Non-Nutritive Sucking

by Katherine Dettwyler, PhD

Department of Anthropology,
Texas A and M University

I don't like this term because it juxtaposes itself to "nutritive sucking" with the implication that "nutritive" sucking is REAL sucking, and the other is not. It also carries with it the implication that the main/only real purpose of breastfeeding is the transfer of nutrients. This is the message the infant formula companies have been pushing all along -- breastfeeding is JUST a way to feed your baby, and here's another which is better/as good/almost as good.

I don't think breastfeeding is "just" about feeding the baby, any more than sex is "just" about creating babies. Breastfeeding the baby does provide food, and water. It also provides immunological factors, which may be what the baby is after (and why they nurse so often when sick, not just for comfort). The process of breastfeeding itself also regulates the baby's temperature and heart rate and lowers its blood pressure, and puts it to sleep. And then of course there are all those important social and emotional factors going on during the exchange. Dr. Blackburn's research on the evolution of mammary glands suggests that the original purpose of "lacteal fluids" was to kill germs in the offspring's gastro-intestinal tract and protect it from infections, and the nutritive components of breast milk only evolved later.

As long as breastfeeding is seen as only or even primarily a way to feed the baby, then bottle-feeding will be seen as equivalent or good enough (IMHO). We need to really try to get away from this idea that if the sucking is "non-nutritive" then it is optional, or can be replaced by a pacifier. I know that's not what was said in the earlier post, but it is the way many people feel -- that baby *shouldn't* want to nurse again, how could it *possibly* be hungry already? Well, maybe this time it wants to nurse because it is cold or lonely or agitated or sleepy/cranky. All of these are *equally* legitimate needs (once again, in my ever-so-humble opinion).

A good point was made that mothers need to be able to realize if milk transfer is not taking place, and they need to pay attention to output, and they need to listen to their babies, and they may need someone to check their latch-on, and keep track of the baby's weight, etc. I've criticized fellow anthropologists who do "stop watch" research of time baby spends at breast without considering a) how much, if any, milk transfer is taking place, and b) whether or not the mother is lactating. I'm still nursing Alex, but I'm not lactating. So is he breastfeeding? It's definitely non-nutritive, but does that make it not important?

At the same time, we really need to start teaching people that breastfeeding is a multi-factorial, complex interaction between two people that has ramifications for the child's nutritional status, to be sure, but also its ability to deal with disease, its physiology, its emotional and cognitive development. I guess to me the phrase "non-nutritive" just smacks of "non-important" or "non-real" or "non-significant" even if it isn't meant that way.

Off of soapbox, on to lunchbox.

Prepared February 8, 1996.

Return to the Kathy Dettwyler page.