One small step for breastfeeding.....

Dr. Mercola Angers Fans by Promoting Infant Formula

2010-10-18T10:01:00.000-07:00

By Lisa Russell
Published Oct 18, 2010
0diggsdigg Share Article Print Article Dr Mercola's natural-minded fan base is angry about his decision to market an artificial breastmilk product. His ethics are called into question.

Dr Joseph Mercola's Facebook Fan Page was buzzing with activity early on the morning of Monday, October 18, 2010. Some of his "fans," which (at 8am PST) number over 128,000, are angry with his decision to market a breastmilk substitute for infants.

The controversy has inspired women to speak out against his lack-of-a-position regarding male genital mutilation (routine infant circumcision) as well.

One former Mercola fan sums up the consensus of the objectors:

I have been a very vocal supporter of yours for YEARS. However, as a prominent lactivist & child health advocate with a large network here on Facebook, and having read this morning about your upcoming powdered infant formula to hit the market in a year's time, you should know that I will now be pulling my support for you entirely. That, coupled with your wishy-washy stance on infant genital cutting, makes it clear to all (or it should), that infant health is clearly NOT your concern; getting the lion's share of the formula market, however, is. If you truly cared about infant health, you'd inject some of your burgeoning fortune into *breastfeeding support* in your country, instead of adding to the detriment that ALL breastmilk substitutes have on infants who consume them. Disappointed beyond words in Montréal, -Emma KwasnicaDr Mercola's site has been publishing articles to educate his readers about the dangerous levels of Manganese in soy-based infant formula. In his article "Warning: Please Avoid Feeding This To Your Child" (10-18-10) he states that

children exposed to high concentrations of manganese in drinking water performed worse on tests of intellectual functioning than children with lower exposures.

and later, that:Studies on miners and steelworkers, for example, have shown that excessive exposure to manganese can cause manganese poisoning, Parkinson's disease, and Wilson's diseaseMercola points out that manganese exists in groundwater, and points out that some areas are now filtering manganese out of their water.

In third world countries, and areas where water contamination is likely, powdered infant formula can be deadly for babies. Polluted water, fed to infants, often results in deadly infections. The World Health organization works very hard to educate women in third world countries about the benefits of breastfeeding.

Mercola's article states that his company is "in the process of producing the finest infant formula on the market" Those 12 words were the impetus of outrage. Nakai Rupp, a former fan of Dr Mercola, questions his stance on male genital mutilation as well, stating:

I pulled my support of you earlier this year when I found out that you delete questions about circumcision from your page and you do not answer them. Which makes one think that you are possibly FOR infant genital mutilation. And now you are developing formula?! WOW! What a disgrace! If you can line your pockets at the expense of a baby's health, you do not deserve MY support. I will be spreading the word about you, so that others may see what you are truly about!! I am once again removing myself from ALL of your mailing lists.

Unable to find a specific statement regarding his stance on circumcision, an article from April of 2000 states that Mercola was "impressed with the evidence supporting circumcision" while another article on the site, written by Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, PhD, listed circumcision as an event that can "Leave Behind an Unresolved Psycho-Emotional Conflict" which, if left unresolved, can create a significant bioelectrical disturbance in conflict-specific areas of the brain. The abnormal signals produce abnormal neuropeptides and abnormal electrical currents that reach the hypothalamus. From here, the signals travel in the autonomic nervous system to distinct target organs, which are - again - conflict specific"In other articles on the site, Mercola's readers can be seen sharing their circumcision stance and encouraging Dr Mercola to speak out, though he has not.

References:

Warning: Please Avoid Feeding This to Your Child on Mercola.com

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/18/manganese-can-adversely-affect-childrens-intelligence.aspx?aid=CD945

Circumcision Facts on Mercola.com

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/04/09/circumcision.aspx

Applied Psycho-Neurobiology by Dr Dietrich Klinghardt on Mercola.com

http://www.mercola.com/article/applied_psycho_neurobiology/apn.htm

Read more at Suite101: Dr Mercola Angers Fans by Promoting Infant Formula http://www.suite101.com/content/dr-mercola-angers-fans-by-promoting-infant-formula-a298198#ixzz12jNPuSCg

Joyfully Kissing her beautiful baby boy: The girl branded too stupid to be a mother

2010-10-18T07:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1321167/Joyfully-kissing-beautiful-baby-boy--girl-branded-stupid-wife-mother.html

Joyfully kissing her beautiful baby boy - the girl branded too stupid to be a wife or a mother
By Alison Smith Squire

Laughing in the autumn sunshine, a baby boy takes his first wobbly steps along a sandy beach. His delighted and attentive mother offers a safe pair of arms as his proud father captures the moment with his camera.
It is a touching scene that any parent would recognise. But it is particularly precious for Kerry Robertson and her new husband Mark McDougall.
Kerry, you may remember, is the slender brunette whose wedding was dramatically halted a year ago by Fife social services because they judged her too ‘stupid’ to understand the vows.

Four months later, the social services struck again. As Kerry breast-fed her three-day-old son Ben, council officials who feared she lacked the intelligence to be a good mother came into the maternity ward and took the child into care.
Already banned from marrying, Kerry, 18, and Mark, 26, were forced to leave the hospital without their newborn son.
Today, however, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that they have been reunited with their little boy and are now both living with him for the first time since he was born.
The authorities in Ireland, where they fled before the birth in the hope that they could keep their baby, have agreed that Ben can indeed stay with his parents.
This is not their only piece of happy news. Earlier this month, Mark and Kerry finally married in a tender ceremony at a hotel in County Waterford, defying those who said their relationship could never last.
‘All I ever wanted was to be married to Mark and to live a normal life with our son,’ said Kerry yesterday.

‘Now I just feel so contented and happy to be a proper family at last. I love being with Ben and being his mum. I have cried a lot over the past year but it’s only brought Mark and me closer.’
The couple’s resilience and the resourcefulness they have shown in fighting for the right to bring up their son together seems to make a mockery of the view that Kerry was too weak-minded to be a wife and mother.
Some would say it is difficult to see why Fife social services came to that conclusion in the first place.
Kerry’s friends accept that she was in the remedial class of her local state school, but point out that her educational difficulties were caused, in part, because she missed a lot of school time through treatment for a cleft palate.

They say she is chatty – indeed her new husband describes her as ‘bossy’ – and claim the root of the problem was that she found Scottish social workers so patronising that she refused to co-operate with them, often meeting their questions with silence.
Only in Ireland, where the professionals seemed more understanding, did she open up and talk about her situation, say her friends.
When the couple’s plight first came to public attention last year, there was a huge outcry at what seemed to be a monstrous abuse of power. Social workers had descended upon Kerry and Mark just 48 hours before they were due to get married, telling them their wedding would be unlawful.
In a highly unusual step, Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife council wrote a letter of objection.
The removal of their child a few months was even more heart-wrenching and sparked a major campaign of protest on the internet.
Mark says he is still struggling to come to terms with the ‘nightmare’ they were put through. A gentle, mild-mannered young man, he says quietly: ‘I will never forget the day we were forced to hand Ben over. Kerry had just finished breast-feeding and both of us were in pieces. We were totally helpless to do anything about it.
‘To say we have been on a rollercoaster over the past year would be an understatement. It has been traumatic. And although now we are married and have Ben with us at last, I can’t help but feel bitter that we have had to go through all this.’
Many would have crumbled under the strain. For the past few months, Mark and Kerry have been forced to go through rigorous tests to prove they can be good parents.
It would appear their only ‘crime’ is that Kerry suffers from mild learning difficulties, although the true extent of these has always been a matter of contention.
Indeed, Mark and Kerry claim she has never undergone any official psychological assessment and, before having Ben, she successfully worked as a childcare assistant in a school.
Although no one is pretending she is academically gifted, to meet her is to encounter a lively young woman in the mould of any other young mum. Certainly, it is hard to fathom why Fife social services reached such a damning verdict.
The authorities first took a formal interest in Kerry when, at the age of just nine months, her parents handed her to the care of her grandmother, who brought her up overseen by Fife social services.
Even so, there was little to distinguish Mark and Kerry from any other young couple. When she became unexpectedly pregnant they were pleased rather than concerned. They had organised a white wedding in church, bought a dress and rings, arranged the reception and were eagerly anticipating their big day.
Mark recalls: ‘We were about to go out and make a few final arrangements for our wedding when we heard a frantic rapping at the front door.
‘When we opened it, two social workers burst in and told us that the marriage was illegal because Kerry has learning difficulties. They said she did not possess the capacity to make such a decision.’
Then came the second bombshell – their baby would be removed at birth. Once again, social workers believed her learning difficulties could lead to the baby suffering ‘emotional harm’.
‘It was as if I didn’t matter as a father,’ recalls Mark.

‘By stopping our wedding, social workers had taken away my rights as the baby’s dad. The fact that I would always be there to look after Ben as well didn’t seem to make any difference.’
He now believes that Fife social services had made up their minds that Kerry would not be able to keep the baby even before they had assessed her as a parent.
Because of this, days later the couple made the heart-wrenching decision to flee the UK and go to Ireland because they believed Irish social workers would prove more sympathetic.
Kerry expertly cradles Ben on her lap and as she talks it is clear that he enjoys the sound of his mother’s voice.

‘I’m shy when I first speak to people,’ she says by way of explanation of her reticence to speak to Fife social workers.
‘It’s only when I’ve known people for a long time that I am happy speaking to them.
‘I didn’t want to leave Fife – I’ve lived there all my life. All my friends and family are still there. I didn’t want to leave them.

But at the same time I’d been told my baby would be taken into care at birth and, naturally, I was going to do anything to stop that from happening.’
After tearful goodbyes to family and friends, the couple fled the UK with just £200, a suitcase of clothes and a bag of sandwiches made by Kerry.
Thankfully, a benefactor provided a rented house for them in Waterford. This generosity came just in time – ten days later, on January 15, Kerry went into labour and at 8.41pm gave birth to Ben, a healthy 7lb 3oz.

For three days, like any other new parents, the couple were on cloud nine. Kerry took to breast-feeding and close friends and family who knew where they were sent congratulations cards.
There was more trouble in store, however. The Irish authorities had discovered from Kerry’s medical records that social workers in Fife had an interest in her.
Mark later found out that Irish officials who contacted Fife were told that Kerry’s ‘disability’ could put Ben at risk of physical or emotional neglect. As a result, Irish social workers were duty-bound to act.
Mark and Kerry were utterly unprepared when, at 9.15am on January 19, they were forced to hand over their baby. They just had time to tell Ben they loved him and give him a kiss before he was taken away.
‘Coming home without Ben was awful,’ says Kerry.

‘Neither of us could stop crying. We just didn’t know what to do with ourselves. My body ached for my baby. I produced so much milk for him, which I would give to social workers so they could feed him.’
Over the next two weeks the couple barely saw Ben. Indeed on the few occasions they were allowed to visit him there were tearful exchanges with social workers. Kerry was upset to see Ben with a dummy and angry that he was being bottle-fed with formula milk.
Even when mother and baby were reunited at a special residential home, Mark had to drive for 90 minutes to get there.
Mark says: ‘Kerry and I were apart and I couldn’t see Ben that often. We just longed to be a normal family – to play on the beach, take him for walks in the park and tuck him up in his own bed.’
More recently they have been allowed to see him without the presence of a social worker. Then, last Wednesday, the Irish courts lifted many of the restrictions, meaning they were finally allowed to take Ben home and care for him themselves.
Mark is reluctant to criticise Irish social services.

‘Having been told by Fife that they feared Kerry could cause Ben “emotional harm”, I can see that they found themselves in a difficult position where they were forced to act,’ he says.
‘We had to prove that Fife social services’ concerns were groundless. Yes, Kerry does have some learning difficulties – the way she sees everything in such a black-and-white way is one of the reasons why I adore her – and she does need help with Ben. But it doesn’t mean she should have the right to be a mum taken away from her.’
He says that neither he nor Kerry regret leaving the UK and that, after the way they have been treated, they have no plans to return.
‘I believe that, had we stayed in the UK, our lives would have been ruined,’ he says. ‘We would have been forbidden to marry, and Kerry would have continued to be treated as a single mum with learning difficulties rather than an individual with a right to a normal life.
‘Although our baby was taken in Ireland, at least they looked at us as individuals rather than making a blanket assumption that Kerry wouldn’t be a good parent.’
It is proof of how much this couple have touched people’s hearts that, when they married two weeks ago, some of the 30 guests were officials involved in their case.
‘Right up to the last minute I expected someone to turn up and say we couldn’t go through with it,’ says Mark.

‘The registrar knew our wedding had been refused in the UK and it was up to her to decide if in fact Kerry was intelligent enough to understand the vows.
‘The registrar did have the right, under Irish law, to stop it again.Thankfully she had no hesitation in taking us through our vows and the wedding went without a hitch.’
The guest of honour was Ben, now nine months old and a lively bundle of mischief. Although clearly angry at their treatment, neither Mark nor Kerry show any bitterness. Instead they are absorbed in the happiness of making a home on the beautiful shoreline of Waterford.
‘He’s a big baby for his age,’ says Kerry proudly.

‘He’s also very contented and he’s always laughing. He can crawl fast and already he’s pulling himself to stand and trying to walk.
‘I do most of the caring for Ben. I’m the one who gets up in the night, who changes his nappies and sorts his food. I usually give him his bath in the evening and try to keep to a definite bedtime, so he is usually tucked up by 8pm.’
Mark’s view is equally straightforward: ‘We simply want to move on. We want to put this behind us and enjoy being a family at last.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1321167/Joyfully-kissing-beautiful-baby-boy--girl-branded-stupid-wife-mother.html#ixzz12ieXNwYz

Kerry and Ben Reunited!

