524. How Important Is Breastfeeding, Really?

In this special episode of Freakonomics, M. D., host Bapu Jena looks at a clever new study that could help answer one of parenting’s most contentious questions.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Zip System. Zip System building enclosures are designed as one integrated roof and wall system that makes it faster and easier to create a tight, dry building enclosure. Instead of a mix and match approach, all components work together as one system, eliminating the need for house wrap and felt. Because they keep your build protected against weather starting from day one, that means fewer steps and less opportunities for delays. Explore their family of products and learn more at zipsystem.com.

• 0:33Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern New Hampshire University. The best investments are the ones you make in yourself, and no one knows that better than Southern New Hampshire University. With more than 200 online degree programs, no set class times, and low online tuition, Southern New Hampshire University is built to fit your life today and set you up for success tomorrow. Education is an investment. Why not make it a smart one? Apply for free at snhu.edu/freakonomics.

• 1:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring. Great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing happens, boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it. Which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life? Like banking, for example? Well, PNC Bank did since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely not YOLO type. PNC Bank: brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member FDIC.

• 1:54Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by ChatGPT. ChatGPT work is a new way to work in ChatGPT. ChatGPT work can pull info from across your apps and connect to your tools to help you create finished work. You can even automate work in ChatGPT with the scheduled tasks feature, and the whole time, you stay in control. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.

• 2:33Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hey there. It's Stephen Dubner, and we've got something special for you this week, an episode of Freakonomics MD, one of our sibling shows from the Freakonomics Radio Network. Freakonomics MD is hosted by Bapu Jena, who is both a physician and an economist. Every week, he tries to answer a thorny question at the intersection of economics and medicine. Recently, he's looked at why doctors over-prescribe antibiotics, whether Americans are going overboard with colonoscopies, and what happens when physician assistants and nurse practitioners replace doctors. You can get all those episodes and many more wherever you get your podcasts. As for the episode we're about to play for

• 3:14Stephen J. Dubner?

  you, there aren't many questions thornier than this one. It is a classic example of how it can be really hard to prove cause and effect in healthcare. I hope you enjoy this episode. I hope you will follow or subscribe to Freakonomics MD on your favorite podcast app, and I hope you'll stick around to the end of this episode to hear a preview of a special series that we're about to run right here on Freakonomics Radio with me back in the host's chair. As always, thanks for listening.

• 3:53Speaker 01

  My interest in breastfeeding, I suppose, came from my own personal experience when I had my first child almost 14 years ago.

• 4:00Bapu Jena?

  Emma Fitzsimons gave birth on a Saturday afternoon and stayed in the hospital until Monday morning. At first, she didn't think much about what day of the week it was. Her mind was on something else.

• 4:13Speaker 01

  I really struggled in the early couple of days with breastfeeding. I found it very hard to access support in the hospital. But by Monday, I just noticed quite a stark difference in the availability of support. So a midwife was able to spend some time with me and to help me, which I hadn't had available over the weekend.

• 4:29Bapu Jena?

  Emma happens to be an economist and researcher at University College London, and this experience stuck with her. Surely, she couldn't be the only woman who delivered over the weekend and received less breastfeeding support as a result.

• 4:44Speaker 01

  I suppose that's what resulted in the idea behind this paper, which is looking at how that support goes on to affect breastfeeding and using that to try to establish the causal impact of breastfeeding on children's outcomes.

• 4:57Bapu Jena?

  What Emma is talking about here is the question at the heart of many of the debates around breastfeeding. What does it do for the child?

• 5:06Speaker 01

  There's lots of studies out there, but the vast, vast majority are mainly associations.

• 5:12Bapu Jena?

  It's much easier, in medical research as in other fields, to show that two things are associated, that they tend to go together, than it is to show that one causes the other.

• 5:23Speaker 01

  The usual approach is to compare children of mothers who breastfeed with those who did not breastfeed. So one concern is whether these two groups are truly comparable, and they're generally not. And so therefore, any difference in their children's outcomes may be due to breastfeeding, but it may also be due to other factors.

