The theme chosen by the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA) for World Breastfeeding Week (WBW) 1998 Breastfeeding: The Best Investment, couldn't be more appropriate in view of the current economic situation faced in many parts of the world. The currency crisis in Asia, for example, has forced governments and families to take stock of the situation and pay attention to unnecessary expenditure and wastage of valuable resources, in order to find ways to be more cost effective. Even for countries not affected by the crisis, the significant role that breastfeeding plays in benefitting society cannot be ignored.  

Through the theme, Breastfeeding: the best investment, WABA aims to raise awareness about the economic advantages of breastfeeding versus the high cost of bottle feeding, and initiate action to protect, promote and support breastfeeding as one of the best health investments in the future of any country.   

Unlike bottle feeding, breastfeeding requires very little expenditure and has tremendous advantages for everyone. Households save, among other things, on unnecessary purchase of infant formula and equipment, and time taken to prepare such feeds. Families of the former Yugoslavia, for instance, would need to spend approximately 70% of their income for the purchase of breastmilk substitutes in the first six months if they did not breastfeed. In addition, families spend less on doctor's visits and hospitalisation as breastfed babies are always healthier. 

Employers gain from better productivity and less absenteeism among breastfeeding workers because breastfed babies are sick less often than bottle-fed babies. The Director of Sanvita Programmes in the US, a corporate lactation support programme, says employers are beginning to see that breastfeeding makes economic sense. "Employers who want to retain valued employees, avoid turnover costs, and maintain a positive corporate image are adding worksite breastfeeding support programmes to their employee benefit packages".  Through the Sanvita programme, businesses have been able to achieve up to a 4.5% return on their investments. 

Nations also save in foreign exchange that would otherwise be wasted on importing infant formula and other baby foods as well as on higher health care expenditure due to not breastfeeding. In recessionary times like the ones now experienced by several Asian countries, using scarce foreign exchange for unnecessary imports is not only bad economic practice, but is becoming an impossible practice.  

In Indonesia and the Philippines, the percentage of minimum wage spent on breastmilk substitutes (calculated for a 3 month old baby) is 50% and 26% respectively. Although Malaysians spend slightly less on infant formula (approximately 29% for rural workers and 19% for urban workers), the prices of powdered milks have gone up by 27% in March this year. Rising inflation means that these figures will only worsen, putting a greater burden on families and governments already suffering from overstretched budgets. 

The costs of artificial feeding must also be seen in terms of greater health care expenditure for treating infant ailments like diarrhoea, respiratory infections, meningitis, allergies and digestive disorders. In the USA, the cost of treating diarrhoea as a consequence of not breastfeeding was a staggering US$ 291 million a year, while the cost of treating respiratory syncytial virus, otitis media and insulin dependent diabetes mellitus were $225 million, $660 million and $10 million respectively. 

Breastfeeding on the other hand, ensures household food security, utilises a nation's natural resource, is ecologically friendly, reduces imports and thus saves on foreign exchange. Iran, for example, saved US$50 million in infant formula imports when exclusive breastfeeding increased by 43% over a six year period from 1991 to 1996. For each baby that is breastfed for six months, the US government estimates that it can save between US$450 to US$800 in welfare and health costs.  And in Australia, the health care system would save A$11.5 million if exclusive breastfeeding up to 3 months of age is increased from 60%  to 80%.  These are just a few examples of the contribution breastfeeding can make in terms of food supply and savings to a nation.   

Seeing such savings for all sectors of society, governments should no longer ignore the need to invest in breastfeeding and should immediately put into place a national breastfeeding programme.  

WABA has identified three goals for this year's World Breastfeeding Week (WBW) campaign. They are to: 
1. To raise public awareness on the economic value of breastfeeding and the high cost of bottle feeding; 
2. To provide concrete data on the economic advantages of breastfeeding and the expense of bottle feeding to be used for public advocacy; and  
3. To help governments appreciate the full economic value of breastfeeding and recognise the need to include support for breastfeeding promotion programmes in the national health budget. 

Quantifying breastmilk as a valuable economic resource in terms of food supply to a nation, and as a cost saving measure, is one method of demonstrating its importance to responsible policy makers.  But it must be remembered that economic data cannot reflect the  expressions of love and bonding that come with the act of breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is a unique and natural gift to humanity and is worth far more than any economic value assigned to it. It is a right of all women and children.  Let us begin to support this right now.