2010-10-18T07:02:00.001-07:00

2010-09-25T17:23:00.001-07:00

http://www.mama-is.com/bug-parts/?ref=nf

Ten Things You May Not Know About Baby Formula

2010-09-23T11:05:00.000-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20100923/lf_ac/6152012_ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_baby_formula

The use of baby formula as the primary method of infant feeding has exploded in popularity over the past few decades. Formula has become increasingly healthier in recent years with the addition of chemicals like DHA and lutein, both of which are naturally found in human milk. In spite of these advancements, there is some information that the manufacturers aren't advertising. Take a look at these ten little-known facts about infant formula.

1. The linings of formula cans contain bisphenol-A, or BPA, a plastics chemical which mimics the female hormone estrogen. Exposure to BPA can potentially cause reproductive problems and early puberty. Experts are concerned that the chemical may leach into the formula and be ingested by infants, who are far more vulnerable to adverse effects from contaminants than adults. Liquid and ready-to-feed formulas are more susceptible to this leaching than powdered formulas. The FDA reports that they are currently accepting applications for alternative substances with which to line formula cans; however, they do not recommend changing a child's feeding habits based solely on this concern.

2. Feeding an infant formula can increase the child's risk of developing food allergies and inflammatory bowel disease, a disease which encompasses the chronic conditions ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, according to new research performed by nutritionist Sharon Donovan at the University of Illinois. The study also shows an increased risk for asthma in formula-fed infants. These conditions result from the formula's inability to activate the appropriate immune system genes within the digestive tract. Without the activation of these genes, a child's digestive system is left vulnerable to a lifetime of adverse effects.

3. It is impossible to produce sterile powdered infant formula. According to the World Health Organization, current technology does not allow for powdered formula to be manufactured in such a way that it is sterile, even when it is produced within current hygienic guidelines.

4. Baby formula may be contaminated with the harmful bacteria enterobacter sakazakii and salmonella enterica. Since powdered formula cannot be manufactured to be sterile, these bacteria can be present and cause severe illness in children. The WHO reports that, although these organisms cannot thrive in dry formula, they can survive in it for up to and possibly exceeding one year. Once the formula is mixed, it provides an ideal habitat for the growth of these illness-causing bacteria. In rare cases, infection with these pathogens can even cause a child's death.

5. Formula feeding increases a child's risk of childhood obesity and of developing diabetes. A White House study, released by first lady Michelle Obama in May 2010, explains that babies who are formula-fed are 22 percent more likely to be obese. Formula derived from cow's milk contains about twice as much protein as human milk. This excess protein results in excess insulin production and prolonged insulin response. Even well into childhood, children who were formula-fed as infants show low levels of the hormon leptin, which is known to "inhibit appetite and control body fatness."

6. Soy-based formulas contain plant estrogens which can cause a variety of reproductive issues. Soy formulas are an alternative for children with cow's milk allergies and for vegan families. While studies have shown that obesity and diabetes risks are lower for children who consume soy-based formulas, they are not without their own set of dangers. A study published by The Society for the Study of Reproduction in March 2010 found that newborn mice who were fed a formula containing the soy plant estrogen genistein once daily developed various reproductive problems, as well as abnormalities of the thymus gland. The study mimicked the level of genistein that would be found in a human infant who was regularly fed soy formula. It raises serious questions about the safety and long-term effects of soy-based formulas in infants.

7. The FDA does not test infant formulas prior to their marketing and sale. While the FDA inspects manufacturing facilities and performs quality tests on formulas once a year, they do not test infant formula to ensure that it meets nutritional and quality requirements before it is allowed to be sold. Instead, the FDA relies solely on the manufacturers' own reports that their products meet federal standards.

8. Infant formulas often contain perchlorate, the base chemical in solid rocket fuels. In March 2009, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released a study which found perchlorate in 15 brands of infant formula. The EPA insists that the levels of the chemical found in formula pose no threat to infants. However, according to the CDC, the drinking water in 26 states contains high levels of perchlorate. If tap water and powdered baby formula, both containing the hazardous chemical, are mixed together, the levels may be high enough to cause serious harm to infants.

9. FDA testing has revealed that some baby formulas also contain the chemicals melamine and cyanuric acid. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has stated that these chemicals "can cause renal failure by production of insoluble melamine cyanurate crystals in renal tubules and/or calculi in kidneys, ureter, urethra or the urinary bladder." In other words, when these chemicals are present in baby formula, they can cause kidneys stones, kidney and urinary blockages and infections, and kidney failure. In extreme cases, complications of these conditions may result in the deaths of infants. The FDA performs tests for melamine and cyanuric acid in baby formulas, which can be viewed on their website.

10. Many brands of formula contain ingredients which are generally acknowledged to contain or produce monosodium glutamate, or MSG. The organization Truth in Labeling provides information from a Canadian study which found MSG, a dangerous neurotoxin, in at least five brands of baby formula. Although testing was performed only on Canadian products, all five companies manufacture and sell products in the United States as well. The organization also names ingredients from four different types of U.S. baby formula which are known to contain MSG or to produce it during processing. These ingredients include enzymatically hydrolyzed reduced minerals, casein hydrolysate, carrageenan, and maltodextrin.

Unfortunately, the companies that manufacture infant formula do not always tell the entire story. Strict guidelines are put in place to help ensure the safety of formula-fed infants, but unfortunately some problems have still arisen with these infant products. It is imperative that parents have all the information possible and that our society continues to demand higher and higher standards in the production of products for our children and babies.

Sources:

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Update on Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications: January 2010

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Infant Formula

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FDA 101: Infant Formula

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Clinical Testing of Infant Formulas with Respect to Nutritional Suitability for Term Infants

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Guidelines Concerning Notification and Testing of Infant Formulas

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Frequently Asked Questions about FDA's Regulation of Infant Formula

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Domestic Infant Formula Testing Results

Amy Burkholder, CNN
Group Sounds Alarm on Infant Formula Cans

Thea Edwards & Wendy Hessler, Environmental Health News
Soy Formula Affects Reproductive Development in Mice

World Science & University of Illinois Staff
Why Is Breast Milk Best? It's in the Genes, Scientists Say

Elizabeth Simpson, The Virginian-Pilot
How the Fight against Flab Can Start before Birth

January W. Payne, U.S. News & World Report
5 Reasons That May Explain Why Type 1 Diabetes In on the Rise

U.S. News & World Report
Health Buss: Dropping Cancer Rates and Other Health News

Brian Hartman, ABC News
Rocket Fuel Chemical Found in Baby Formula

World Health Organization
Questions and Answers on Melamine

World Health Organization
Melamine and Cyanuric Acid: Toxicity, Preliminary Risk Assessment and Guidance on Levels in Food

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
Melamine Health Impact Assessment

World Health Organization
Safe Preparation, Storage, and Handling of Powdered Infant Formula

Truth in Labeling
Infant Formula

Let's Move
Early Childhood

Biology of Reproduction
Acute and Chronic Effects of Oral Genistein Administration in Neonatal Mice

Similac Recall: Beetles Concern Prompts Infant Formula To Be Recalled

2010-09-22T18:15:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — Drugmaker Abbott Laboratories said Wednesday it is recalling millions of containers of its best-selling Similac infant formula that may be contaminated with insect parts.

The voluntary action affects up to 5 million Similac-brand powder formulas sold in the U.S., Puerto Rico, Guam and some Caribbean countries. The company said the products may contain a small beetle or larvae, which could cause stomach ache and digestion problems.

The recall does not affect any liquid formulas or other Abbott-brand products.

A company spokeswoman said Abbott uncovered the insects last week in one section of a manufacturing plant in Sturgis, Michigan.

"We immediately shut down that one area and began an investigation," said Abbott's Melissa Brotz. "We're in the process of resolving it now." Abbott manufactures Similac at several U.S. sites.

Brotz said the company has been consulting with the Food and Drug Administration, which determined there was no "immediate health risk" from the contamination.

Consumers can enter the lot number on their containers online to determine if they are subject to the recall. The products should be returned to Abbott for a full refund.

"Delivering anything less than the highest quality infant formula is unacceptable to us," said Brotz. "We will do whatever is necessary to maintain the trust of parents in the coming weeks."

The affected products were sold in plastic containers and various can sizes, including 8-ounce (227-gram), 12.4-ounce (352-gram) and 12.9-ounce (366-gram).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/similac-recall-beetles-co_n_735373.html

Babywearing and Breastfeeding Triplets!

2010-09-06T15:32:00.001-07:00

My wonderful friend Nicole, mother of NINE children, including triplets, whom she is breastfeeding.

You can read Nicole's blog here:

http://www.onedayatatimenicole.blogspot.com/

2010-09-06T15:23:00.000-07:00

Report Finds that Using Formula Doubles the Death Rate for U.S. Infants

2010-09-06T15:21:00.000-07:00

Report Finds that Using Formula Doubles the Death Rate for U.S. Infants
[Press Release]
© 2004 Midwifery Today, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Editor's note: This article first appeared in Midwifery Today Issue 69, Spring 2004.]

The December issue of Natural Family Online magazine (www.naturalfamilyonline.com) features a new analysis which finds that formula feeding doubles infant death rates for babies in the United States. Health educator and author Dr. Linda Folden Palmer's report, based on several decades of research from the U.S. and across the world, reveals that the use of infant formula costs the lives of an estimated 9,335 U.S. babies each year.

According to the report, formula feeding costs U.S. babies more than four additional lives per thousand. The final relative risk for formula feeding comes to double the risk of death for U.S. infants who are fed with formula, compared with babies who are fed naturally.

Based on the current U.S. infant death rate of 6.7 and an average breastfeeding rate of 50 percent, the report shows that the U.S. infant mortality rate would climb to 9.4 if all infants were formula-fed and would drop to 4.7 if all were breastfed.

"Infant formula was designed to be a medical nutritional tool for babies who are unable to breastfeed," Palmer said. "Formula does not fully meet the nutritional and immunity needs of infants. It leaves their immune systems flailing."

The report's conclusions are derived from an examination of the available scientific research on infant mortality in the U.S. and across the world. Research included in Palmer's report includes studies showing artificial feeding's impact on overall infant death rates in developing and undeveloped countries; studies providing comparative illness occurrence rates for many illnesses and disorders in the U.S. and other industrialized nations; and reports examining superior survival rates and decreased illness rates among breastfed infants. The report assembles these statistics to build a firm picture of the ratio of infant deaths for U.S. formula-fed babies against those who are breastfed.

The report cites results from numerous studies illustrating the negative impact of formula feeding on the health and survival of infants with various illnesses and health problems, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS); heart, circulatory and respiratory failure; diarrhea; respiratory illnesses; cancer; and low birth-weight and preterm babies.

Illness and death rates of breastfed babies who receive formula supplementation are much closer to those of fully formula-fed babies, Palmer's report notes. Numerous studies referenced in the report reveal conclusively that the longer breastfeeding lasts, the greater the measurable difference in illness and death rates.

Available evidence strongly contradicts commonly made assertions that formula feeding does not risk lives in industrialized nations where education and medical advances prevent increased deaths, Palmer said.

"Some insist that the blame for the United States' relatively high infant death rate lies with underprivileged communities," Palmer said. "But after examining the available research, we see that elevated death rates among U.S. blacks cannot be attributed to poverty. Hispanic Americans rank similarly to African American populations for socioeconomic factors, but they match non-Hispanic whites in their lower infant mortality rates. The difference is not socioeconomic; the difference is in rates of formula use versus breastfeeding."

For both condensed and full, referenced versions of Dr. Palmer's report, visit www.naturalfamilyonline.com/BF/200312-formula-report.htm.

Sugar for Newborns Does Not Relieve Pain

2010-09-03T02:59:00.000-07:00

Sugar for newborns does not relieve pain: study
Buzz up!0 votes Share
retweet
EmailPrint.. AFP/File – A nurse attending to newborn infants in a maternity ward of a hospital. Contrary to international guidelines, … .– Wed Sep 1, 7:04 pm ET
PARIS (AFP) – Contrary to international guidelines, sugar given to newborn babies does not ease pain, according to a study published on Thursday by The Lancet.

In 2001, doctors published recommendations, based on a series of trials, that oral sucrose be administered to newborns to help relieve pain from invasive procedures.

But a new look suggests that sucrose does not reduce pain signals in the brain or spinal cord, but merely changes the babies' facial expression, which gives a false impression that pain is being relieved.

Rebeccah Slater of University College London and colleagues pricked the heels of 59 newborns with a small blade -- a procedure that was required anyway to draw a blood sample -- and monitored pain activity in the brain and spine using electrode caps.

The infants were assigned either sterile water or a sucrose solution, placed on the tongue by a tiny syringe.

Pain activity did not differ significantly between the two groups.

"The absence of evidence for an analgesic action of sucrose in this study, together with uncertainty over the long-term benefits of repeated sucrose administration, suggest that sucrose should not be used routinely for procedural pain in infants without further investigation," Slater's team said.