• 5:39Bapu Jena?

  Other factors, like socioeconomic status, where a family lives, whether mom goes back to work, how much support there is at home. So Emma set about to explore the breastfeeding question a bit more rigorously.

• 5:55Speaker 01

  First of all, we examine whether babies born at the weekend are less likely to be breastfed compared to those born during the week. And then, secondly, it looks at the impact of breastfeeding for at least three months on children's cognitive development and health.

• 6:09Bapu Jena?

  Emma's clever use of this natural experiment offers some of the best evidence to date on a question that parents and health experts have been arguing over and worrying about for decades. How important is breastfeeding? From the Freakonomics Radio Network, this is Freakonomics M.D. I'm Bob Ujina. Today on the show, what did Emma Fitzsimons learn?

• 6:36Speaker 01

  We found that all of the effect appears concentrated on children's cognition, and we observed strong effects lasting at least to age five.

• 6:46Bapu Jena?

  But first, economist and author Emily Oster will explain how she tries to help parents make big decisions using data and why with breastfeeding, this can be really hard to do.

• 6:58Speaker 03

  Some of the ways we have been pressuring people to breastfeed have been counterproductive and can actually be quite harmful.

• 7:21Speaker 03

  I'm Emily Oster. I'm a professor of economics at Brown University.

• 7:25Bapu Jena?

  And you've written a lot of books, is that right?

• 7:27Speaker 03

  Yes, I have three books, one on pregnancy and two on parenting at different ages. I've kind of made a career out of the fact that a lot of parents want information and they want data.

• 7:38Bapu Jena?

  Emily's no stranger to the Freakonomics universe. She's been a guest before on this show and on other shows on our network, like People I Mostly Admire and Freakonomics Radio. She tries to answer some of the biggest parenting questions by using data. Emily's books about pregnancy and early parenting have been bestsellers, but her research focus is a little different. She studies health behaviors and also statistical methods, so basically assessing how good research methods and research itself actually are. This is especially relevant with parenting.

• 8:16Speaker 03

  The kinds of data that are easiest to access when we have questions about parenting are data where you have two groups of families and one group engages in one parenting practice, another group engages in another parenting practice. For example, something I was writing about this morning is Montessori school. So you can think about how you would evaluate the quality of Montessori school by looking at parents who send their kids to Montessori school and comparing them to parents of kids who did not go to Montessori school.

• 8:44Bapu Jena?

  Remember the associations issue that Emma Fitzsimons mentioned earlier? Here's why it can cause problems in research.

• 8:52Speaker 03

  With an analysis like that, you very rapidly run up against the problem that the kinds of families that are sending their kids to Montessori school are really different than the kinds of families who are not. They're more likely to be white. They tend to live in higher income areas. There's just a bunch of other things which are really difficult to separate from the impact of the kind of school. That problem is inherent in almost every one of these parenting questions that we ask, which means that much of the work in trying to help people learn what they can from that data is understanding where are the better studies and worse studies within a set of methods, all of which usually have some problems.

• 9:35Bapu Jena?

  Breastfeeding is another example of a parenting question facing the inherent problem Emily describes. So let's take a step back and try to understand why. Breastfeeding rates in the US have ebbed and flowed. In 1972, following decades of decline, only around 22% of women breastfed their babies. This decline has been attributed to the aggressive manufacturing and marketing of infant formula, as well as to certain societal shifts, like more women entering the workforce full-time. That number has since steadily crept up, though, for a few reasons. Cultural changes led to more emphasis

• 10:17Bapu Jena?

  on natural approaches to birth and child rearing. Education efforts have let mothers know about the apparent health benefits of breastfeeding, like decreased risk of asthma and obesity for babies, and decreased risk of breast cancer and high blood pressure for moms. Guidelines from professional groups have changed, too. In the late 1990s, the American Academy of Pediatrics started recommending that women exclusively breastfeed their babies for at least six months. In 2019, more than 80% of infants started out receiving some breast milk, a massive spike from nearly 50 years earlier, when just 22% were breastfed.

