Ellen White's Breastfeeding Instructions

By Dirk Anderson, April, 2025

The 19th century nursery was a battleground of bizarre beliefs, particularly when it came to breastfeeding. Far from a simple act of nourishment, it was seen as a potent exchange, a literal transmission of character and constitution.¹ Mothers were cautioned that a fleeting fit of pique could sour their milk, while the choice of a wet nurse was fraught with peril, lest her "immoral" nature seep into the innocent child. This era, rife with moral anxieties and nascent medical understanding, wove a tapestry of myths around infant feeding, revealing a fascinating and often disturbing glimpse into the social and scientific anxieties of the time.  

Ellen White on Wet Nurses

Wet Nurse Breastfeeding a Baby in Spain (1936)

In the 19th century, several health reformers expressed concerns that the physical and moral constitution of the nursing mother or wet nurse could influence the health and character of the nursing infant. Dr. Caleb Jackson, from whom Mrs. White received her "health message," warned in 1868 that mothers with a disturbed "nervous system" could impart "such derangements" through her milk to a nursing child.² He warned that the milk of a wet nurse could be "highly charged with unhealthy or healthy vitativeness."³

Mrs. White first warned against wet nurses in 1870, writing:

She [wet nurse] also imparts her temper and her temperament to the nursing child. The child's life is linked to hers. If the hireling is a coarse type of woman, passionate, and unreasonable; if she is not careful in her morals, the nursling will be, in all probability, of the same, or a similar type. The same coarse quality of blood, coursing in the veins of the hireling nurse, is in that of the child. Mothers who will thus turn their children from their arms, and refuse the maternal duties, because they are a burden which they cannot well sustain, while devoting their lives to fashion, are unworthy the name of mother.⁴

An abbreviated version of the same statement was republished in 1897 in Ellen White's book Healthful Living (p. 145), and a toned-down version was published by her in 1905 in her book Ministry of Healing:

The mother who permits her child to be nourished by another should consider well what the result may be. To a greater or less degree the nurse imparts her own temper and temperament to the nursing child.⁵

Imagine how many SDA mothers were terrified after reading these statements as they worried about finding a suitable wet nurse who would not impart an evil character to their child! But were Ellen White's rants about wet nurses imparting their "temperament" and "morals" to the children they nursed scientifically valid?

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Statements

Statement 1: "She also imparts her temper and her temperament to the nursing child."

Scientific Verdict: Unsupported

Modern science does not support the idea that a wet nurse can transfer her personality traits (like temper or temperament) to a baby through breastfeeding. Temperament is influenced by:

• Genetics (inherited from biological parents)
• Early environment and caregiving
• Neurological development

While a baby may react emotionally to a caregiver's tone and demeanor, there is no physiological mechanism by which temper or personality traits are passed through breast milk.

Statement 2: "If she is not careful in her morals, the nursling will be, in all probability, of the same, or a similar type."

Scientific Verdict: Morally biased and scientifically unfounded

This reflects the 19th-century moral framework, not science. A nurse's "morals" cannot be transferred to an infant biologically. Moral and ethical traits develop over time through parental teaching, cultural and environmental influences, and personal experiences. There is no evidence that a wet nurse's personal morality affects the infant’s future behavior through breastfeeding.

Statement 3: "The same coarse quality of blood, coursing in the veins of the hireling nurse, is in that of the child."

Scientific Verdict: Invalid

There is no mixing of blood between a breastfeeding woman and the baby. Breast milk is not blood, and while it contains immune cells, hormones, and nutrients, it does not transfer the actual blood or DNA of the mother to the child.

Statement 4: "Mothers who...refuse the maternal duties, because they are a burden...while devoting their lives to fashion, are unworthy the name of mother."

Scientific Verdict: Unethical personal judgment

This is a subjective moral condemnation, common in health reform literature of that era. From a modern standpoint, there are many legitimate reasons why a mother might not nurse (health, economic, or personal). Delegating nursing does not reflect a lack of love or worthiness as a mother. The assumption that not nursing equates to moral failure is not supported by science or modern ethics.

Final Verdict

Ellen White's statements reflect the moral and cultural biases of the nineteenth century rather than biological reality. From a modern scientific perspective:

• Breastfeeding is biologically beneficial, but it does not transmit personality or moral traits.
• Wet nurses do not pass their temperament or moral condition to the child.
• Judging a mother for using a wet nurse is not scientifically valid or ethically justifiable.

Mrs. White's statement was uninspired, instilled a false sense of fear in mothers, and led her people astray. This proves that God was not inspiring her in regard to what health reforms to plagiarize from other reformers.

Ellen White on Heated Blood

In the 19th century, the bond between mother and child was viewed with a potent mix of tenderness and terror, particularly when it came to breastfeeding. It wasn't merely sustenance that flowed from mother to infant, but a vital, almost mystical, exchange of "blood" and temperament. A mother's emotional state was thought to directly corrupt her milk, transforming it into a toxic brew capable of tainting her child's very essence. A fit of anger, a surge of melancholy—these were not fleeting feelings, but potential poisons that could seep into the infant's veins, forever altering their constitution. This fear, steeped in the era's nascent understanding of physiology and its pervasive moral anxieties, reveals a fascinating, if unsettling, glimpse into the anxieties surrounding motherhood and the profound, almost supernatural, power attributed to a nursing woman. Jackson wrote on this subject in 1862:

If the mother takes food which particularly irritates the nervous system, making her irritable, or giving her exaltation of this system in any particular direction, the child, after having nursed her, puts on like irritability, and susceptibility to external impressions.⁶

In 1870, Mrs. White, in her infamous book about secret vice, writes about how the nursing mother's temperament and heated blood affects her child:

The period during which the infant receives its nourishment from the mother, is a critical one. Many mothers, while nursing their infants, have been permitted to overlabor, and to heat their blood in cooking, and the nursling has been seriously affected, not only with fevered nourishment from the mother's breast, but its blood has been poisoned by the unhealthy diet of the mother, which has fevered her whole system, thereby affecting the food of the infant. The infant will also be affected by the condition of the mother's mind. If she is unhappy, easily agitated, irritable, giving vent to outbursts of passion, the nourishment the infant receives from its mother will be inflamed, often producing colic, spasms, and, in some instances, causing convulsions and fits.