Low Milk Supply

2010-09-03T02:57:00.000-07:00

Check out this blog!

http://www.lowmilksupply.com/

Early Weaning Linked to Chronic Disease

2010-09-03T02:55:00.000-07:00

Early weaning linked to chronic disease
Updated Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:31am AEST

The universal health recommendation is around six months of exclusive breast feeding (AFP: Romeo Gacad)
New research has linked the nation's chronic disease burden with the absence of breastfeeding.

Thirty per cent of people aged between 35 and 40 were not breastfed as babies.

The Australian National University research assessed the outcomes of dozens of existing studies, with the aim of explaining what factors trigger chronic diseases such as diabetes, digestive diseases and heart problems.

Researcher Dr Julie Smith says she found adults who were prematurely weaned as infants are more likely to suffer in the long term, compared to those who were breastfed.

"The risk associated with lack of breastfeeding in infancy was 30 per higher for many conditions compared to breastfed infants," she said.

Dr Smith says mothers need more support in hospital and the community.

She is challenging federal, state and territory governments to do more to ensure breastfeeding is a realistic choice for mothers.

"The universal health recommendation is around six months of exclusive breast feeding," she said.

"With only half of women in Australia even making six months of breastfeeding, we have got a considerable way to go to make it possible for many women. Sometimes that is about parental leave."

Moms Who Breastfeed Less Likely to Develop Heart Attacks or Strokes

2010-08-28T02:03:00.000-07:00

PITTSBURGH, April 21 – The longer women breastfeed, the lower their risk of heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular disease, report University of Pittsburgh researchers in a study published in the May issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Heart disease is the leading cause of death for women, so it’s vitally important for us to know what we can do to protect ourselves,” said Eleanor Bimla Schwarz, M.D., M.S., assistant professor of medicine, epidemiology, and obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. “We have known for years that breastfeeding is important for babies’ health; we now know that it is important for mothers’ health as well.”

According to the study, postmenopausal women who breastfed for at least one month had lower rates of diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, all known to cause heart disease. Women who had breastfed their babies for more than a year were 10 percent less likely to have had a heart attack, stroke, or developed heart disease than women who had never breastfed.

Dr. Schwarz and colleagues found that the benefits from breastfeeding were long-term ? an average of 35 years had passed since women enrolled in the study had last breastfed an infant.

“The longer a mother nurses her baby, the better for both of them,” Dr. Schwarz pointed out. “Our study provides another good reason for workplace policies to encourage women to breastfeed their infants.”

The findings are based on 139,681 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative study of chronic disease, initiated in 1994

Stressed out: Studies show babies become anxious if ignored for even two minutes by mother

2010-08-26T02:39:00.000-07:00

Stressed out: Studies show babies become anxious if ignored for even two minutes by mother
By Fiona Macrae

Stressed: Babies deprived of attention become worried and anxious, says new Canadian research

They may have barely mastered sitting up by themselves.

But six-month-old babies become stressed out when they don't get the attention they feel they deserve.

Levels of the stress hormone cortisol soar when they are ignored by their mother, and even a day later they are worried about the same thing happening again.

A baby who is deprived of its mother's love for just two minutes is anxious about being ignored again the next day, a study found.
Experts in child development said that repeated episodes of stress could have a huge effect on a youngster's health and on his or her course in life.

To investigate whether six-month-olds are capable of anticipating trouble, the Canadian researchers invited 30 mothers and babies into their laboratory and divided them into two groups.

Babies were placed in car seats and their mothers played with them and talked to them as normal.

The play was then interspersed with two-minute periods in which the mother simply stared over her child's head, keeping her face free of emotion.

The next day, she took her child back to the laboratory. Levels of cortisol were measured several times on both days. Amounts of cortisol shot up when the babies were ignored.

They then fell off, before rising again when the youngsters were taken back into the laboratory, despite them not being ignored on the second day.

A second group of babies went through the same process, but without being ignored at any time, and their hormone levels barely changed.

The findings suggest that being taken back into the laboratory led the youngsters who had been ignored to anticipate there being more trouble ahead, the journal Biology Letters reports.

Researcher Dr David Haley, of the University of Toronto, said: 'The results suggest that human infants have the capacity to produce an anticipatory stress response that is based on expectations about how their parents will treat them in a specific context.'

Professor Jay Belsky, of Birbeck College, University of London, said factors such as depression could affect a mother's relationship with her baby and send cortisol levels soaring time and time again.

This could lower a baby's immune system, while a troubled upbringing may also mean the child going on to become a less than perfect parent itself.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1305892/Six-month-old-babies-stressed-ignored-minutes-mothers.html#ixzz0xhfRhBqt

Mother donated breastmilk to premature baby after her child died

2010-08-26T02:26:00.000-07:00

Mother donated breastmilk to premature baby after her child died
August 24, 2010

By Alan Bavley

KANSAS CITY, Mo.—As she was getting ready to leave the hospital last week with her baby, a tearful Jennifer Robinson knew how to measure generosity.

All she had to do was turn and look at Nicole Hendrix, the woman who had helped the premature baby, Max, to thrive against the odds.

Hendrix had donated her breast milk—gallons of it—to Max after his mother couldn’t make any more.

It was a personal gift the hospital had never seen before.

Hendrix had been saving frozen milk for her own preemie daughter, Lillian. Lilli, as she was called, died before she could get much more than a little of it.

After multiple surgeries and four anxious months in intensive care, Max finally was healthy enough to leave Overland Park Regional Medical Center in Overland Park, Kan. He weighed in at a substantial 8 pounds, 13 ounces.

Hendrix was there to see him off.

“It makes me feel that something good can come out of something bad,” she said.

Robinson said she was overwhelmed by Hendrix’s generosity.

“With so much going on with their lives they would think of us,” the Olathe, Kan., woman said. “It was like they gave him an organ, something that could save his life.”

Overland Park Regional neonatologist Kathleen Weatherstone said the donation played a role in keeping Max alive.

Max was born on April 16, four months premature. Lillian was born March 4, also four months early.

Both babies suffered from a condition called necrotizing enterocolitis, where blood circulation was cut off to portions of their bowel. It occurs most commonly among extremely premature infants.

Breast milk is believed to be protective against necrotizing enterocolitis, Weatherstone said. And it’s the best-tolerated milk for infants recovering from the condition.

Often it’s difficult, though, for mothers of preemies to give their babies milk. Either their body isn’t ready to produce milk or the stress of dealing with a critically ill child keeps the milk from flowing.

At first, Robinson, 41, was able to provide Max with breast milk. She had breast-fed her two other children. But she soon began to run dry.

“It was really frustrating,” Robinson said. “As a mom, breast milk was one of the only things I could give him to help him.”

Robinson searched for breast milk banks that provide babies with milk from donor mothers. But insurance plans don’t always cover the charges. She calculated that it could cost thousands of dollars per month.

That’s when Robinson and Hendrix’s stories began to intertwine.

Every three hours every day—at home, at work, even at church—Hendrix had been faithfully pumping her breast milk and freezing it, anticipating the day when Lillian would need it.

“The nurses every day said keep going,” Hendrix, 29, said. “It wasn’t fun, but I did it.”

For 10 weeks, she saved her milk. So much milk that the Hendrixes had to buy a freezer to keep in the garage of their Kansas City home.

But Lillian’s persistent medical problems gave her few opportunities to take any of her mother’s milk. Her condition became so serious she had to be transferred to the University of Kansas Hospital in Kansas City, Kan., where she died in May.

After Lillian’s death, Hendrix went back to Overland Park Regional to pick up things left behind. She thought of the breast milk at home in the freezer.

“It would have made me sick to throw it out,” she said.

Hendrix asked a nurse in the intensive care unit if she could donate her milk. Word got back to the nurse that Robinson’s baby needed breast milk, and the nurse told Hendrix.

“This was a no-brainer,” Hendrix said. “I feel I would have regretted it if I didn’t. I feel I’ve given meaning to my daughter’s life, if this can help save Max.”

The hospital had never arranged to have a mother donate milk to one of its patients. Doctors insisted that Hendrix be tested for HIV, hepatitis and other infections before Max could have her milk.

When Hendrix turned the milk over to Robinson, it filled a large rolling cooler and three small plastic foam coolers.

Robinson brought plastic bags of frozen milk to the hospital for the nurses to defrost and give to Max.

Before sharing the milk, the Robinsons and Hendrixes barely knew each other.

Hendrix recalls that she and her husband, Shannon, ran into Robinson and her husband, Troy, in the parents’ room at the hospital.

“They were worried and we were listening,” she said. “Their son was going through a lot of what we went through.”

Now the families have become friends. Hendrix visited Max several times in the hospital and was one of the first people to get to hold him.

“We instantly felt we had a connection,” Robinson said. “If it weren’t for Lilli, Max would not be here. Her little life made a huge impact on his. Someday, he’ll know about Lilli and how selfless her mother was."

Baby Renee Grows Up

2010-08-06T15:36:00.000-07:00

Soy Formula Unsafe for Babies

2010-07-19T04:43:00.001-07:00

Soy Formula Unsafe for Babies: Myths and Truths About Soy
July 16, 2010By Augie
Avoid Soy Products– Especially Baby Formula
UPDATE: Did you know that Health Departments all over the nation are now promoting raw milk. I have seen billboards about the benefits? The raw milk I am referring to is human breast milk! When breastfeeding is not possible, health care folks recommend formula–including soy formula. The American Dental Association warns NOT to mix fluoridated city water with dehydrated formula mix due to the toxic effects of the fluoride. But Gerber continues to add fluoride to bottled water for babies as parents erroneously believe it prevents cavities. But when it comes to soy formulas, I wanted to rerun this article tonight.– Augie

____________

I don’t know about you, but I like most Myths and Truths articles. They are easy to read and sets things in contrast to what we have been told. I just hope the attorneys at the ADM corporation does not sic their PR staff on me. I don’t think the nasty soy cartel will appreciate this article, especially the part that soy formula for babies is not safe.Oh. I almost forgot. Most soy beans are genetically modified. (Article courtesy of The Weston A. Price Foundation– a fabulous site on nutrition)

Myths & Truths About Soy
NOTE: These Myths & Truths as well as our summary of soy dangers are provided on our Soy Alert! trifold brochure (PDF). You may print this at home or at a copy store for mass distribution. If you wish, you can order quantities of professionally printed two-color trifold brochures for 25 cents each by using the Order Form.

Myth: Use of soy as a food dates back many thousands of years.

Truth: Soy was first used as a food during the late Chou dynasty (1134–246 BC), only after the Chinese learned to ferment soy beans to make foods like tempeh, natto and tamari.

Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods.

Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods.

Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens.

Myth: Soy foods provide complete protein.

Truth: Like all legumes, soy beans are deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cystine. In addition, modern processing denatures fragile lysine.

Myth: Fermented soy foods can provide vitamin B12 in vegetarian diets.

Truth: The compound that resembles vitamin B12 in soy cannot be used by the human body; in fact, soy foods cause the body to require more B12

Myth: Soy formula is safe for infants.

Truth: Soy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders. Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for vitamin D, needed for strong bones and normal growth. Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavailabilty of iron and zinc which are required for the health and development of the brain and nervous system. Soy also lacks cholesterol, likewise essential for the development of the brain and nervous system. Megadoses of phytoestrogens in soy formula have been implicated in the current trend toward increasingly premature sexual development in girls and delayed or retarded sexual development in boys.

Continue reading: There are more doozies at http://westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtsoy.html

Brazil's new Breastfeeding Ad

2010-07-19T04:12:00.000-07:00

Look closely, it may not be what is seems......

2010-07-13T15:29:00.000-07:00

Breastfeeding is 'creepy' says parenting magazine

2010-06-27T15:27:00.000-07:00

An article in Mother & Baby magazine that described breastfeeding as “creepy” has prompted a backlash among mothers and midwives on the internet.

By Alastair Jamieson
Published: 10:43AM BST 27 Jun 2010

The Department of Health recommends breastfeeding Photo:

In a candid discussion about the decision to use milk formula, deputy editor Kathryn Blundell said she bottle fed her children because "I wanted my body back. (And some wine) …”

She added: “I also wanted to give my boobs at least a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach."

The article – which appeared under the headline "I formula fed. So what?" – has reignited the often ferocious debate about the choice between breastfeeding or using powdered milk.

It has already prompted a Facebook campaign supported by about 600 users of the social media site, and at least six complaints to the Press Complaints Commission.

The Department of Health recommends that babies are fed only breast milk for the first six months of life but many women are unable to do so or opt for formula milk out of choice in the case of an outspoken pro-breastfeeding lobby.

The article said: “The Milk Mafia can keep their guilt trips. Bullying other mums about something as special and nurturing as feeding their babies (and yes, bottle feeding can be lovely and intimate) is a depth that even Vicky Pollard wouldn’t sink to.

“So, let’s hear it, ladies, for modern nutritional science, but most of all for our freedom of choice.”

Describing her own feelings about using her breasts for feeding, the author wrote: "They're part of my sexuality, too – not just breasts, but fun bags. And when you have that attitude (and I admit I made no attempt to change it), seeing your teeny, tiny, innocent baby latching on where only a lover has been before feels, well, a little creepy.”

The article did concede that " are all the studies that show [breastfeeding] reduces the risk of breast cancer for you, and stomach upsets and allergies for your baby.”

Among those to complain through Facebook were bottle-feeding mothers who objected to the tone of the article, which pondered whether formula users “just couldn’t be fagged or felt like getting tipsy once in awhile”.