• 11:01Bapu Jena?

  But even with so many more women choosing to breastfeed their babies, it's hard to know if breastfeeding is causing improved health outcomes in children, or if the improvements are due to factors that researchers can't see or control for. Still, women feel a lot of pressure to breastfeed their babies.

• 11:22Speaker 03

  Probably the central question that people have is, what are the benefits of breastfeeding? And are the things that they are telling me out in the world about the long-term benefits of breastfeeding, are those really all that they're cracked up to be?

• 11:37Bapu Jena?

  After the break, what factors do women consider when they consider whether to breastfeed? I'm Bob Ujina, and this is a special episode of Freakonomics MD.

• 11:53Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Zip System. Zip System building enclosures are designed as one integrated roof and wall system that makes it faster and easier to create a tight, dry building enclosure. Instead of a mix and match approach, all components work together as one system, eliminating the need for house wrap and felt. Because they keep your build protected against weather starting from day one, that means fewer steps and less opportunities for delays. Explore their family of products and learn more at zipsystem.com.

• 12:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring, great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing happens, boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it. Which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life, like banking, for example? Well, PNC Bank did since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely not YOLO type. PNC Bank, brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member, FDIC.

• 13:13Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right stay for work faster. With business preferences, save your travel must haves like gym access or breakfast just once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work travel. Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details.

• 13:49Bapu Jena?

  The Brown University economist Emily Oster writes about using data to inform how we parent. I asked her what drives women's decisions on breastfeeding.

• 14:01Speaker 03

  We know that there's clearly very large sociodemographic differences in both desires and outcomes. So, women with more education, higher income women, tend to be more likely to want to breastfeed. They're also more likely to be successful with breastfeeding. And that is likely partly because of the kinds of support that you get either in the hospital or after. It is because of maternity leave. If you only have two weeks of maternity leave, that actually isn't really enough time for most people to establish a good breastfeeding schedule that would be able to sustain time away from the baby.

• 14:34Bapu Jena?

  What is your assessment of the prior literature on this? I mean, it's been going back decades. What has it shown in terms of the effects of breastfeeding on health and cognitive development?

• 14:45Speaker 03

  When we look at the better studies of this, I would say there's two categories. There's one large randomized control trial run in Belarus in the 1990s called the PROBIT trial. And the PROBIT trial uses what's called an encouragement design. They encourage the treatment group to breastfeed. They didn't do as much encouragement with the control group. They have differences in breastfeeding rates at three months, at six months. And if you dig down into that data, you actually see some impacts on eczema and allergy reactions on gastrointestinal illness in the first year. But you don't really see anything in terms of long-term health, in terms Of long term cognitive development. So that is one piece of the better literature. And the other piece is sibling studies.

• 15:30Speaker 03

  So those are a bit easier to run. It's not a randomized trial. You want to think about there's two siblings, same family. One is breastfed, one is not. Those kinds of studies tend to show quite limited impacts of breastfeeding. Again, maybe something on gastrointestinal illness, maybe something on ear infections, but not these kind of long term impacts on cognitive development or weight or height or the kinds of things that are often cited when people are told breast is best. Don't you want to give your kid the best start?

• 15:58Bapu Jena?

  So maybe explain to me what the intuition is behind doing a sibling study. What are you trying to account for that would otherwise be difficult to do?

• 16:07Speaker 03

  Let me tell you about one of these kind of studies. So there's a data set called the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which has a lot of kids in it and it follows the starting point is women. And so then they sometimes have multiple kids. And so you can analyze the impacts of breastfeeding on cognitive development in that sample. So you can look at the IQ of kids and how it relates to whether they were breastfed. And so if you just compare the raw means, you see that the kids who are breastfed tend to do better on IQ tests than the kids who are not. You can then start by putting in some basic controls. So sort of some basic adjustments for maternal education and maternal income and race and so on. And that lowers those effects a lot. So the differences are much smaller once you adjust for some of that. But you then worry, well, there's a bunch of other stuff still left.

