Organic Baby Food, Breast Milk, and Infant Cognitive Development

Introduction

Pregnant women go through considerable deliberation about what is and is not safe or beneficial to eat. It is widely stated that eating organic food is healthy for a baby's growth and development, and that mothers should consume vegetables, fruits, and other wholesome 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 is a good approach to feeding them healthily. This paper argues that while some products attempt to "cash in" on the organic food craze by promoting themselves as organic even though they are not particularly nutritious — such as "organic" sugary cereals — there is still validity to the claim that organic diets consisting of wholesome, natural foods like vegetables, fruits, and nuts are beneficial for expecting mothers. However, the research shows that when it comes to feeding infants, breastfeeding has no substitute: it is the healthiest way to feed a baby, provided the mother is also receiving her required nutrients through healthy eating.

Carrying a baby for nine months can be a demanding experience. While pregnant, a woman needs to consume the proper nutrients and follow a specific diet in order to provide the right nourishment for the baby — just as adults need to maintain healthy diets in order to preserve their health throughout adulthood (Davis, 2008). Studies have raised concerns about the quality of a mother's breast milk, which is necessary for neural and cognitive development (Anderson, Johnstone, & Remley, 1999). The growth of children is critically important; they need all the essential nutrients to develop properly. Without adequate nutrition, they cannot obtain the correct intake required to function correctly. Studies conducted to test differences in cognitive development between breastfed and formula-fed children found that breastfed babies develop significantly better in both cognitive and physical ways than do formula-fed babies (Anderson, Johnstone, & Remley, 1999).

Literature Review

Organic infant formula claims to enhance a baby's diet and supply the nutrients — in supplement form — that it needs to grow. While this is, on its face, an accurate statement, it does not prove that formula is superior to breast milk. Indeed, when it comes to soy supplements, the literature suggests 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 breastfeeding — that, provided the mother is eating healthily 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 higher the child scores in cognitive, language, and motor development by 18 months of age. The researchers demonstrated a strong correlation between the natural process of breastfeeding and cognitive and physical development. Supplemental formulas, even organic ones, show no such indication; their main marketing tactic is to present themselves as organic and therefore inherently healthy. This does not mean they should be used in place of breast milk when the latter option is available, because breast milk is more effective in supporting more highly developed outcomes in children (Leventakou et al., 2015).

However, some literature argues that correlation does not imply causation and that the role of breast milk in cognitive development is complicated by confounders, which may 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 of one's interpretation of this debate, a notable correlation between the natural process of breastfeeding and increased cognitive and physical development in babies is consistently observed across the literature.

As for whether organic formulas can provide equivalent developmental support, there is no substantial evidence that organic foods are even "more nutritious than nonorganic foods," according to the Mayo Clinic (Hoecker, 2015). On the other hand, researchers like Davis (2008) have demonstrated that organic, natural diets are far more effective at preventing adults from developing diabetes than nonorganic, pre-manufactured diets. Davis (2008) showed that an all-natural diet could effectively reverse diabetes in an entire community, following that community's shift away from its traditional organic, all-natural diet toward manufactured, imported foods to which it was not accustomed. When the community returned to its all-natural diet, the outbreak of diabetes receded and members regained their health. This suggests that the merits of the organic diet are not unsubstantiated — however, part of what constitutes a genuinely healthy diet is that it is also all-natural. Organic foods that are manufactured, consist of empty calories, and lack meaningful nutrients are unlikely to be any healthier than their nonorganic manufactured counterparts (Hoecker, 2015).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important that marketers, psychologists, researchers, doctors, and consumers understand the claims that are made by those involved in selling products. It is equally important that researchers act ethically in all respects when conducting research. Disclosures should be made whenever any relationship exists that might alter the public's perception of research findings. Knowing the truth about what is and is not healthy is part of what enables individuals and society as a whole to make sound decisions about long-term health.