"should I feel guilty if I decide to go with formula instead?"
Yes.
"In virtually all of the reported cases each year in which a breast-fed baby becomes seriously ill as a result of her mother's feeding choice, the problem is actually one of not breast-feeding -- meaning that, as in the Walrond and Cheeks cases, some uninformed and unsupported nursing mothers are not aware that they aren't effectively transferring milk from their breasts to their babies. In sharp contrast, however, routine formula feeding -- even when done properly by parents -- is itself a contributor to overall rates of infant morbidity and mortality in the United States. This is because -- despite what manufacturers' advertising would have parents believe -- today's commercial infant formulas, while a marked improvement over the homemade concoctions of years past, still represent a flawed and highly inferior imitation of our own, species-specific milk.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics' most recent member survey, a majority of baby doctors see slightly more formula-fed babies than breast-fed babies admitted to the hospital for instances of malnutrition and failure to thrive. But this represents only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the differences in rates of morbidity and mortality between formula-fed and breast-fed infants in this country. When the overall health of formula-fed infants in the U.S. is compared to that of breast-fed infants -- even after controlling for variables such as parents' socioeconomic backgrounds -- it becomes clear that formula-fed babies are sicker, sick more often, and are more likely to die in infancy or childhood. However, parents often lack access to this information, and in fact, are often the recipients of misinformation, thus denied the ability to make truly informed choices regarding how they will feed their babies. Although the phrase "breast-feeding is best" is tossed around so liberally as to have been rendered almost meaningless, many Americans are under the mistaken impression that today's commercial infant formulas are nearly identical to human milk. And because of this, parents who routinely approach other important infant health and safety issues in a thoughtful, deliberate way are largely unaware that in epidemiological terms, the decision to formula-feed when breast-feeding is an option places their child at demonstrably higher risk for a wide variety of ailments.
"Parents are not adequately informed regarding the real risks of artificial milks [infant formula]," says Nancy Wight, MD, FAAP, IBCLC, and a neonatologist at Children's Hospital in San Diego."
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/07/19/formula/
"One of the most powerful arguments many health professionals, government agencies and formula company manufacturers make for not promoting and supporting breastfeeding is that we should "not make the mother feel guilty for not breastfeeding". Even some strong breastfeeding advocates are disarmed by this "not making mothers feel guilty" ploy.
It is, in fact, nothing more than a ploy. It is an argument that deflects attention from the lack of knowledge and understanding of too many health professionals about breastfeeding. This allows them not to feel guilty for their ignorance of how to help women overcome difficulties with breastfeeding, which could have been overcome and usually could have been prevented in the first place if mothers were not so undermined in their attempts to breastfeed. This argument also seems to allow formula companies and health professionals to pass out formula company literature and free samples of formula to pregnant women and new mothers without pangs of guilt, despite the fact that it has been well demonstrated that this literature and the free samples decrease the rate and duration of breastfeeding.
Let's look at real life. If a pregnant woman went to her physician and admitted she smoked a pack of cigarettes, is there not a strong chance that she would leave the office feeling guilty for endangering her developing baby? If she admitted to drinking a couple of beers every so often, is there not a strong chance that she would leave the office feeling guilty? If a mother admitted to sleeping in the same bed with her baby, would most physicians not make her feel guilty for this even though it is, in fact, the best thing for her and the baby? If she went to the office with her one week old baby and told the physician that she was feeding her baby homogenized milk, what would be the reaction of her physician? Most would practically collapse and have a fit. And they would have no problem at all making that mother feel guilty for feeding her baby cow's milk, and then pressuring her to feed the baby formula. (Not pressuring her to breastfeed, it should be noted, because "you wouldn't want to make a woman feel guilty for not breastfeeding".)
Why such indulgence for formula? The reason of course, is that the formula companies have succeeded so brilliantly with their advertising to convince most of the world that formula feeding is just about as good as breastfeeding, and therefore there is no need to make such a big deal about women not breastfeeding. As a vice-president of Nestle here in Toronto was quoted as saying "Obviously, advertising works". It is also a balm for the consciences of many health professionals who, themselves, did not breastfeed, or their wives did not breastfeed. "I will not make women feel guilty for not breastfeeding, because I don't want to feel guilty for my child not being breastfed".
Let's look at this a little more closely. Formula is certainly theoretically more appropriate for babies than cow's milk. But, in fact, there are no clinical studies that show that there is any difference between babies fed cow's milk and those fed formula. Not one. Breastmilk, and breastfeeding, which is not the same as breastmilk feeding, has many many more theoretical advantages over formula than formula has over cow's milk (or other animal milk). And we are just learning about many of these advantages. Almost every day there are more studies telling us about these theoretical advantages. But there is also a wealth of clinical data showing that, even in affluent societies, breastfed babies, and their mothers, incidentally, are much better off than formula fed babies. They have fewer ear infections, fewer gut infections, a lesser chance of developing juvenile diabetes and many other illnesses. The mother has a lesser chance of developing breast and ovarian cancer, and is probably protected against osteoporosis. And these are just a few examples."
http://www.kellymom.com/newman/bf_and_guilt_01-00.html
"Is Formula Almost The Same As Breastmilk?
No, and not by a long shot. Just because every few years the formula manufacturers add something to their formulas that we knew was in breastmilk for years but the manufacturers denied were of any importance, doesn’t mean that the “new and improved” formula is just like breastmilk. In some cases, the formula is improved, but remember, they were telling us that the formula before the “new and improved” version was also “almost like breastmilk”. This is true, for example, of the long chained polyunsaturated fatty acids (DHA and AA) that are supposed to make your baby smarter (one company even calls their formula A+, but it deserves a C- at best). We’ve known how important these fats are for many years, but for many years (before they were added to formula, of course), the manufacturers, echoed by many health professionals, just kept saying that it didn’t matter, and that there was no proof that these fats were of any importance at all (this is still in the Canadian Paediatric Society’s 1995 statement on the nutrient needs of premature babies). This cycle of “our milk is just like breastmilk” followed by “we have now added x to our milk so that it is even more like breastmilk” has been going on since the 19th century.
The truth of the matter is this:
Just adding something to formula, even if it is in the same amounts as in breastmilk, does not mean that the baby will get the amount or the best sort he needs of this particular something. The example of iron helps us understand this. Breastmilk contains enough iron (with the stores the baby has during pregnancy), to keep the baby iron sufficient for at least 6 months. To maintain iron sufficiency in formula fed babies, formula needs to contain at least 6 times more iron than breastmilk, just because iron does not get absorbed from the baby’s gut as well from formula as it does from breastmilk.
There are still hundreds of components of breastmilk that are still not added to formulas.
Breastmilk varies in what it contains, from morning to evening, from day to day, from beginning of the feeding to the end, from day 1 to day 4 to day 10 to day 100, so there is no way we can know what breastmilk really contains. This means that there is no way to duplicate breastmilk because there is no such thing as a standard breastmilk. In fact, since every woman produces somewhat different breastmilk, the notion of a standard breastmilk becomes an absurdity. Breastmilk is a living, dynamic fluid. Formula is a chemical soup."
http://drjacknewman.com/help/Toxins%20and%20Infant%20Feeding.asp