• 16:51Speaker 03

  For example, what about mom's IQ? Okay, so then you can do a version of the analysis where you control for mom's IQ. That makes the effects even smaller. But there are still potentially unmeasured differences between women that are both contributing to their decision to breastfeed and contributing to their kid's IQ. The idea behind the sibling effect is to say, well, let's just hold the mom constant. Let's take the same mom and then we're going to be able to hold constant everything about her, including the things that we don't directly see in the data. It's literally the same person. When you do that in that study, when you sort of control and compare two kids with the same mom, you don't get any impacts on IQ.

• 17:33Bapu Jena?

  How do those studies deal with the problem then that if a mom has two kids, the decision to breastfeed one child and the decision to not breastfeed the other child, that isn't random, right?

• 17:45Speaker 03

  I think that people who run these studies would tell you, well, maybe there is an element of randomness. You know, it's like, you're busy, or it's harder to breastfeed the first kid. But I actually agree that with almost any sibling study you run, you've got to ask the question, well, like, this seems important, why did you do it differently? And I think this kind of study is not as good as a randomized trial, for sure.

• 18:05Bapu Jena?

  Knowing the literature as you do, how much would you say that the literature should inform the decision of a mom to breastfeed or not?

• 18:14Speaker 03

  My general takeaway is that the effects are relatively small. And as a result, a big part of this decision should be about, you know, what works for you, what works for your family.

• 18:25Bapu Jena?

  What's the pushback that you get about these views?

• 18:28Speaker 03

  I don't get as much pushback about this as I thought that I would. I think that there is an increasing recognition in the world that some of the ways we have been pressuring people to breastfeed have been counterproductive and can actually be quite harmful, particularly to maternal mental health. You know, to the extent there is pushback, I think it's absolutely around the idea of, well, what if there are benefits, or what if we're missing something, or what if there could be some benefit for a small number of people and we've kind of missed out on it, and so we should, you know, get everybody to do this. And I don't find that surprising. I don't agree with it.

• 19:05Bapu Jena?

  How valuable do you think it would be to run a randomized trial to help answer some of these breastfeeding questions?

• 19:11Speaker 03

  I think it would be very valuable.

• 19:17Bapu Jena?

  The British economist, Emma Fitzsimons, didn't exactly run a randomized trial, but she came close. After the break, she'll share the findings from her new study and tell us who stands to benefit most.

• 19:31Speaker 01

  I think it speaks to the importance of the early years in terms of their influence on later outcomes. Absolutely vital.

• 19:38Bapu Jena?

  I'm Bob Ujina, and this is Freakonomics MD.

• 19:48Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio, sponsored by Granola. You know that moment when a meeting ends and someone says, let's circle back on this next week, and everyone nods, but no one writes it down? Then next week rolls around and it's radio silence? That's why Granola exists. Granola is an AI-powered notepad built for the way real people actually meet. You take rough notes like you normally would, and in the background, Granola securely transcribes the meeting. Then it turns everything into clean, structured, actually useful notes when the meeting ends. And the best part? Granola works through your device's audio, which means it integrates seamlessly into the video conferencing tools you already use. No setup, no awkward bots. It's just your normal meeting with superpowers. If meetings are eating up your day, Granola is a no-brainer. You can try it totally free.

• 20:33Stephen J. Dubner?

  Just head to granola.ai/freakonomics. That's granola.ai/freakonomics to get your time back. Try it for free at granola.ai/freakonomics. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Zip System. Zip System building enclosures are designed as one integrated roof and wall system that makes it faster and easier to create a tight, dry building enclosure. Instead of a mix-and-match approach, all components work together as one system, eliminating the need for house wrap and felt. Because they keep your build protected against weather starting from day one, that means fewer steps and less opportunities for delays.