On the Mumsnet website, the article was the subject of hundreds of comments. One contributor said: “People pay attention to these sorts of articles and if anyone who is having any wobbles about [breastfeeding] this may be the one article which steers them away from it, if they think that being seen to [breastfeeding] is in any way 'creepy'.”

However, other contributors welcomed the article as “tongue-in-cheek” and for dealing with a “taboo” subject.

Miranda Levy, the editor of the magazine, said the publication was “a constant and vocal supporter of breastfeeding” and that the article was reflected “personal experience” and had been praised by some bottle-feeding readers for making them “feel 'normal' and less of a 'failure' for not managing to breastfeed”.

For the full article and comments, visit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women_shealth/7857192/Breastfeeding-is-creepy-says-parenting-magazine.html

Changes to Guidelines for Contraceptive Use Could Compromise a Woman's Ability to Breastfeed

2010-06-26T05:32:00.000-07:00

New Rochelle, NY, June 24, 2010 - New birth control guidelines released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could undermine mothers who want to breastfeed by sanctioning the use of progesterone injections, progestin-only pills, as well as combined (progestin-estrogen) oral contraceptives within the first month after giving birth.

“The new guidelines ignore basic facts about how breastfeeding works," says Dr. Gerald Calnen, President of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM). "Mothers start making milk due to the natural fall in progesterone after birth. An injection of artificial progesterone could completely derail this process.”

The CDC report, “U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010,” released in the May 28 issue of Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), contains important changes in what constitutes acceptable contraceptive use by breastfeeding women. The criteria advise that by 1 month postpartum the benefits of progesterone contraception (in the form of progestin-only pills, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DPMA) injection, or implants), as well as the use of combined (progestin-estrogen) oral contraceptives outweigh the risk of reducing breastfeeding rates. Previously, progesterone birth control was not recommended for nursing mothers until at least 6 weeks after giving birth, and combined hormonal methods were not recommended before 6 months.

Based on clinical experience, breastfeeding support providers report a negative impact on breastfeeding when contraceptive methods are introduced too early. One preliminary study demonstrated dramatically lower breastfeeding rates at 6 months among mothers who underwent early insertion of progesterone-containing IUDs, compared with breastfeeding rates of mothers who underwent insertion at 6-8 weeks postpartum.

“The data are limited,” says Calnen, “but for now, the state of the science suggests that early progesterone exposure undermines breastfeeding.”

Family planning specialists argue that early hormonal birth control is needed to reduce unplanned pregnancies. However, the most commonly used early contraceptive method, a DPMA injection, prevents pregnancy for only 12 weeks at a time. “There is no evidence that immediate postpartum injections delay the next pregnancy beyond the first 3 months,” says Calnen.

Dr. Miriam Labbok, Director of the Carolina Global Breastfeeding Institute and an expert on the interface between breastfeeding and fertility, notes, “The mother should have the final decision on her birth control method, with full information. Unfortunately, these methods are often given to women with little counseling. Women deserve to know that there is a potential risk.”

ABM wrote to CDC Director Thomas Frieden in January urging reconsideration of the guidelines. In his reply, Dr. Frieden described the new recommendations as “the best interpretation of the existing evidence.”

Calnen is less confident. “Physicians and mothers should proceed with caution," he says. "There are plenty of birth control methods that are proven to be safe for breastfeeding. Early progesterone is not one of them.”

The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is a global organization of physicians dedicated to the promotion, protection and support of breastfeeding and human lactation through education, research, and advocacy. An independent, self-sustaining, international physician organization and the only organization of its kind, ABM 's mission is to unite members of various medical specialties through physician education, expansion of knowledge in breastfeeding science and human lactation, facilitation of optimal breastfeeding practices, and encouragement of the exchange of information among organizations. It promotes the development and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. The Academy has prepared clinical protocols for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants that are available on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) National Guideline Clearinghouse website.

Photos from a doctor's office

2010-06-25T04:23:00.000-07:00

A series of Kijiji ads

2010-06-25T04:02:00.000-07:00

First this one:

Similac Advance Formula

TWO cans of Similac Advance 365g

Breast is best and I won't sell it to you if you're pregnant. Regular formula users, only, please.
Pick up in North Edmonton or I can meet you somewhere central.

Then, this ad in response:

to the person selling formula but refuses sell to pregnant moms
Why won't you sell to pregnant women?? who gives you the right to judge a mother based on how they feed their child?? So what if a mother gives her baby formula, did you know that there are several factors as to why a mother CANNOT breastfeed? it ISN"T always a PERSONAL CHOICE! It's a shame that there are people like you out there, considering it's already the year 2010, not 1963! What about moms whose babies are born premature and sick and are spending weeks and months in the NICU?? I was one of those mothers.. in those cases, expressing breastmilk and giving it to babies EXCLUSIVELY doesn't always help them gain the weight they need to sustain on their own, in many cases, they supplement with formula. Before you judge, maybe try getting informed. I hope you DON"T sell your formula based on your assumptions and judgments. And I hope that people who read this decided against purchasing from you!

And thirdly, this ad in response to that response:

To the woman who is angry about discretionary sellers
I think you need reconsider who is judging who. I think the woman who is selling the formula has every right not to sell to a pregnant lady.
1. Kijiji is a forum for selling, not for your opinion
2. The seller has the right to choose who they sell to.
3. Exclusive breastfeeding is the default (read: only recommended!) food for all humans for the first 6 months of life (unless medical formula is needed and thus prescribed by a doctor) and should be continued until the age of 2 along with complimentary foods.
4. If you are pregnant and stocking up on formula, then you haven't tried to breastfeed. Each pregnancy is different and even if you weren't successful with the first baby, you may be successful with others.
5. not being able to breastfeed is actually a rarity. Consultation with a good lactation consultant and seeking breastfeeding support can resolve most issues. Formula will make most issues worse.
6. Babies that are premature and in the NICU need formula that is much different than the stuff you buy in the store.

Photos from the Halifax Family Expo

2010-06-20T04:08:00.000-07:00

I aplogize for the blurry photos, I was trying to be discreet while taking them

Has now been changed to......The 9 commandments of dining with little kids

2010-05-24T08:45:00.000-07:00

The 9 commandments of dining with little kids

by Heather W. at Better Homes and Gardens, on Wed May 19, 2010 1:34pm

Editor's Note: We sincerely apologize that this blog was posted! It was not vetted by our editors, and it reflects poor parenting advice and an offensive tone. We have removed the most patently inappropriate sections. We support breastfeeding moms -- and all moms -- in their desire to include their children in their public lives.

We pledge to do better in the future in both the tone and content of our posts. We will be posting our positive parenting tips for eating out soon. Send us yours at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=72571226018&topic=13849.

--The editorial team at Better Homes and Gardens

The 10 commandments of dining with little kids

2010-05-24T06:37:00.000-07:00

The horribly offensive article from "Better Homes and Gardens", encouraging mothers to go to the bathroom for breastfeeding.
There is a facebook group to boycott and protest the popular magazine.

WRITTEN BY HEATHER W.
Let me be clear: I am not anti-kid. I adore children in all their lovable, spontaneous, energetic glory. However, in recent years, I’ve noticed a pronounced blurring of the boundaries between “adult world” and “kid world”, especially when it comes to dining out. Those seeking romantic, contemplative dining may find themselves irked by erstwhile tots in a refined restaurant -- but I don't think anyone is ready to institute a kid ban. Really, we can all get along...

With this in mind, BHG.com offers our ten commandments for kids in upscale restaurants -- gentle reminders for parents and non-parents alike -- as well as kid-friendly recipes for creating your own restaurant experience at home.

THOU SHALT NOT BLOCK TRAFFIC WITH BULKY STROLLERS
Strollers have begun to overtake cars and wristwatches as conspicuous status symbols. You may be proud of your double-wide Maclaren, but be sure not to leave it jutting out in a place where waiters and other patrons might trip over in transit.

Leave the stroller at home and indulge your family with this melty, tasty Chicken and Cheese Panini.

THOU SHALT NOT ORDER A 10-COURSE TASTING MENU WITH KIDS UNDER 10
Kids, as we all know, have kid-sized attention spans. Attempting to make them sit still while you enjoy a world-renowned chef’s esoteric, glacially-paced tasting menu isn’t going to be a pleasant experience for anyone.

For a fast meal your kids will still savor, whip up this Quick Crunchy Chicken Dinner.

THOU SHALT NOT TREAT YOUR SERVER LIKE A SITTER
Your server is there to accommodate you, but customer service has its limits. While most waiters are happy to engage and amuse your little one, it's bad form to delegate your child-minding duties to the person taking your sea bass order.

Let your kids serve themselves with our Best Yummy Mexican Meals.

THOU SHALT NOT BREAST FEED AT THE TABLE
Yes, I have seen table-side breast feeding at a four-star restaurant. If at all possible, take it to the ladies room. (Note: most upscale restaurants have really nice restrooms!)

If you're breastfeeding, you likely want to cook something quick, easy, and protein-rich; we love this Speedy Bow Tie Pasta Dinner.

THOU SHALL FEEL FREE TO ORDER "KID FOOD" OFF THE MENU
Most restaurants are happy to provide kid-friendly cuisine, so don’t hesitate to ask, just keep in mind you may experience sticker shock (e.g., $23 for pasta with butter)

For a filling and savory twist on basic spaghetti, try these hearty Filled Pasta Entrees.

THOU SHALL NOT TURN DINNER INTO A PHOTOSHOOT
It’s exciting to see your little one all dressed up at the table, and special occasions and birthdays are naturally conducive to photos, but overzealous documentation with flash photography, flip-cams, and camcorders can be distracting to fellow diners.

Say "cheese" with these ten tasty Macaroni and Cheese recipes.

THOU SHALT NOT BRING NOISY TOYS
It’s wise to bring a few of your kid’s favorite toys for their amusement but try not to bring excessively loud games and bleep-blooping electronic toys -- or at least be sure there’s a volume-off button.

Keep their hands busy with a finger-food meal, such as this tasty Buffalo Wing Dinner.

THOU SHALL TRY TO QUELL HIGH-PITCHED SCREAMING
Unexpected tantrums and outbursts are a fact of life, but when a parent sits stoically as their child screams without any intervention, the mood of the room can quickly turn from convivial to incredulous to profoundly irritated.

They'll be screaming with joy for these homemade Mini Pizzas With Pizazz.

THOU SHALT NOT ALLOW FREE-RANGE KIDS
When you let your child run free in the restaurant, it’s not only disruptive to other diners, but it could be a safety hazard: Restaurants are full of hot plates and sharp cutlery, and kids underfoot could cause a major disaster.

Keep them planted happily in their seats with this zesty, crunchy Skillet Tostada Dinner.

THOU SHALL CALMLY DISCOURAGE FOOD FIGHTS
Ah, the food fight. The epitome of fun at summer camp and grade school cafeterias -- less so at Michelin-starred eateries. If the food starts flying, quietly and firmly put an end to it.

And if your kids politely make their way through the meal without incident, treat them to a well-deserved Dessert treat.

USDA Calls For Removal Of DHA/ARA From Organic Formula

2010-05-24T06:34:00.000-07:00

Natural. Pure. Wholesome. Good. Those are the words that come to mind when I see the “USDA organic” seal. At a time when we are all more mindful of the dangers of pesticides and chemicals in the foods we eat, it’s reassuring to see the small green-and-white emblem that means you don’t need to worry–this product is natural and good for you.

However, a recent ban of synthetic fats commonly found in some organic products raises serious questions about such thinking. A statement on the ban was recently issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and will impact infant formula and other foods that contain the synthetic additives widely known as DHA and ARA. As reported by the Washington Post last year and last month, these synthetic oils were added to a list of non-organic ingredients allowed into organic products through a decision by a Bush administration official after discussion with a formula industry lobbyist and over the objections of several USDA employees who had determined such action a violation of federal standards. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and organics expert Kathleen Merrigan acknowledges that the synthetic oils should not be allowed in organic foods. New guidelines will be developed by the USDA. The process will include a 60-day period for public comment, and could take a year or longer.

What does this mean for parents?
The changes that result from the USDA’s decision may be noticed first by parents who feed their children formula, since the synthetic oils currently are added to nearly all infant formulas. In fact, except for some prescription formulas, the Cornucopia Institute notes that “only one over-the-counter formula is available without synthetic DHA/ARA.” Every other formula on the market includes them. The USDA’s decision ensures that more infant formulas will be available without DHA and ARA.

While the USDA does not, in its statement, challenge the safety of the additives, others do. For years, the Cornucopia Institute and the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy (NABA) have questioned the appropriateness and safety of adding these substances to infant formula and other foods.

Its report, “Replacing Mother – Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory,” is an examination of the synthetic oils from production to inclusion in formula, a caution about reports of side effects experienced by infants who consume them, and a look at relevant federal policies.

Why include DHA/ARA in formula?
DHA and ARA are polyunsaturated fats naturally found in human milk. In recent years, these fatty acids have received heightened attention in both the laboratory and the media as a result of ongoing controversy about healthy levels of fish intake for pregnant and breastfeeding women. Authorities have agreed that the fatty acids are important for brain, neural, and eye development; as discussion turned to how much DHA and ARA pregnant and breastfeeding women should consume for their infants’ health, formula companies saw a marketing opportunity. If they included synthetic versions of these oils (manufactured under the names DHASCO and ARASCO) in infant formula, the companies could assuage parents’ concerns about their baby’s development while suggesting that formula is “as close as ever to breast milk.” As noted in a Martek investment promotion from 1996 (and quoted in the Cornucopia Institute’s report), “Even if [the DHA/ARA blend] has no benefit, we think it would be widely incorporated into formulas, as a marketing tool and to allow companies to promote their formula as ‘closest to human milk.’”