The character also of the child is more or less affected by the nature of the nourishment received from the mother. How important, then, that the mother, while nursing her infant, should preserve a happy state of mind, having the perfect control of her own spirit. By thus doing, the food of the child is not injured...⁷

This same statement was republished during Ellen White's lifetime in Healthful Living (1897) and Review and Herald (July 25, 1899). Despite its unscientific content, it continues to be published by the White Estate in compilations such as Counsels on Health (1923), Counsels on Diets and Foods (1938), Adventist Home (1952), Selected Messages (1958), and Counsels for the Church (1991).

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Statements

Statement 1: "The period during which the infant receives its nourishment from the mother, is a critical one."

Scientific Verdict: Valid

The breastfeeding period is crucial for the child's immune development, bonding between mother and child, and nutrition for early growth. Breast milk provides tailored nutrition, antibodies, and enzymes that are essential to the newborn's development.

Statement 2: "Overlabor and heating of the blood in cooking leads to fevered nourishment from the mother."

Scientific Verdict: Invalid

While severe stress, fatigue, and dehydration can temporarily reduce milk volume, "heating of the blood" is an outdated 19th-century idea based on humoral theory, not modern physiology. Today, it is known that physical exertion or working in heat does not literally "heat the blood" in a way that changes breast milk composition significantly. There is no evidence that working in a hot kitchen causes breast milk to become "fevered" or dangerous.

Statement 3: "The mother's unhealthy diet poisons the infant’s blood through breast milk."

Scientific Verdict: Exaggeration

Breast milk can reflect aspects of the mother’s diet (e.g., fatty acid profiles, some vitamins). However, "poisoning the infant’s blood" is a dramatic and unscientific claim. Mothers who eat poor diets may produce less optimal milk (lower in key nutrients), but the body protects the milk's quality surprisingly well, often at the expense of the mother's reserves. There is no medical evidence that an unhealthy maternal diet "poisons" the baby’s blood unless the mother is consuming dangerous levels of alcohol, drugs, or toxins.

Statement 4: "The infant is affected by the condition of the mother's mind... colic, spasms, convulsions, and fits."

Scientific Verdict: Exaggeration

Maternal stress, anxiety, or depression can influence the infant's emotional state. Studies show that babies are sensitive to caregiver mood and tone. However, claiming that this causes convulsions or fits is an overreach. Infant colic may be exacerbated by maternal stress, but it is not directly caused by emotional transfer through milk. A mother's mood and mental health matter, but the biological pathway is more indirect and does not result in dramatic physical symptoms like convulsions in healthy infants.

Statement 5: "The character also of the child is more or less affected by the nature of the nourishment received from the mother."

Scientific Verdict: Unsupported by evidence

Modern understanding of child development shows that character is shaped by a combination of genetic inheritance, early environment, parenting style, and social learning over time. While breast milk provides essential nutrition and contributes to healthy physical and neurological development, it does not influence personality traits or character directly. The nutritional quality of breast milk can affect brain development, which may influence later cognitive abilities and emotional regulation, but these are not the same as moral character or temperament. It is wholly unscientific to state that a baby's character (as in honesty, courage, or integrity) is shaped by breast milk content itself.

Statement 6: "How important...that the mother, while nursing...should preserve a happy state of mind...[so] the food of the child is not injured."

Scientific Verdict: Unsupported by evidence

Science does not support the idea of direct harm or "injury" to the milk when the mother is in a sour mood. There is simply no evidence that breast milk is "damaged" by the mother's mood.

Final Verdict

Ellen White's statements regarding breastfeeding shaping the character of a child contain a confusing mix of half-truths, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods. It is unfathomable why the SDA sect keeps reprinting these questionable statements for a modern audience.

Conclusion

While Ellen White no doubt earnestly desired to improve infant care, her understanding of breastfeeding was clouded by moralistic assumptions and limited scientific knowledge. Claims that a wet nurse could transmit her temperament through milk, or that a mother’s character and emotional state could directly shape her infant's moral character through breastfeeding, reflect the era’s tendency to conflate biology with morality. Modern science affirms the importance of maternal well-being and the value of breastfeeding, but it also clarifies that milk does not carry personality traits, nor does a stressful moment "injure" the milk. What this boils down to is that Ellen White taught false theories to her followers, and they endeavored to follow them. For example, some women would not breastfeed their infants when they were in a bad mood, allowing the infant to go hungry. The fact that Mrs. White copied these false theories into her health writings indicates that God was not guiding her on what to steal from other health reformers. God said it best:

Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies... (Jer. 23:32)

Citations

1. Emily E. Stevens, et al., "A History of Infant Feeding," The Journal of Perinatal Education, vol. 18,2 (2009): 32-9, doi:10.1624/105812409X426314.

2. James C. Jackson, How to Treat the Sick Without Medicine (NY: Austin, Jackson and Co., 1868), 121.

3. Ibid.

4. Ellen White, Health Reformer, Sep. 1, 1871, article A.

5. Ellen White, Ministry of Healing (1905), 383.

6. James C. Jackson, Consumption: How to Prevent It, and How to Cure It (Boston: B.L. Emerson, 1862), 148.

7. Ellen White, A Solemn Appeal, (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Assn., 1870), 124-125.