• 21:14Stephen J. Dubner?

  Explore their family of products and learn more at zipsystem.com. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Progressive. Whoever says saving money is hard doesn't know that new customers who bundle and save with Progressive save hundreds, because switching your home and auto insurance is better than cutting down on the things you love, like those iced lattes that help you get ready to face the day. So, switch your home and auto to Progressive and see if you could save and keep sipping away. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states.

• 21:59Speaker 01

  I've long been interested in studying different aspects of early parenting behaviours and the early childhood environment. And as an economist, I'm particularly interested in measuring causal impacts so that we can think of the best possible policy levers to help improve people's wellbeing.

• 22:16Bapu Jena?

  That's Emila Fitzsimons again, from University College, London. As she told us earlier, she was drawn to study breastfeeding when she gave birth to her first child on a weekend, and noticed she received less breastfeeding support as a result.

• 22:33Speaker 01

  I was aware that there was evidence out there showing associations between breastfeeding and children's outcomes. I was aware that it was perceived as a positive thing to do, but I wasn't overly familiar with the evidence. I really, really wanted to understand what we really knew and what was actually causal versus more sort of observational association-type studies.

• 22:55Bapu Jena?

  Emila also happens to lead the Millennium Cohort Study, which follows over 19,000 children born in the UK at the turn of the millennium. Using this group and its data, combined with her own experience, Emila tried to answer one question about breastfeeding, and then another.

• 23:16Speaker 01

  We know more disadvantaged mothers are less likely to breastfeed. That was an important motivation behind our research. So first of all, we examine whether timing of birth affects breastfeeding, and in particular, whether babies born at the weekend are less likely to be breastfed compared to those born during the week. And for a certain group of mothers, those who left school before age 17, we find that it does. So to give you an example, a baby born on a Saturday is six percentage points less likely to be breastfed compared to a baby born on a Monday, so 27 versus 21 percent. And we find evidence in our study to suggest that it's because breastfeeding support is less available in the hospital at weekends. So that's the first aspect.

• 24:00Speaker 01

  And then secondly, it looks at the impact of breastfeeding for at least three months on children's cognitive development and health and non-cognitive outcomes for this group of mothers. It finds benefits for cognitive development lasting at least to age five, and it doesn't find effect on health or non-cognitive outcomes.

• 24:18Bapu Jena?

  What is it exactly about the lactation support that is different on the weekend in UK hospitals versus the weekdays?

• 24:27Speaker 01

  It's just less available. So in the UK, midwives and nurses in maternity wards generally, as part of their regular duties, provide lactation support in the very early postpartum period. Weekend working hours are more expensive for the National Health Service, so they tend to have lower capacity at weekends compared to during the weekday to sort of focus on the non-core aspects of maternity care. So they're more focused on the aspects around delivery and ensuring that everything runs smoothly and they have less time really available for other non-essential services or what are considered non-essentials such as providing lactation support to new moms.

• 25:07Bapu Jena?

  A critical assumption that you make here is that if you show that moms who deliver on the weekend are less likely to breastfeed than moms who deliver on the weekdays, that is due to differences in lactation services as opposed to differences in the characteristics of the moms or other services that the hospital may provide for the weekend versus weekdays. Can you explain to me what you did to make sure that the moms were essentially randomized or quasi-randomized to these two different levels of lactation support?

• 25:42Speaker 01

  We focused on a sample of low-risk natural deliveries. That was the first thing. So we excluded elective cesareans, which may be timed in a particular way. In the UK, at the time of our study, around 98% of births were through the public health system, which I know is quite different to the US. And so there was no choice, practically no choice about when a woman gives birth, so it's a spontaneous act. The data that we used is extremely rich and lots and lots of background characteristics. So we could then show that if you compare the women who gave birth at the weekend versus weekdays, along many, many dimensions, they were absolutely comparable. We didn't observe any significant differences along lots and lots of observable characteristics that we looked at. So that was one really important aspect.