In fact, leading formula manufacturer Mead Johnson admits on its Enfamil website that numerous scientific studies have shown little or no benefit to infant development, lending support to the theory that inclusion of these oils is just a marketing gimmick—much like the inclusion of prebiotics.

Unfortunately, it seems to be an effective gimmick. The percentage of people who agreed that “infant formula and breastfeeding are equally good ways of feeding an infant” doubled from 12 percent to 24 percent between 2003 and 2004, when the formula companies began advertising their supplemented formulas.

What is the cause for concern?
There are several causes for concern about the synthetic DHA and ARA added to formula and other foods and beverages.

First, parents should be aware that even though their infant formula may be labeled “USDA organic,” the process by which these additives are made is about as far from natural as possible. Martek Biosciences Corporation, extracts the oils from fermented algae and fungus with the use of a synthetic solvent hexane, a neurotoxic chemical. It’s possible that hexane residues evaporate before the oils are consumed, but according to the Cornucopia Institute’s report, tests have shown that hexane residues do appear in some edible oils. We don’t know the effects of hexane on health, but organics experts feel that the process would cause the National Organics Standards Board to deny the inclusion of these synthetic fats on the list of allowable additives to organic foods. Fats produced in this way hardly sound like the sorts of things parents who are shopping organic want to feed their children.

Second, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not affirmed the safety of the synthetic oils, noting that “[s]ome studies have reported unexpected deaths among infants who consumed formula supplemented with long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids … attributed to SIDS, sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis. Also, some studies have reported adverse events and other morbidities including diarrhea, flatulence, jaundice, and apnea in infants fed long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids.”

Unlike the natural DHA and ARA in breast milk, many infants are unable to digest the synthetic oils. The FDA has received what NABA Executive Director Marsha Walker calls “scores of reports on the adverse effects of these ingredients,” in which infants experience gastrointestinal symptoms ranging in severity from vomiting and diarrhea that cleared up when the baby switched to a non-DHA/ARA formula to severe dehydration and seizures that required hospitalization. Still, infant formula manufacturers have resisted calls for the addition of “warning labels” to product packages. As a result, parents cannot make informed decisions about the risks of DHA/ARA formula relative to other feeding options, and they often don’t know that their children’s health problems can be solved by switching to a formula without these additives.

Recommendations
What can parents do?

Be aware of the risks. If you are feeding your child a formula that contains DHA and ARA, keep an eye out for possible gastrointestinal problems such as vomiting or diarrhea. If the symptoms persist, talk with your baby’s doctor about switching to another formula, but know that there are few DHA/ARA-free formulas available.
Report adverse effects. Be sure to tell your child’s pediatrician about any problems. Also, enter your experience into the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System.
Share information with other parents. Across the board, parents whose children experience adverse effects of the formula say they had no idea that could be the cause. Until the FDA decides to require warning labels we can spread the word to other parents, so they can be aware too.
Contact policymakers. The USDA will have a 60-day public comment period before it issues its final guidelines about the inclusion of additives in organic infant formula. Let the USDA’s decision makers know what you think on this topic. In addition, leading DHA/ARA manufacturer Martek Biosciences has already indicated that it will petition the National Organic Standards Board to allow the fatty acids into organic food.
Contact formula and food manufacturers. Tell them you purchase only products that do not include these synthetic fats. If your family members have suffered side effects from the ingestion, talk about that; if you object to the manufacturing process, explain that. Since companies want to manufacture products that will sell, they should listen to consumer feedback.
Breastfeed! If you want to provide your baby with DHA and ARA, there is no safer way than from human milk.

I am a Lactivist, NOT anti-formula or bottle-feeding

2010-05-17T18:15:00.000-07:00

I am a Lactivist, NOT anti-formula or bottle-feeding
by Marissa Dean

I am sick of being labelled as "anti-bottle feeding" or "anti-formula" because I am an lactivist. Lets get something straight, most of us lactivists have nothing against a mother who is bottle-feeding or using formula. Here is what we do have issues with:

1. Formula companies agressive ad campaigns, especially in 3rd world countries.
2. Formula companies who make false claims that their brand is the closest to breastmilk, which is impossible nothing even comes close.
3. Formula companies who give out free samples.
4. Doctors who promote Formula
5. Nurses and Doctors who claim to be pro-bfing but as soon as you have a bump in the road, they suggest going to the bottle instead of helping the mother get past that bump.
6. Family members who have a problem with bfing who harrass and convince a new mother that bottle feeding is easier, just as good, or better than the breast.
7. People who think bfing is sexual abuse
8. People who think bfing past 6 months or 12 months is "disgusting"
9. People who tell a woman who is bfing to go some where else
10. People who think bfing is obscene but will happily by a copy of Rolling Stone with a half naked woman and the front and think that is socially acceptable.

Extraordinary Breastfeeding

2010-04-27T09:13:00.000-07:00

A Personal Story from Mike Wuebben, Senior Producer, CBSNews.com Health and Wellness
That my wife would breastfeed our second son, Willem, was a no-brainer. Leslie nursed our son Benjamin for his first 14 months and except for a rough couple early days, it came very naturally.

In the delivery room at 10 in the morning, just a few minutes after Will was born, Leslie put him to her breast, but this groggy little kid wouldn’t latch on. Oh well. The nurses said he was tired and this was normal. After a half an hour she tried again. No latch. With a beautiful calm focus, Leslie tried again and again. Twelve hours later the nurses came and took the baby away for the night.

Bright and early the next morning they were at it again with no success. Nurses, the midwives, the lactation consultant all gave tips but nothing would work. About this time they were noticing other odd things about my son — Will was “floppy,” low muscle tone, had a funny cry, didn’t blink when tapped on the forehead. By the next day the staff looks of concern had turned to pity. We were told before leaving for home, there was something “not normal” about my son.

Leslie was pumping and using the Haberman feeder- a special bottle for babies with feeding problems. He would eat but still couldn’t suck. We saw specialists, therapists, neurologists, chiropractors and no one knew why he was unresponsive. It was possible, we were told, he could “snap out of it.” Or he might not.

My wife never gave up trying to nurse him and for weeks she would put him to the breast before resorting to the feeder.

Around this time we discovered online a rare disorder that might fit Willem’s symptoms- low muscle tone, inability to blink, suck, move the muscles of his face. It’s called Moebius Syndrome. The article was titled “Kids Born without a Smile.” I had hoped for that “snap” moment when he would become a normal baby and here I was reading about my son’s future with a lifelong disability. Then I read further and saw a golden lining: most kids with Moebius have normal brain function and normal life expectancy.

Finally we knew something. He couldn’t suck because he couldn’t move the muscles of his face. He didn’t react because his muscles were weak and he couldn’t blink.

And then the miracles started to happen. One day, my wife went to nurse him and he sucked. She held his little lips together and he managed to get something. He could do it. As long as he could have something to latch onto deep in his mouth he could use his swallow response to pull the milk out. As those muscles grew stronger we started to see tiny twitches in his cheeks. The few muscles he had in his face were starting to work.

Willem continued to nurse well after his first birthday without the use of feeders and other aids. Though late, he continued to hit milestones. At 15 months he started to talk. At 30 months he walked. He learned to drink through a straw (no small feat for someone who can’t close his lips).

I was mostly a bystander to all this. I got to watch the incredible power of a mother’s love for her baby. Leslie was determined to give Willem the same early childhood experience that came so easy to his older brother and millions of other children. I hope her story inspires other mothers who face difficulties nursing.

Willem turns five this summer and he’ll start kindergarten in the fall. He still receives a full regimen of therapies to work on his muscle tone and speech, but he’s a happy, healthy, funny little boy. And I’ve discovered that the doctor at the hospital was right, my son is not normal, he’s extraordinary.

Any other moms or Lactation Consultants out there who have experience with helping babies with Moebius Syndrome breastfeed, we’d love to hear from you! Please share your tips, links and resources!

Substance in Breastmilk Kills Cancer

2010-04-27T09:06:00.000-07:00

Substance in Breast Milk Kills Cancer Cells, Study Suggests
ScienceDaily (Apr. 23, 2010) — A substance found in breast milk can kill cancer cells, reveal studies carried out by researchers at Lund University and the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the special substance, known as HAMLET (Human Alpha-lactalbumin Made LEthal to Tumour cells), was discovered in breast milk several years ago, it is only now that it has been possible to test it on humans. Patients with cancer of the bladder who were treated with the substance excreted dead cancer cells in their urine after each treatment, which has given rise to hopes that it can be developed into medication for cancer care in the future.

Discovered by chance

HAMLET was discovered by chance when researchers were studying the antibacterial properties of breast milk. Further studies showed that HAMLET comprises a protein and a fatty acid that are both found naturally in breast milk. So far, however, it has not been proven that the HAMLET complex is spontaneously formed in the milk. It is speculated, however, that HAMLET can form in the acidic environment of the babies´ stomachs. Laboratory experiments have shown that HAMLET kills 40 different types of cancer, and the researchers are now going on to study its effect on skin cancer, tumours in the mucous membranes and brain tumours. Importantly, HAMLET kills only cancer cells and does not affect healthy cells.

Studying the integration of the substance

Researchers at the University of Gothenburg are focusing on how HAMLET can be taken up into tumour cells. The researchers, Roger Karlsson, Maja Puchades and Ingela Lanekoff, are attempting to gain an in-depth understanding of how the substance interacts with cell membranes, and their findings were recently published in the journal PLoS One.

Email or share this story:| More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Source:

Adapted from materials provided by University of Gothenburg.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journal Reference:

Mossberg et al. HAMLET Interacts with Lipid Membranes and Perturbs Their Structure and Integrity. PLoS ONE, 2010; 5 (2): e9384 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009384
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA

MLA University of Gothenburg (2010, April 23). Substance in breast milk kills cancer cells, study suggests. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2010/04/100419132403.htm
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

For complete story, read:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100419132403.htm

Lunch Time

2010-04-09T07:26:00.000-07:00

In Toronto, Ontario

Breastfeeding Could Save 900 Lives and Billions of Dollars Annually

2010-04-05T12:04:00.000-07:00

CHICAGO — The lives of nearly 900 babies would be saved each year, along with billions of dollars, if 90 percent of U.S. women fed their babies breast milk only for the first six months of life, a cost analysis says.

Those startling results, published online Monday in the journal Pediatrics, are only an estimate. But several experts who reviewed the analysis said the methods and conclusions seem sound.

"The health care system has got to be aware that breast-feeding makes a profound difference," said Dr. Ruth Lawrence, who heads the American Academy of Pediatrics' breast-feeding section.

The findings suggest that there are hundreds of deaths and many more costly illnesses each year from health problems that breast-feeding may help prevent. These include stomach viruses, ear infections, asthma, juvenile diabetes, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and even childhood leukemia.

The magnitude of health benefits linked to breast-feeding is vastly underappreciated, said lead author Dr. Melissa Bartick, an internist and instructor at Harvard Medical School. Breast-feeding is sometimes considered a lifestyle choice, but Bartick calls it a public health issue.

Among the benefits: Breast milk contains antibodies that help babies fight infections; it also can affect insulin levels in the blood, which may make breast-fed babies less likely to develop diabetes and obesity.

The analysis studied the prevalence of 10 common childhood illnesses, costs of treating those diseases, including hospitalization, and the level of disease protection other studies have linked with breast-feeding.

The $13 billion in estimated losses due to the low breast-feeding rate includes an economists' calculation partly based on lost potential lifetime wages – $10.56 million per death.

The methods were similar to a widely cited 2001 government report that said $3.6 billion could be saved each year if 50 percent of mothers breast-fed their babies for six months. Medical costs have climbed since then and breast-feeding rates have increased only slightly.

Story continues below
About 43 percent of U.S. mothers do at least some breast-feeding for six months, but only 12 percent follow government guidelines recommending that babies receive only breast milk for six months.

Dr. Larry Gray, a University of Chicago pediatrician, called the analysis compelling and said it's reasonable to strive for 90 percent compliance.

But he also said mothers who don't breast-feed for six months shouldn't be blamed or made to feel guilty, because their jobs and other demands often make it impossible to do so.

"We'd all love as pediatricians to be able to carry this information into the boardrooms by saying we all gain by small changes at the workplace" that encourage breast-feeding, Gray said.

Bartick said there are some encouraging signs. The government's new health care overhaul requires large employers to provide private places for working mothers to pump breast milk. And under a provision enacted April 1 by the Joint Commission, a hospital accrediting agency, hospitals may be evaluated on their efforts to ensure that newborns are fed only breast milk before they're sent home.

The pediatrics academy says babies should be given a chance to start breast-feeding immediately after birth. Bartick said that often doesn't happen, and at many hospitals newborns are offered formula even when their mothers intend to breast-feed.

"Hospital practices need to change to be more in line with evidence-based care," Bartick said. "We really shouldn't be blaming mothers for this."

