Historian of infant feeding debunks myths about how babies ate in the pre-formula days
Not everyone breastfed before formula was invented.

Prior to baby formula, breastfeeding was the norm, but that doesn't mean it always worked.
As if the past handful of years weren't challenging enough, one of the most harrowing issues the U.S. dealt with recently was the baby formula crisis in 2022.
Due to a perfect storm of supply chain issues, product recalls, labor shortages, and inflation, manufacturers are struggling to keep up with formula demand and retailers are rationing supplies. As a result, families that rely on formula were scrambling to ensure that their babies get the food they need.
Naturally, people weighed in on the crisis, with some throwing out simplistic advice like, "Why don't you just do what people did before baby formula was invented and just breastfeed?"
That might seem logical, unless you understand how breastfeeding works and know a bit about infant mortality throughout human history.
Rutgers University historian Carla Cevasco, Ph.D. shared some of the history of infant feeding in a viral X (formerly Twitter) thread to set the record straight. (Note: Cevasco provided sources for her facts, which can be viewed at the end of her thread on Twitter.)
"You may be hearing the argument that before the rise of modern commercial infant formula, babies all ate breastmilk and everything was great," she wrote. "As a historian of infant feeding, let me tell you why that’s not true."
First of all, throughout history, people have at times needed to feed infants using foods other than breastmilk. For many reasons:— Carla Cevasco, PhD (@Carla Cevasco, PhD) 1652312444
Cevasco explained that, throughout history, people have had to feed infants food other than breastmilk for a variety of reasons.
"Sometimes the birthing parent was unable to breastfeed," she wrote, "Because: death in childbirth, or physical/mental health concerns, or need to return to work outside the home right after childbirth, OR their partner or enslaver forced them not to breastfeed so that they could return to fertility ASAP after giving birth.
"Sometimes baby was unable to breastfeed. Because: poor latch, prematurity, cleft palate, other health or disability reasons, etc.
"Sometimes baby was being cared for by carers other than birthing parent, including adoptive parents."
So, feeding baby other people\u2019s breastmilk wasn\u2019t necessarily an ideal situation either, given the power dynamics of race, class, and gender in the past.— Carla Cevasco, PhD (@Carla Cevasco, PhD) 1652312706
Cevasco went on to explain what babies ate instead of a parent's breast milk in those situations.
"Sometimes someone else would breastfeed the child," she wrote. "This might have been a relative or neighbor doing it for free. Or it might have been a paid or unpaid servant or enslaved person doing it at the expense of their own nursing infant, who might starve to death as a result."
She also explained that some babies thrived on alternative diets, which are not recommended today due to concerns about safety and nutrition.
"Wabanaki women in the 18th century sometimes fed infants a mixture of boiled walnuts, cornmeal, and water; an English colonist, Elizabeth Hanson, reported that her baby thrived on this diet," she wrote. "In early modern Europe, babies often ate pap or panada, mixtures of animal milk or water, bread crumbs or flour. Sometimes these were boiled, sometimes they weren’t."
However, she explained, those milk substitutes weren't always safe or nutritionally complete.
"So before the advent of modern commercial formula (in the 1950s), a lot of babies died of illness or starvation because they couldn’t breastfeed and the alternative foods were not safe or adequate," she wrote. "Let me repeat that: in the absence of modern formula, A LOT OF BABIES DIED OF ILLNESS OR STARVATION DUE TO LACK OF SAFE OR ADEQUATE FOOD."
As Cevasco illustrates, the idea that the pre-formula days were a bastion of infant health due to widespread breastfeeding is simply incorrect. Cevasco explained that better supports such as paid parental leave, free lactation consultation and education, better access to places to pump and so on, would go a long way toward increasing breastfeeding rates. She also pointed out that the greed of the corporate formula industry created the formula shortage crisis.
"But! Let’s not demonize formula because of an imagined past in which everyone breastfed," she wrote. "In the ACTUAL past, babies fucking starved and died of disease. Babies who would have survived today, because they would have had access to safe, nutritionally complete formula. Access that is now, horrifyingly and unjustly, under threat for many babies and their caregivers."
There will ALWAYS be people who need formula for a whole hosts of reasons.— Carla Cevasco, PhD (@Carla Cevasco, PhD) 1652313204
Cevasco pointed out that there are multiple safe and nutritionally complete ways to feed a baby, and making sure babies don't go hungry should be our main goal.
So many misinformed comments could be avoided with a basic understanding of what infant feeding looked like in the past, as well as a basic understanding of how breastfeeding works both physically and logistically. Let's spend more time informing ourselves and sharing facts from experts rather than continuing to perpetuate unhelpful and harmful myths about both breastfeeding and formula feeding.
This article originally appeared three years ago.



Student smiling in a classroom, working on a laptop.
Students focused and ready to learn in the classroom.
Fish find shelter for spawning in the nooks and crannies of wood.
Many of these streams are now unreachable by road, which is why helicopters are used.
Tribal leaders gathered by the Little Naches River for a ceremony and prayer.

Communications expert shares the perfect way to gracefully shut down rude comments
Taking the high ground never felt so good.
A woman is insulted at her job.
It came out of nowhere. A coworker made a rude comment that caught you off guard. The hair on the back of your neck stands up, and you want to put them in their place, but you have to stay tactful because you're in a professional setting. Plus, you don't want to stoop to their level.
In situations like these, it helps to have a comeback ready so you can stand up for yourself while making making sure they don't disrespect you again.
Vince Xu, who goes by Lawyer Vince on TikTok, is a personal injury attorney based in Torrance, California, where he shares the communication tips he's learned with his followers. Xu says there are three questions you can ask someone who is being rude that will put them in their place and give you the high ground:
Question 1: "Sorry, can you say that again?"
"This will either make them have to awkwardly say the disrespectful remark one more time, or it'll actually help them clarify what they said and retract their statement," Xu shares.
Question 2: "Did you mean that to be hurtful?"
The next step is to determine if they will repeat the disrespectful comment. "This calls out their disrespect and allows you to learn whether they're trying to be disrespectful or if there's a misunderstanding," Xu continues.
Question 3: "Are you okay?"
"What this does, is actually put you on higher ground, and it's showing empathy for the other person," Xu adds. "It's showing that you care about them genuinely, and this is gonna diffuse any type of disrespect or negative energy coming from them."
The interesting thing about Xu's three-step strategy is that by gracefully handling the situation, it puts you in a better position than before the insult. The rude coworker is likely to feel diminished after owning up to what they said, and you get to show them confidence and strength, as well as empathy. This will go a lot further than insulting them back and making the situation even worse.
Xu's technique is similar to that of Amy Gallo, a Harvard University communications expert. She says that you should call out what they just said, but make sure it comes out of their mouth. "You might even ask the person to simply repeat what they said, which may prompt them to think through what they meant and how their words might sound to others," she writes in the Harvard Business Review.
More of Gallo's suggested comebacks:
“Did I hear you correctly? I think you said…”
“What was your intention when you said…?”
“What specifically did you mean by that? I'm not sure I understood.”
“Could you say more about what you mean by that?”
Ultimately, Xu and Gallo's advice is invaluable because it allows you to overcome a negative comment without stooping to the other person's level. Instead, it elevates you above them without having to resort to name-calling or admitting they got on your nerves. That's the mark of someone confident and composed, even when others are trying to take them down.