• 26:25Speaker 01

  We also observed some information about the birth, about the type of care they received in hospital, about their experience of breastfeeding support. So we used different sources of data, again, to show that when you compare the births at the weekend and during the week... With the exception of breastfeeding support, we didn't observe any differences in the core services that were being provided. So the type of delivery, the type of pain relief being used and so on. That was a really important dimension to show as well. But when we looked at people's experience of breastfeeding support, we found that they were significantly more likely to report that they were less satisfied with the support they received at weekends. They had less access to midwives to help them establish early breastfeeding.

• 27:09Speaker 01

  So I suppose together, this is all really, really important, like you say, Bapu, to show that essentially this is pretty much comparing two groups who are absolutely comparable. The only difference is just the sort of lottery of birth due to that one happens to give birth during the week and the other group happens to give birth during the weekend. And so we can then go on to compare their children and compare their development over time and attribute any differences in their development to breastfeeding.

• 27:36Bapu Jena?

  You focused on economically disadvantaged mothers. Was there a particular reason that you looked at that group?

• 27:43Speaker 01

  We needed some variation in breastfeeding that was due to exogenous or random reasons. So when we studied that first stage, whether timing of birth affects breastfeeding, we found that it did affect breastfeeding, but only for the sample of relatively low-educated mums. So baby born on a Saturday versus a Monday was less likely to be breastfed. When we looked at that for high-educated mums, we didn't find any difference in breastfeeding by day of the week.

• 28:11Bapu Jena?

  I see. And let me just make sort of a statistical point. It's nuanced, but I think it's important. In your design, which is sort of this natural experiment, you're relying on something that is plausibly random with respect to the timing of birth, which is the availability of a lactation consultant. But for that to allow you to state the question that you want to study, it has to be the case that that service affects the likelihood of women to breastfeed or try to breastfeed. And maybe for women who are already planning on doing that, maybe economically advantaged mums doesn't really have an effect. But there are some women who are at the margin for whom that sort of access would lead them to do something that they otherwise might not do.

• 28:54Bapu Jena?

  And in this case, that's breastfeed or try to breastfeed their kids. Is that the right way to think about it?

• 28:59Speaker 01

  I think that's right. And because they've received this extra support, they're then able to breastfeed compared to had they not received that support.

• 29:06Bapu Jena?

  And what were the outcomes that you studied specifically and how large were the effects?

• 29:11Speaker 01

  We looked at children's cognitive development and mainly focused on expressive language, non-verbal reasoning and problem solving. We looked at a range of maternal reported measures of health of the child, including infections, skin problems and persistent vomiting and diarrhea. And also, we looked at measures of obesity as well in childhoods. And then we looked at maternal reported measures of children's socioemotional and behavioural development. And we looked at all these measures up to age seven. We found that all of the effect appears concentrated on children's cognition and we observed strong effects lasting at least to age five. In terms of the size of the effect, we found the effect to be mostly concentrated, I would say, on expressive language.

• 29:56Speaker 01

  We found that breastfeeding for at least 90 days versus less than that would shift a child up 15 percentile points in that distribution. So the effect was large. By age seven, it appears that the effects are a little smaller and possibly fading out, but we can't say for sure. And we need to study this further to really understand the longer term outcomes. And I would say this is an absolutely vital and open question. But luckily for this study, we now have data on educational attainment up to age 16, which we're now planning to look at next.

• 30:32Bapu Jena?

  So it felt to me that the effect was large. Do you think it's too large? Does it make sense for the magnitude of the effect?

• 30:39Speaker 01

  I mean, is it too large? It is a statistically significant effect. We're not picking up any effect on health or on non-cognitive outcomes. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But I think the fact that it's concentration on cognition is an important finding. But this is one study using a very robust and new methodology to study this, and hopefully we'll see more studies.

