" sugary cereals), there is still validity to the claim that organic food diets that consist of wholesome, natural foods like vegetables, fruits and nuts are good for expecting mothers. However, the research shows that when it comes to breastfeeding, there is no substitute -- it is the most healthy way to feed a baby, so long as the mother is also getting her required nutrients through healthy eating. Introduction

Carrying a baby for nine months can be a tough experience. While being pregnant a woman needs to take the proper nutrients and be on a specific diet in order to provide the right nutrients for the baby, just as adults need to consume healthy diets in order to maintain their health in adulthood (Davis, 2008). But there are studies that show concerns when it comes to the mother's breastmilk which is needed for neural and cognitive development (Anderson, Johnstone, Remley, 1999). The growth of children is very important; they need all the nutrients that are essential for them to development properly. Without nutrition in their body they would not get the correct amount in order to function correctly. Studies were done to test the differences in cognitive development between breast fed and formula fed children and found that breast fed babies develop significantly better in cognitive and physical ways than do formula fed babies (Anderson, Johnstone, Remley, 1999).

Literature Review

The organic formula food for babies claims to enhance the baby's diet and give it the nutrients in supplement form that it needs to grow. While this is on the face of it an accurate statement, it does not prove that formula is better for babies than breast milk. Indeed, when it comes to soy supplements, the literature suggests that there is little cognitive benefit from them (Brandt, 2012). Thus, when it comes to development, there is no substitute for natural foods and processes (such as breast feeding) that, so long as the mother is eating healthy herself, give the baby what it needs to develop properly. Likewise, the study by Leventakou et al. (2015) shows that the longer a mother commits to breastfeeding her baby, the greater the child scores in cognitive, language and motor development by 18 months old. Thus, the researchers have shown that there is a strong correlation between the natural process of breastfeeding and cognitive and physical development; supplemental formulas even organic ones, on the other hand, show no such indication; their main marketing tactic is to sell themselves as organic and therefore good for you foods. But this does not mean they should be used in place of breast milk when the latter option is available, because the latter is more helpful in producing more highly developed children (Leventakou et al., 2015).

However, some literature argues that correlation does not mean causation and that the role of breast milk in cognitive development is altered by the role of confounders, which cause researchers to skew their conclusions (Walfisch et al., 2013). Yet, other research shows that breastfeeding is associated "with better cognitive and motor development in 2 and 3-year-old children" (Bernard et al., 2013). Regardless, thus, of the takeaway from this research, there is a notable correlation between the natural process of breastfeeding and increased cognitive and physical development in babies.

As for organic formulas being instrumental in providing the same support for development, there is no substantial evidence that organic foods are even "more nutritious than nonorganic foods," according to the MayoClinic (Hoecker, 2015). On the other hand, researchers like Davis (2008) have proven that organic, natural diets are far better in keeping adults from developing diabetes than nonorganic, pre-manufactured diets are. In fact, Davis (2008) showed that an all-natural diet can cure an entire community of diabetes, following that same community's switch away from its organic all-natural diet to the manufactured, imported diets to which it was not accustomed. By switching back to its all-natural diet, the outbreak of diabetes receded and the members...

This suggests that the merits of the organic diet are not unsubstantiated -- however, part of what goes into making up a healthy diet is that it is also all-natural. Organic foods that are manufactured and consist of empty calories and no nutrients are not likely to be any better for one than a nonorganic manufactured foods (Hoecker, 2015).
Ramifications

This is important to know when it comes to deciding whether or not to breastfeed or to use organic formula. Organic formula is said to be healthy because it is organic and because it contains nutrients that a baby needs. While both claims are true, the first is not really a substantial claim because as the MayoClinic has shown, just because a food is organic does not make it necessarily healthy. What makes formula good for infants is that it also contains the nutrients they need. Thus, using formula to give to infants to help them develop their cognitive and physical body is not necessarily bad.

However, when compared to the natural diet that an infant can receive from a mother who is breastfeeding, the use of organic formula pales. Breast milk is totally natural and full of nutrients that are produce in the mother's body specifically for the infant. No lab can reproduce the exact substance of the mother's milk and thus formula is an inferior product in this regard. Breast milk is made specifically for the baby that the mother has, whereas formula is made generically for all babies so as to meet basic, essential requirements that babies need to grow. It does not go above and beyond the basic necessities in the same way that a mother's breast milk will go.

For this reason, it can be argued that while organic formula does have a valid claim that it can help to support the baby's cognitive and physical development, one cannot make the claim based on the available research that formula is superior to breast milk in terms of supporting the baby's cognitive and physical development. As the relevant studies show strong correlation between prolonged breastfeeding and higher scores in cognitive tests, it is reasonable to conclude that breast milk has a better effect on babies than formula, even if not all the studies agree on the exact role that breast milk plays in cognitive and physical development.

The Psychologist and the Marketing Ploy

Were a licensed psychologist in my state to publically endorse a product with no empirical evidence supporting its claims, and it was later discovered that the psychologist was receiving a percentage of money from the sale of the product to parents, there would definitely be a violation of the APA Code of Ethics. First off, this is a conflict of interest, as the psychologist is standing to benefit personally from a favorable review of the product. It naturally arouses suspicion about the veracity of the psychologist's research and findings and raises questions about whether or not the psychologists violated code 6.06 regarding "Accuracy in Reports to Payors and Funding Sources" about his relationship with the producer of the product. This should have been disclosed at the top of the report in which he/she made statements in support of the product. Likewise, the psychologist may have violated code 8.07 regarding "Deception in Research," which holds that researchers should not use deceptive practices in order to skew results of a study to show bias one way or the other either for or against a hypothesis (APA Code of Ethics, 2002).

Conclusion

In conclusion it is important that marketers, psychologists, researchers, doctors and consumers understand the claims that are made by persons involved in the selling of products. It is also important that researchers act ethically in all regards when it comes to conducting research. Disclosures should be made if there is any relationship that might alter the public's perception of findings. Knowing the truth about what is good for people and what is not is part of what goes into making good decisions about how to be healthy in the long run for all society.

References

APA Code of Ethics. (2002). APA. Retrieved from https://memforms.apa.org/apa/cli/interest/ethics1.cfm#8_06

Bernard, J. et al. (2013). Breastfeeding duration and cognitive development at 2 and 3 years of age in the EDEN mother -- child cohort. Journal of Pediatrics, 163(1): 36-42.

Brandt, M. (2012). Study finds little cognitive benefit from soy supplements. Stanford Medicine. Retrieved from https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/06/study-finds-little-cognitive-benefit-from-soy-supplements-for-older-women.html

Davis, B. (2008). Defeating Diabetes: Lessons from the…