___

On the Net:

American Academy of Pediatrics: http://www.aap.org

Government: http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/

2010-04-04T09:06:00.001-07:00

KellyMom.com: Preterm Infants-- Breastfeeding Versus Bottle-Feeding

2010-03-28T07:37:00.000-07:00

Preterm Infants-- Breastfeeding Versus Bottle-Feeding

A few references that talk about the differences between breastfeeding & bottle-feeding preterm babies...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20305265
Chapman DJ. Building the Evidence Base: Preterm Infants' Energy Expenditure After Breastfeeding Versus Bottle-Feeding. J Hum Lact. 2010 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/124/6/e1149?etoc
Berger I, Weintraub V, Dollberg S, Kopolovitz R, Mandel D. Energy expenditure for breastfeeding and bottle-feeding preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124(6):e1149-52. Epub 2009 Nov 23.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14657822
Lubetzky R, Vaisman N, Mimouni FB, Dollberg S. Energy expenditure in human milk- versus formula-fed preterm infants. J Pediatr. 2003 Dec;143(6):750-3.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11138220
Chen CH, Wang TM, Chang HM, Chi CS. The effect of breast- and bottle-feeding on oxygen saturation and body temperature in preterm infants. J Hum Lact. 2000 Feb;16(1):21-7.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9382904
Blaymore Bier JA, Ferguson AE, Morales Y, Liebling JA, Oh W, Vohr BR. Breastfeeding infants who were extremely low birth weight. Pediatrics. 1997 Dec;100(6):E3.

If you have favorite references on this subject that aren't mentioned above, please add them in the comments.

Very crafty

2010-03-28T07:35:00.001-07:00

Cosy Baby, Happy Mommy

2010-03-24T17:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.cosybabyhappymommy.com/index.htm

Visit cosybabyhappymommy.com for great slings, wraps and mei tais!

More than 1 million baby slings recalled

2010-03-24T17:04:00.000-07:00

By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer Jennifer C. Kerr, Associated Press Writer – Wed Mar 24, 4:30 pm ET
WASHINGTON – More than 1 million baby slings made by Infantino were recalled Wednesday after claims linking them to three infant deaths.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission said babies could suffocate in the soft fabric slings. The agency urged parents to immediately stop using the slings for babies under 4 months.

The recall involves 1 million Infantino "SlingRider" and "Wendy Bellissimo" slings in the United States and 15,000 in Canada.

Infantino President Jack Vresics said the company has been working closely with the commission on its sling concerns.

"Our top priority is the safety of infants whose parents and caregivers use our products," Vresics said in a statement. He said the company would offer a free replacement baby carrier, activity gym or shopping cart cover to any affected consumer.

The slings wrap around the chest so on-the-go parents can carry their babies or just stay close as they bond with their infants.

Earlier this month, CPSC issued a broad warning about sling-style baby carriers, saying they pose a potential suffocation risk to infants, especially babies under 4 months. Babies who had a low birth weight, were born prematurely or had breathing problems such as colds were also at risk.

At the time, the commission did not single out a specific type of sling or manufacturer. It said it had identified or was investigating at least 14 deaths in the last 20 years associated with baby slings.

In Wednesday's announcement, CPSC said three of the deaths occurred last year and were linked to Infantino slings. It did not say exactly how the babies died.

In its general sling warning earlier this month, CPSC said infants can suffocate in two different ways:

_A sling's fabric can press against a baby's nose and mouth, blocking the baby's breathing and suffocating a baby within a minute or two.

_The other scenario involves slings where the baby is cradled in a curved or "C-like" position, nestling the baby below the mother's chest or near her belly. That curved position can cause a baby who doesn't have strong neck control to flop its head forward, chin-to-chest, restricting the infant's ability to breathe. "The baby will not be able to cry for help and can slowly suffocate," warned the commission.

Slings have been promoted by baby experts as a way to calm fussy babies or for nursing moms who can breast-feed their little ones in the sling.

Consumer Reports raised concerns about slings back in 2008, and had called on CPSC to issue a recall of the Infantino SlingRider. Safety advocates criticized the curved position that the baby can fall into while inside the sling.

Baby experts and breast-feeding advocates insist that not all slings are dangerous. They say carriers that keep a newborn baby solidly against the mother's body, in an upright position, are safe.

The Infantino slings being recalled were sold from 2003 through 2010 at several retailers, including Target, Babies R Us and Burlington Coat Factory. Consumers can call Infantino at 866-860-1361 to receive a free replacement product.

There are no federal safety rules for baby slings.

Infantino says it's working with CPSC and ASTM International, an organization that sets voluntary safety standards, to develop a standard for slings.

The CPSC specializes in product safety, and often negotiates agreements with manufacturers for recalls, when necessary.

___

On the Net:

Consumer Product Safety Commission: http://www.cpsc.gov

Infantino: http://www.infantino.com

All Babywearing is NOT the same

2010-03-24T17:01:00.000-07:00

Too many moms can't find help needed to breastfeed

2010-03-24T16:49:00.000-07:00

By Catherine Porter
Columnist
Happy pink and yellow Easter eggs dot the walls of the Toronto East General Hospital's breastfeeding clinic, along with pictures of babies sucking peacefully on breasts.

If only it was that easy.

Anxious mothers crowd the space, holding, bouncing, rocking their babies.

They look tired and raw.

"I just can't get him to latch on my left breast," says one, who has driven all the way from Ajax.

"He was crying all night non-stop. He didn't want to suck my breast and he wasn't pooing or peeing," says another, her 4-day-old son finally quiet in her arms. "I was here for two hours yesterday learning how to do it."

You can't be prepared for how hard breastfeeding is. You assume it will happen easily, like popping a cork back into a bottle. It's a skill that can take days to learn, and the consequences of getting it wrong are nipples with bruises and open sores.

I speak from experience.

I think of the two weeks after giving birth to both my kids as my personal version of Guantanamo Bay's frequent flyer program: Never sleeping for more than two hours; awoken by a screaming alarm; forced to drag my swollen bleeding body back into the torture chamber of my child's mouth.

It wasn't any easier the second time, despite having a year of practice.

And I didn't have to face tube-feeding or mastitis – an infected milk duct. Senay Jurkiewicz awoke 10 days after giving birth to 7-month-old Burton with chills and a fever. Her fever went, but the blocked duct never did – it grew to the size of a kiwi.

She called one breastfeeding clinic and got an appointment – in two weeks. Two weeks?

"There's definitely not enough resources," says Jurkiewicz, who found antibiotics, but no breastfeeding help from a family doctor.

This brings me to the point. Toronto Public Health put out a damning report about breastfeeding this week.

It surveyed 1,500 first-time mothers and found 39 per cent left the hospital with free infant formula – despite the World Health Organization, Health Canada, the Canadian Paediatric Society all promoting exclusive breastfeeding to ensure both mama and baby's long-term health. It's like the nurses you sometimes see wheeling patients out to the hospital courtyards for a cigarette break.

While the report lambastes hospitals for not having baby-friendly practices in place for the mother while she is there, there's little discussion of our failures once she goes home. Remember: most moms are only in hospital for a day, maybe two. Then, back at home, the milk comes in and she's left to her own devices.

Hands-on support for breastfeeding has been shrinking for years in Toronto.

First, the North York Hospital shut its breastfeeding clinic. (Dr. Jack Newman set up a private breastfeeding clinic down the road, but he charges $50 a visit to cover his costs.) Then, Scarborough Hospital shut its general campus clinic.

Most of the clinics left open are by appointment, and only serve mothers who delivered there.

The only drop-in clinic in the whole city new moms can rush to, regardless of where they gave birth or live, is here, at Toronto East General. But even it has cut its hours, citing budget constraints and a caseload burdened with patients from as far as Pickering.

"We as health-care professionals are failing mothers because we're not giving them proper help," says Janet Zablocki, the clinic's warm-faced nurse and lactation consultant, rushing between babies.

She lists the medical benefits of breastfeeding a baby: more robust immune system, less chance of asthma, gastrointestinal and ear infections. They're less prone to childhood diabetes and sudden infant death syndrome.

In light of this, the clinic's annual $145,000 budget seems a puny down payment for a long-term windfall.

Why aren't there more of them? Despite all its talk about the importance of breastfeeding, our government has not made it a priority. Unlike Quebec, we don't have a provincial policy. We should.

The mothers who can't find help feel like they've failed the biggest test of parenting – protecting their child's health.

"I spent days feeling so guilty and ashamed," 30-year-old Michi Methven emails me. The mental health administrator switched to formula after two weeks of infected nipples.

"I refused to leave the house for fear someone would see me bottle-feeding and yell at me from the street."

Public breastfeeding shouldn't be taboo

2010-03-23T17:11:00.000-07:00

By Justin Prochaska

Published March 23, 2010

Zach Callaway/Graphic Designer
« Previous Next »
(View large image browser)
Last Friday, The Maneater ran a letter to the editor about an incident that occurred at the Student Recreation Complex regarding a woman and her young child.

Apparently, this woman was breastfeeding her child by the pool when an employee told her she was not allowed to breastfeed there and asked the woman to move.

I read this and couldn't believe it. Last time I checked, this was still America.

It is ridiculous mothers are not able to feed their children wherever they go.

I understand some people are prudes and find offense by exposed "private parts" in public, but the world doesn't revolve around them. I can see why people wouldn't want to walk around and see bare breasts all around, but this should be a non-issue.

I know I can't tell people what should offend them, but the fact is breastfeeding is a natural and healthy way to feed a newborn child. There is no reason mothers shouldn't be able to feed their kids in public. It isn't fair to exile new mothers who want to keep their children healthy.

It's not like breastfeeding is pornography. How much can you actually see anyway? I'm not a mother, obviously, but I would expect most women would probably make an effort to cover themselves to a certain degree.

The mother should be able to feed her child without any type of hassle. A woman and her baby have the right to breastfeed wherever they please.

If the baby doesn't eat, he or she probably won't be too happy. I would much rather let a woman feed her child than listen to a crying baby for hours on end, and I'm fairly positive in thinking most of you out there would agree with me.

Unlike smoking, a breastfeeding mother doesn't harm innocent passers-by. Public breastfeeding isn't dangerous or hazardous to anybody. All mothers should be able to feed their children, and all kids should have the right to eat in peace.

In the past, people have said public breastfeeding is obscene and should be done in the privacy of the home. Well, here's an idea: If public breastfeeding is insulting and offensive to you, don't look at it. Nobody is forcing you to watch it. Just turn your head and move on with your life.

It's funny, though. We live in such a double standard society. In this country, it is frowned upon to publicly breastfeed, because bare breasts are vulgar and crude. Yet, it is perfectly fine for men to walk around wearing oversized pants down to their waists with their cracks hanging out. Please.

We also don't bat an eye when a well-endowed woman gets on TV, shows her cleavage and persuades us to buy beer, adopt a puppy or join a cult. Of course, the moment a woman pulls out her breast to nurture a young child, everyone freaks out.

The woman who wrote the letter to the editor should not have been asked to move. It isn't illegal to breastfeed. It isn't illegal for the child to eat. In fact, as the writer referenced, Missouri law allows public breastfeeding.

The woman said she would not be "marginalized into silence by any ignorant staff person again." Good for her. She has every right to be upset.

This is the 21st century. Our society is way too conservative. We need to stop being appalled by any sight of breasts in public. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the world should stop and cater to you.

America prides itself on its freedoms, but if a woman can't feed her own child in public without causing commotion, what freedoms do we really have?

Untitled Photographs

2010-03-23T09:43:00.000-07:00

(Photo sources unknown)

Breastfeeding Twins

2010-03-18T18:20:00.000-07:00

Nursing M and J

Nichole's story:

Before I had the boys everyone thought I was nuts that I did want to nurse. My aunt who is a nurse told me it was too hard with one I wouldn't really be able to do it. The boys were born @ 36 weeks bc I was in a lot of pain with my upper baby turning breech. When they took me in for the c section I told people I didn't want them to have a bottle at all. Well, their sugar was really really low and I was throwing up so they tried a bottle but neither of them really sucked so that was the end of that. In the hospital I would feel what was like a blur because I was so tired from having them in the room and getting no sleep since they had put me on bedrest 2 months before. But every time I fed the babies I would pump. Literally everytime. My milk came in 2 days later probably from all the feeding and pumping.
So the boys started losing a little weight but nothing too bad but you know, the pediatricians freak you out so I started getting scared, and their jaundice wasn't going away and my one guy hurt so bad! But his tongue was on the roof of his mouth. So we got that fixed but I was still paranoid so they told me to get fenugreek. By now I'm obsessed with breastfeeding.
There was one day where I apparently wasn't eating or drinking well or just drying up? My boys just sucked and sucked for hours. Screaming! Well, my grandma started screaming @ me because the boys didn't know how to take a bottle. I didn't handle that well. So I went out and got goats rue and it helped a lot! Now I'm still taking it and refuse to go off of it. So, things have been great. I stopped attempting to tandem feed because they were like 3 months old and they started fighting. Every once in a while I will try. Its a little awkward.
I will have to say at first because I was so tired being away from my fiance I would wake up in the middle of the night and catch myself nursing my pillows!
I have learned from Janet that sometimes its just easier to let them sleep with you. So I kicked my fiance out of bed and they now sleep with me. They are awesome little men and are very much mommas boys but that's ok because I like it that way!

Free Formula Spoils Breastfeeding

2010-03-18T06:13:00.000-07:00

stock image photo

Free formula spoils breastfeeding
March 16, 2010

Laurie Monsebraaten

Noor Javed

New mothers given formula upon discharge ranged from 22 per cent to 78.5 per cent, depending on the hospital where she delivered: Toronto public health report

Almost 40 per cent of new mothers leave the hospital with free infant formula, a recipe for spoiled breastfeeding according to a new Toronto Public Health report.