• 31:00Bapu Jena?

  I'd like to understand a little bit more about the mechanism here. And what I would like to understand is whether or not it's the breast milk, I mean, literally the breastfeeding that's occurring, versus the mother-child interaction or both. And is there a way to separate those things?

• 31:17Speaker 01

  Yes, well, in our study, we can't look at the extent to which it's the actual composition of the breast milk, which is one mechanism that has been put forward in the medical literature. But the other mechanism that you mentioned, Babu, and that we do look at in the paper is around maternal attachment and whether there's any evidence that mums who breastfeed versus those who don't are displaying higher levels of maternal attachment. We can look at that using maternal reported measures of how close they feel to their children. And when we do that, we find absolutely no evidence that maternal attachment is any better or worse, depending on how a baby is fed.

• 31:51Bapu Jena?

  Does your research say anything about the role of breastfeeding and maybe more specifically breastfeeding support as a way to address inequality and perhaps cognitive outcomes of children?

• 32:03Speaker 01

  I suppose the fact that we're observing potentially large effects on cognition for a particular group of disadvantaged mothers speaks to that directly. And we do find evidence suggesting it may be contributing to persistence in intergenerational transmission and inequalities. I think that makes the case all the more compelling that it is a group of disadvantaged mums that it seems to be having an impact on. And that speaks to me of the importance of providing policy support all the more.

• 32:34Bapu Jena?

  Emela's work was published in July of this year in the American Economic Journal. I wanted to cover it on this show because it's one of the most creative studies I've seen that tries to isolate the causal effect of breastfeeding on children's health and cognitive outcomes. It can be hard to find a way to bring rigor to questions about private choices like breastfeeding. Emela's study isn't the final word, but it gets us closer to some clearer answers about breastfeeding and its potential to address larger issues like equity. Ultimately, though, regardless of these or any findings, we need to be supporting moms

• 33:18Bapu Jena?

  more if they want to breastfeed for any reason. Here's Emily Oster again.

• 33:24Speaker 03

  One of the real reasons to encourage breastfeeding is because people might like it and because it might work for your family. That is such a strong argument for helping everyone have access to this if they want it. Part of what's so, so tricky about this is I simultaneously think that we should dial down the intensity of the messaging about how you have to breastfeed because otherwise you're a bad parent. And we also should way dial up how supportive we are for people who want to try this, who want to do this.

• 33:54Bapu Jena?

  That's it for today's show. I'd like to thank my guests Emily Oster and Emma Fitzsimons. And here's an idea to leave you with based on today's discussion. You may have heard that earlier this year, there was a large shortage of baby formula in the US. This got me thinking about moms who might have decided to breastfeed or continue breastfeeding because formula was, all of a sudden, less available. Could that be another natural experiment to study the impact of breastfeeding?

• 34:32Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hey there. It's Stephen Dubner again, and that was Bapu Jenna, the host of Freakonomics MD. If you liked this episode, there are a lot more waiting for you. Just follow or subscribe to Freakonomics MD in your favorite podcast app. And we'd love to know what you thought of this episode. You could send us an email, [email protected]. Coming up next time here on Freakonomics Radio, it's time to dust off your passport.

• 35:02Speaker 04

  We are now approaching Kirkcaldy. Please mind the gap when a lighting from this train.

• 35:07Stephen J. Dubner?

  We are coming up on the 300th birthday of the Scotsman who's known as the father of economics.

• 35:14Speaker 05

  He was born in rural Kirkcaldy, a little town on the east coast.

• 35:19Stephen J. Dubner?

  He is still widely read.

• 35:21Speaker 05

  He forces you to look at yourself and realize what makes you tick, pushes your buttons, rings your bells, tightens your shoelaces.

• 35:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  But he's also misunderstood.

• 35:31Speaker 06

  There's many reasons his thinking was powerful. Interestingly, not the reason that most people think.

