Nestle and breast vs. bottle feeding: mainstream and Marxist perspectives

The breast vs. bottle feeding issue has sparked a controversial debate. Mainstream analysis of the problem shows that arguments made by the business community, as represented by the Nestle Corporation, do not withstand examination of the evidence. For example, it cannot be substantiated that women begin formula feeding because they have entered the labor force. Mainstream studies of cost effectiveness further indicate that bottle feeding is a drain on the incomes of impoverished Third World families and nations. Marxist analysis gives a very different perspective. Nestle represents 19th century capitalist development and the Industrial Revolution, and 20th century imperialism, neocolonialism and monopoly capitalism. Its motive has been capital accumulation and expansion. To increase surplus value appropriation, capitalism must devalue the household (subsistence) economy in which women enjoyed considerable status. Women also produce the most fundamental commodity for capitalism-laborers; therefore, the biological connection must be masked and controlled for the benefit of capital. Thus, as the capitalist mode of production has developed, women have been removed from important roles in production and reproduction. Coupled with the ascendancy of science, expertism and public health imperialism, breast feeding in any market economy becomes nearly impossible. As women internalize the values of capitalist ideology, they elevate "man-made" marketed commodities over subsistence goods such as breast milk.