Women who didn’t receive the free samples were 3.5 times more likely to be breastfeeding exclusively after 2 weeks, said Breastfeeding in Toronto, Promoting Supportive Environments, released Tuesday.

The study, conducted in 2007 and 2008, found that of 1,500 first-time mothers surveyed, 39 per cent were given formula at hospital discharge. As a result, many of these women stopped breastfeeding sooner than those women who weren’t given formula.

“A substantial proportion of hospitals are still doing this,” said Dr. David McKeown, Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health. “There are some incentives for hospitals to do this (promote formula)...and that is really not in the interest of infants and mothers.”

McKeown said hospitals should have a “comprehensive breastfeeding policy, help for mothers to initiate breastfeeding within a half-hour of birth, and ensure newborns are not given food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated.”

The World Health Organization (WHO), Health Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and Toronto Public Health support exclusive breastfeeding to six months of age as the best nutritional choice for babies. At six months, they recommend solid food and continued breastfeeding until age two and beyond.

The Breastfeeding Committee for Canada, which promotes breastfeeding, notes that aggressive formula marketing has plagued hospitals since the 1940s.

“The provision of free formula in hospital, free educational materials for new parents and educational donations for staff has been taken for granted as a convenient way to provide patient and staff education,” the committee says on its website. “Strains on health care budgets have led health care facilities to depend on formula company donations as though there are no alternatives.”

There has always been controversy about hospitals receiving free formula. It is why Toronto East General Hospital – the only Baby Friendly hospital in the city and among about two dozen in the country – cancelled its contract in 2005, said Linda Young, director of maternal newborn and child health.

To become Baby-Friendly, hospitals and other facilities have to comply with the WHO’s International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes. This code stipulates that there should be no free or low cost supplies of breast-milk substitutes to maternity wards and hospitals.

“When the formula companies put together a contract, they list all the things that they give – the formula, the nipples, and the bottles, and it comes up to a big number,” Young said, adding there is sometimes a signing bonus of anywhere between $130,000 and $150,000 which hospitals can use for other programs and services.

The only other GTA hospital that Young knows of that is buying formula instead of getting it free is Lakeridge in Oshawa. “Any kind of money is hard to give up for a hospital,” she said.

The impact of promoting formula as they leave the hospital gives off mixed messages to new mothers, adds Young.

“They give it to the women ‘just in case’,” she said. “But the real message is that you will probably fail... and one bottle leads to another.”

The International Formula Council, representing infant formula makers and marketers, has long argued that free samples have no bearing on a women’s decision whether to breastfeed or formula-feed their baby and that mothers want to be informed of their choices.

Ann Holden, patient care manager for the family birthing centre at St. Joseph’s Health Centre, said the hospital receives free formula from manufacturers and is currently renegotiating its contract with Abbott Canada, makers of Similac.

But the hospital has never given out infant formula in the five years she has held the post, she said. “We have never given formula samples or any infant-feeding supplies.”

However, the hospital will provide free samples when mothers request formula for feeding, she said in an interview.

Dr. Jack Newman of the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic, said no birthing hospital in Southern Ontario hands out formula in gift packages anymore. Instead, most new mothers get infant formula from nurses when they leave the hospital.

“The nurses will say ‘I’m not supposed to hand this stuff out, but here are a couple of bottles if you are having trouble,’ ” he said in an interview Tuesday night.

“The nurses think they are helping,” Newman said. “But in fact they are not.”

2010-02-17T09:32:00.000-08:00

Briar, age 20 months

2010-02-03T11:50:00.000-08:00

Renee, 7 months old

Infant Formula Study Just a Marketing Gimmick to Push Formula Over Breastfeeding

2010-01-28T17:41:00.000-08:00

Infant Formula Study Just a Marketing Gimmick to Push Formula Over Breastfeeding
Friday, January 08, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A recent study lauding the benefits of fortified infant formula has been greeted with skepticism by child development specialists, who suspect that the study is only the first part of an attempt to promote formula over breast milk.

"It is clear that the food industry fascination with nutraceuticals (strategically fortified food products) is now spreading into infant formula," said Barbara Moore of Shape Up America! "This is a disturbing new development. We have parents thinking that sticking their tiny infants in front of a Baby Einstein video will improve their child's mental development when the data suggest that parent-child interactions (and plenty of them) are the most critical factor for such development. Now parents will be encouraged to forego breastfeeding -- which is optimal for both mothers and babies -- in favor of a hyped up infant formula."

A recent study concluded that children who consumed infant formula fortified with the omega-3 fatty acid DHA had higher cognitive function than children who consumed unfortified formula. Breastmilk was not included in the study, and the formula used in the study was provided for free by a manufacturer.

Miriam Labbok of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill said she was doubtful about the study's findings.

"It might be reasonable from these industry-funded studies to consider that this would be a good additive to formula if you are forced to stop breastfeeding," she said. "However, 1) none of these studies compare to continued breastfeeding, 2) you could also get these [nutrients] from other sources if you stop breastfeeding, and 3) there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other components in human milk that cannot be replaced."

Pediatrician Lori Feldman-Winter of New Jersey noted that many mothers come to her believing that DHA-fortified milk is healthier for their infants than breastmilk.

"The marketing has actually dissuaded mothers from choosing exclusive breastfeeding, which is preferred from all the outcomes that we understand," she said.

All major health and pediatric associations recommend exclusive breastfeeding for at least the first six months of life, if not longer.

Sources for this story include: abcnews.go.com.

The Woman Told That She Was Too Stupid To Keep Her Baby Boy

2010-01-28T12:38:00.000-08:00

The woman told that she was too stupid to keep her baby boy
By Alison Smith Squire
Last updated at 8:10 AM on 28th January 2010

The Moses basket sits beside the bed, its new blankets carefully arranged awaiting its owner's arrival.

Piles of newborn baby clothes - mostly in shades of blue - lie neatly folded on a chair.
Like any new mother, Kerry Robertson spent weeks excitedly preparing for her first child's arrival - and yet 13 days after his birth, all the carefully arranged baby paraphernalia remains unused.
And yet today Kerry and her partner, Mark McDougall, 25, will finally be able to lay their son Ben down to sleep in the basket they bought for him with such hope.
Loving mother: Kerry Robertson, 17, was told she would not be able to bring up her baby son Ben because she has mild learning difficulties
Kerry, who has mild learning difficulties, and Mark went on the run from their home in Fife, Scotland, last November after British social services said she was not clever enough to raise a child.

They hoped that by escaping to Ireland they would be left alone to be a family together. But when Ben was four days old, social workers caught up with them, marching into the maternity ward and forcing them to hand him over.
Only after a court hearing last Friday were the parents told they will get their child back - albeit under supervision.
Today, Kerry will move into a mother and baby unit where the 17-year-old will be under constant surveillance - but that is undoubtedly the lesser of two evils for the couple, given that they feared they might lose custody of the child they fought so hard to keep.

'To say it's been a roller coaster is an understatement,' says Mark. 'Witnessing them take Ben from Kerry made me cry. He was sleeping in her arms after his feed and looked so peaceful.

'I tried to argue with them, but they said no. It's only after they've read medical reports from the hospital, in which the midwives and medical staff said we are loving parents, that it appears they've decided we can have Ben back after all.
'Kerry will be able to care for Ben all day, every day and I'll be allowed to stay at the unit as often as I like.
'Needless to say, we can't wait to be reunited with our beloved son.'
This isn't the only battle the couple have fought to ensure Kerry leads a normal life.

She has been brought up by her grandmother since she was nine months old, with the care overseen by Fife social services.

But she says that, as an adult, there were no signs of the problems to come until social services heard she was pregnant and getting married.
Devoted: Kerry and partner Mark McDougall, 25, pose proudly with their baby son. The couple fled to Ireland after social services said Ben would be taken away
Last September, in an unprecedented step, the couple's white church wedding was halted just 48 hours beforehand, in a row over whether Kerry was intelligent enough to marry.
Shortly after, Fife social services told the couple they believed that, because of Kerry's learning difficulties, her unborn baby would be taken into care.
The claim that Kerry is too stupid to get married or have a baby is something she and Mark, an artist, vehemently refute.

'Social services are ruining my life,' she says. 'First, I was stopped from getting married and then they took my baby.'
Kerry and Mark say she has never even had a formal psychological assessment. And the couple point out that before Kerry became pregnant herself, she worked as a childcare worker with children at a local school - and in fact, with considerable irony, holds a certificate in child care.
Kerry says: 'It's true I didn't get many qualifications at school, but I never had very good teaching.
'I did study for my childcare qualification, I can read and write. I send texts, go on the internet and do everything for myself.
'I usually cook for us. I chose most of the clothes for our baby and sorted out all the piles of nappies, tubs of baby creams and toys. I wanted everything to be ready for him when we brought him home.'

Indeed, upon first meeting, Kerry strikes you as no different to many other young woman. Slim and quirkily dressed, it's clear that, like anyone of her age, she loves to experiment with make-up and clothes.
Nevertheless, she is painfully shy - it is Mark's belief that it is this which gives social workers the impression her learning difficulties are worse than they are.
'Social services are ruining my life. First, I was stopped from getting married and then they took my baby'
But gain her trust and she chats away happily like any other teenager. In fact, I don't believe anyone meeting her in a group of young people would even identify learning difficulties.
As for Mark, he has an impressive clutch of GCSEs under his belt, as well as two As in his Highers - the Scottish equivalent of A levels - in art and English.
He is an accomplished artist who makes a reasonable living selling his sketches and charcoal pictures worldwide - he showed me a picture he drew of newborn Ben, and it is a very accurate likeness.
Mark says: 'Neither Kerry nor me have ever had any conviction for cruelty or violence. I don't understand why the authorities have treated us like this.'

So what is the truth?

The Mail, it must be stressed, is not privy to all the information social services hold on this couple. Kerry admits she is no Einstein, but she seems like any other teenager.

Seeing her with Mark, hand-in-hand on the sofa at their rented house in Ireland, some would say they seem more mature than many young lovers.
Binge-drinking, casual relationships and parties couldn't be further from their minds. Both say they prefer an evening in with friends. If anything, they could be described as somewhat old-fashioned.
Mark says: 'When we discovered Kerry was pregnant we wanted to get married. It was important to us that our baby was born to married parents.'
That wedding was set to take place in a church, organised by Mark's father, who had arranged for the congregation to produce a homemade buffet for their reception.
Although Kerry was brought up in the care of her grandmother, she comes from a close-knit community with a large extended family of aunts and uncles. Her younger brother, who's nine, still lives with her grandmother.
The couple met last January through friends. 'I certainly didn't think Kerry had learning difficulties,' says Mark.

'At first she just seemed quiet, but I soon discovered a quirky sense of humour, and that's what attracted me to her.'
Family: Ben was born on January 15 weighing 7lb 3oz
By March, they were a couple and the following month Kerry moved into Mark's one-bedroom flat. It was shortly after this that Kerry became pregnant.
Kerry says: 'When I told my grandmother I was pregnant, she got a care worker to take me to the GP.

'It was then that the care worker said to me: "You know you won't be able to keep this baby don't you?"'
Mark adds: 'It was only at this stage I realised how seriously social services viewed Kerry's so-called condition.
'It was a very upsetting time, as the care worker suggested to Kerry it might be better if she had a termination.

'But neither of us wanted an abortion. Kerry said she could never do that.'

So the couple pressed on with the pregnancy and, as they heard nothing more from social services, put their worries to the back of their minds.

Mark says: 'When Kerry was three months pregnant, we decided to marry.

'I bought Kerry an engagement ring - a little pink one with a diamond-type stone - and we held a party.'
The pair set the date for the wedding in September. Mark recalls: 'Kerry had bought her dress, the church was booked, a cake made and the reception organised.

'But two days before, there was a frantic knocking at our front door and we were confronted by two social workers who told us our wedding was illegal.

'Kerry and I were devastated, but we had no option but to cancel our big day.'
It later transpired Fife social services had made the extraordinary step of writing a letter of objection to the registrar, claiming Kerry was too dim to understand her vows.

The couple have since attempted to marry again, but have been told that, as an order is still in place, a wedding is forbidden.
But if that weren't enough, in October, when Kerry was five months pregnant, the couple were called into a meeting with social services and told their baby would be taken into care at birth.

Kerry says: 'I couldn't stop crying. By then, I'd already found out I was having a little boy and we had decided to name him Ben. I'd felt him kick inside me.'

Mark adds: 'There was no mention of trying to help Kerry or give her the chance to be a mum.

'At that time, they said Kerry would be allowed only a few hours with him. It seemed then he would go to foster parents, and there was the fear he would be adopted and we would lose him for ever.
'The care worker suggested to Kerry it might be better if she had a termination'
'It didn't seem to matter to social services that we loved one another and wanted to get married.'
The worry was so great that Mark began researching on the internet other cases in which parents had faced losing their babies in this way.
He says: 'I discovered that many couples had been forced to flee the UK and go to other countries where the authorities take a different view and are keen to keep families together.

'It seemed a huge step to take. Neither Kerry nor myself wanted to leave home, where we had family and support. But in the end we felt we had no choice.'
The couple decided to go to Ireland, where they believed their case would be looked on more sympathetically.
So in November, having held a tearful farewell gathering - and with just £200 in their pockets, a suitcase and a bag of sandwiches made by Kerry - the pair stole out of their house in the dead of night.
The couple made it to Belfast, where they stayed for eight weeks.
'Not having social workers knocking on our doors, wanting meetings all the time, was fantastic,' says Mark. 'For the first time in Kerry's pregnancy, we could enjoy it.'