• 35:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  His name is Adam Smith. A generic name, but a singular reputation. And lately, a reputation as the patron saint of full throttle capitalism.

• 35:48Speaker 05

  He believes in free markets and a free society. There's no getting around that.

• 35:52Stephen J. Dubner?

  But what did he really mean?

• 35:54Speaker 06

  He didn't really mean free from the state. When he talked about the free market, he meant free from rent, free from landlords' extraction of value from the system.

• 36:04Stephen J. Dubner?

  If only we could bring Adam Smith back to life for a chat. So we visit a cemetery. And it'll all be pretty spooky.

• 36:13Speaker 07

  People buried here will come alive for one night only.

• 36:17Stephen J. Dubner?

  There's a light. Look, somebody coming up with a light. All right, let's pretend that those people are not going to murder us. Okay. Next week, we begin a special three-part series on the real Adam Smith. Until then, take care of yourself, and if you can, someone else, too.

• 36:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio and Freakonomics MD are both part of the Freakonomics Radio Network, which also includes no stupid questions and people I mostly admire. Our shows are produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio. This episode was produced by Julie Kanfer and mixed by Greg Rippon and Eleanor Osborne, with help from Jasmine Klinger. We also had help this week from Catherine Moncur. Our staff also includes Neil Caruth, Gabriel Roth, Zach Lipinski, Ryan Kelley, Morgan Levy, Lyric Bowditch, Alina Coleman, Rebecca Lee Douglas, Jeremy Johnston, Daria Klenert, Emma Terrell, and Elsa Hernandez. Our music is composed by Luis Guerra. If you would like to read a transcript or check out the underlying research, that is all at Freakonomics.com.

• 37:21Stephen J. Dubner?

  As always, thanks for listening.

• 37:27Speaker 03

  There's actually a very nice quote from Dr. Spock, from the edition of Dr. Spock that my mother used in like the 1980s.

• 37:36Stephen J. Dubner?

  Wait, this is not the Star Trek doctor, is it? No.

• 37:38Speaker 03

  No, it's not the Star Trek.

• 37:46Speaker 08

  The Freakonomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything.

• 37:53Speaker 08

  Stitcher.

• 37:59Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Ozempic. Innovation happens through rethinking what's possible. And when it comes to GLP-1s, Ozempic pill does just that. Learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 4 and 9mg, by calling 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide and ask your doctor what's possible with FDA-approved Ozempic pill.

• 38:30Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern Company. The world and its energy needs are always changing. Southern Company's commitment to meeting this demand stays the same. That's because Southern Company believes energy is more than a utility, it's what powers possibilities. So they are looking ahead and investing $80 billion in infrastructure upgrades and are committed to fueling growth in ways that benefit all customers so that reliable and affordable energy is accessible for generations to come. Go to southerncompany.com to learn more. Southern Company, building the future of energy.

• 39:07Speaker 09

  How's the new place? Get your Wi-Fi figured out? I got T-Mobile 5G home internet and I'm loving it. It's the fastest 5G home internet. My old provider was so slow, mine is slow, and only $35 a month. Do I need to try this? Try it for 15 days. Love it or get your money back. I love it already.

• 39:24Speaker 10

  There are over 250 reasons to join T-Mobile. Find yours and check availability at tmobile.com/homeinternet.

• 39:32Speaker 11

  This is according to Oplu Speed Test Intelligence, data second half of 2025. All rights reserved. Redemunipack guarantee within 30 days of cancellation.

• 39:37Speaker 12

  This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Is there a right time to sell a stock? Are you taking the right risks with your portfolio? Financial decisions can be tricky, and often your own cognitive and emotional biases can lead you astray. Financial Decoder, an original podcast from Charles Schwab, can help. Join host Mark Reapy as he offers practical solutions to help overcome the cognitive and emotional biases that may affect your investing decisions. Listen at schwab.com/financialdecoder.