The pair were financed by friends and family - although Mark continued to sell his artwork.

'I missed my grandma, my little brother and my family terribly,' says Kerry. 'It was hard to be away from them at Christmas. But I consoled myself that it would be worth it. I could hold Ben in my arms and not worry he would be taken.'
Kerry and Mark made the final leg of their journey to Waterford in the Republic of Ireland - which is not governed by UK laws - two weeks after Christmas, with the birth of the baby looming.
Accomplished artist: Mark drew a sketch of his son while in hospital
There, with the help of a donation from a secret benefactor, they were able to find a safe house.
Mark recalls: 'We rented a beautiful little house. Waterford is a seaside resort and we decided to make a new life there.'
On Friday, January 15 at 8.41pm, their hopes were realised when, after a natural labour, Ben was finally born.

The happy couple took photos of their 7lb 3oz bundle. And for three days all appeared to be well.
Mark visited the hospital daily, and close friends who knew where they were sent congratulations cards. Meanwhile, Kerry took to breastfeeding and caring for Ben without any problems.
Behind the scenes, however, social workers were gearing up to strike.

Through medical records, the Irish authorities had discovered that social workers in Fife had an interest in Kerry.
'It seems they contacted Fife, who told them they feared because of Kerry's "disability" our baby could suffer physical or emotional neglect,' explains Mark.
The following Monday, the couple were told a social worker would visit them the next day, and at that point they were not unduly concerned.
'We are honest, so we were happy to co-operate fully,' says Mark. 'We would have been pleased to be monitored.

'Even putting Kerry into a home for new mums with babies so she could prove she can be a good mother would have been fine.
'We understood that the Irish social workers needed to make their own inquiries, and were perfectly happy to do whatever it took to keep Ben.'
So they were totally unprepared when, at the 9.15am meeting on the Tuesday, they were forced to hand over their baby. Since then he has been looked after by foster carers.

They have been allowed two-hourly visits with Ben. But even now, as they're about to be reunited with their baby, there is no denying that the episode has been highly distressing.
Kerry says: 'I was so upset when I saw him the first time with the social workers because he had a dummy in his mouth.
'I told them I didn't want him having a dummy. And he is being bottle fed, but I wanted to breastfeed him.
'I'm just so happy that I'll be with my baby. I don't know how long I'll be at the unit. I'll miss Mark if he's not allowed to stay over - but Ben comes first.'

There's no denying that she and Mark sincerely hope today heralds the start of life as a normal, happy family.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1246590/The-woman-told-stupid-baby-boy.html#ixzz0dwRMMoJP

Breastfeeding is the First Line of Defense in a Disaster

2010-01-27T20:00:00.001-08:00

January 27, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

UPDATED STATEMENT:
Breastfeeding is the First Line of Defense in a Disaster
Washington, DC--The Human Milk Banking Association of North America (HMBANA), United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC), International Lactation Consultant Association/United States Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA/USLCA), and La Leche League International (LLLI) strongly affirm the importance of breastfeeding in emergency situations, and call on relief workers and health care providers serving victims of disasters to protect, promote, and support mothers to breastfeed their babies. During an emergency, breastfeeding mothers provide their infants with safe food and water and disease protection that maximize their chances of survival.

This week, the International Milk Bank Project and Quick International Courier coordinated a shipment of milk from the HMBANA member banks to supplement a mother's own milk for the premature, medically fragile, and orphaned infants aboard the U.S. Navy ship Comfort stationed off the coast of Haiti. This milk will help this small group of infants. In this highly unusual circumstance the infrastructure associated with the Comfort's resources allows U.S. sourced donor milk to help fragile Haitian babies.

Donor milk, however, is not a solution for the large number of infants and young children affected by the earthquake in Haiti. Members of the public who wish to promote the survival of mothers and babies in Haiti can donate money to the following organizations: UNICEF, Save the Children Alliance, World Vision, and Action Against Hunger. These organizations are using best practice to aid both breastfed and non-breastfed infants. Members of the public can be confident that donations to these organizations will support breastfeeding and help save the lives of babies.

Interventions to protect infants include supporting mothers to initiate and continue exclusive breastfeeding, relactation for mothers who have ceased breastfeeding, and finding wet nurses for motherless or separated babies. Every effort should be made to minimize the number of infants and young children who do not have access to breastfeeding. Artificially fed infants require intensive support from aid organizations including infant formula, clean water, soap, a stove, fuel, education, and medical support. This is not an easy endeavor. Formula feeding is extremely risky in emergency conditions and artificially fed infants are vulnerable to the biggest killers of children in emergencies: diarrhea and pneumonia.

As stated by UNICEF and WHO, no donations of infant formula or powdered milk should be sent to the Haiti emergency. Such donations are difficult to manage logistically, actively detract from the aid effort, and put infant's lives at risk. Distribution of infant formula should only occur in a strictly controlled manner. Stress does not prevent women from making milk for their babies, and breastfeeding women should not be given any infant formula or powdered milk.

There are ongoing needs in the U.S. for human milk for premature and other extremely ill infants because of the protection it provides from diseases and infections. If a mother is unable to provide her own milk to her premature or sick infant, donor human milk is often requested from a human milk bank. American mothers can help their compatriots who find themselves in need of breast milk for their sick baby by donating to a milk bank that is a member of the Human Milk Banking Association of North America.

For more information about donating milk to a milk bank, contact HMBANA at www.hmbana.org. Additional information for relief workers and health care professionals can be provided from the United States Breastfeeding Committee at www.usbreastfeeding.org, ILCA/USLCA at www.ilca.org or www.uslca.org, or La Leche League International at www.llli.org. A list of regional milk banks is available on the HMBANA Web site at www.hmbana.org/index/locations.

USBC is an organization of organizations. Opinions expressed by USBC are not necessarily the position of all member organizations and opinions expressed by USBC member organization representatives are not necessarily the position of USBC.

United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC)
The United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC) is an independent nonprofit coalition of 41 nationally influential professional, educational, and governmental organizations. Representing over half a million concerned professionals and the families they serve, USBC and its member organizations share a common mission to improve the Nation's health by working collaboratively to protect, promote, and support breastfeeding. For more information about USBC, visit www.usbreastfeeding.org.

###

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Breastfeeding Committee
2025 M Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202/367-1132
Fax: 202/367-2132
E-mail: office@usbreastfeeding.org
Web: www.usbreastfeeding.org

Unsubscribe from future USBC communications

Breastfeeding State Laws

2010-01-26T12:39:00.000-08:00

Breastfeeding Laws
Updated September 2009
Resources

Health professionals and public health officials promote breastfeeding to improve infant health. Both mothers and children benefit from breast milk. Breast milk contains antibodies that protect infants from bacteria and viruses. Breastfed children have fewer ear infections, respiratory infections, urinary tract infections and have diarrhea less often. Infants who are exclusively breastfed tend to need fewer health care visits, prescriptions and hospitalizations resulting in a lower total medical care cost compared to never-breastfed infants. Breastfeeding also provides long-term preventative effects for the mother, including an earlier return to pre-pregnancy weight and a reduced risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer and osteoporosis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 70 percent of mothers start breastfeeding immediately after birth, but less than 20 percent of those moms are breastfeeding exclusively six months later. It is a national goal to increase the proportion of mothers who breastfeed their babies in the early postpartum period to 75 percent by the year 2010.

Forty-three states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands have laws with language specifically allowing women to breastfeed in any public or private location (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming).

Twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands exempt breastfeeding from public indecency laws (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming).

Twenty-four states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have laws related to breastfeeding in the workplace (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming).

Twelve states and Puerto Rico exempt breastfeeding mothers from jury duty (California, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon and Virginia).

Five states and Puerto Rico have implemented or encouraged the development of a breastfeeding awareness education campaign (California, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri and Vermont).

Several states have unique laws related to breastfeeding. For instance,

The state of Virginia allows women to breastfeed on any land or property owned by the state. Puerto Rico requires shopping malls, airports, public service government centers and other select locations to have accessible areas designed for breastfeeding and diaper changing that are not bathrooms.

At least two states have laws related to child care facilities and breastfeeding. Louisiana prohibits any child care facility from discriminating against breastfed babies. Mississippi requires licensed child care facilities to provide breastfeeding mothers with a sanitary place that is not a toilet stall to breastfeed their children or express milk, to provide a refrigerator to store expressed milk, to train staff in the safe and proper storage and handling of human milk, and to display breastfeeding promotion information to the clients of the facility.

California requires the Department of Public Health to develop a training course of hospital policies and recommendations that promote exclusive breastfeeding and specify staff for whom this model training is appropriate. The recommendation is targeted at hospitals with exclusive patient breastfeeding rates ranked in the lowest twenty-five percent of the state.

Maryland exempts the sale of tangible personal property that is manufactured for the purpose of initiating, supporting or sustaining breastfeeding from the sales and use tax.

California, New York and Texas have laws related to the procurement, processing, distribution or use of human milk.

New York created a Breastfeeding Mothers Bill of Rights, which is required to be posted in maternal health care facilities.

First Letter of State A C D F G H I K L M N O P R T U V W

States
Summary of Statutes
Alabama
Ala. Code § 21-1-13 (2006) allows a mother to breastfeed her child in any public or private location.

American Samoa

Alaska
Alaska Stat. § 29.25.080 and § 01.10.060 (1998) prohibit a municipality from enacting an ordinance that prohibits or restricts a woman breastfeeding a child in a public or private location where the woman and child are otherwise authorized to be. The law clarifies that lewd conduct, lewd touching, immoral conduct, indecent conduct, and similar terms do not include the act of a woman breastfeeding a child in a public or private location where the woman and child are otherwise authorized to be. (SB 297)

Arizona
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann § 41-1443 (2006) provides that indecent exposure does not include an act of breastfeeding by a mother and entitles a mother to breastfeed in any public place where the mother is otherwise lawfully present.

Arkansas
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-14-112 and § 20-27-2001 (2007) allow a woman to breastfeed in any public or private location where other individuals are present. The law also exempts breastfeeding women from indecent exposure laws.

2009 Ark. Acts, Act 621 requires an employer to provide reasonable unpaid break time each day to an employee who needs to express breast milk for her child and requires an employer to make a reasonable effort to provide a private, secure and sanitary room or other location other than a toilet stall where an employee can express her breast milk. (HB 1552)

California
Cal. Civil Code § 43.3 (1997) allows a mother to breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, except the private home or residence of another, where the mother and the child are otherwise authorized to be present. (AB 157)

Cal. Civil Code § 210.5 (2000) allows the mother of a breastfed child to postpone jury duty for one year and specifically eliminates the need for the mother to appear in court to request the postponement. The law also provides that the one-year period may be extended upon written request of the mother. (Chap. 266; AB 1814)

Cal. Health and Safety Code § 1647 (1999) declares that the procurement, processing, distribution or use of human milk for the purpose of human consumption is considered to be a rendition of service rather than a sale of human milk. (Chap. 87; AB 532)

Cal. Health and Safety Code § 123360 and § 1257.9 require that the Department of Public Health include in its public service campaign the promotion of mothers breastfeeding their infants. The department shall also develop a training course of hospital policies and recommendations that promote exclusive breastfeeding and specify staff for whom this model training is appropriate. The recommendation is targeted at hospitals with exclusive patient breastfeeding rates ranked in the lowest twenty-five percent of the state. (2007 Chapter 460, SB 22)

Cal. Labor Code § 1030 et seq. (2001) provides that employers need to allow a break and provide a room for a mother who desires to express milk in private.

Cal. Assembly Concurrent Resolution 155 (1998) encourages the state and employers to support and encourage the practice of breastfeeding by striving to accommodate the needs of employees, and by ensuring that employees are provided with adequate facilities for breastfeeding and expressing milk for their children. The resolution memorializes the governor to declare by executive order that all state employees be provided with adequate facilities for breast feeding and expressing milk.

Colorado
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-6-301 and § 25-6-302 (2004) recognize the benefits of breastfeeding and encourage mothers to breastfeed. The law also allows a mother to breastfeed in any place she has a right to be. (SB 88)

2008 Colo., Sess. Laws, Chap. 106 requires that an employer shall provide reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for up to two years after the child's birth. The employer shall make reasonable efforts to provide a place, other than a toilet stall, for the employee to express breast milk in privacy. The law also requires the Department of Labor and Employment to provide, on its website, information and links to other websites where employers can access information regarding methods to accommodate nursing mothers in the workplace. (HB 1276)

Connecticut
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-40w (2001) requires employers to provide a reasonable amount of time each day to an employee who needs to express breast milk for her infant child and to provide accommodations where an employee can express her milk in private. (HF 5656)

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-64 (1997) prohibits places of public accommodation, resort or amusement from restricting or limiting the right of a mother to breastfeed her child. (1997 Conn. Acts, P.A. 210)

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53-34b provides that no person may restrict or limit the right of a mother to breastfeed her child.

Delaware
Del. Code Ann. tit. 31 § 310 (1997) entitles a mother to breastfeed her child in any location of a place of public accommodation wherein the mother is otherwise permitted. (71 Del. Laws, c. 10)

District of Columbia
D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1402.81 et seq. amends the Human Rights Act of 1977 to include breastfeeding as part of the definition of discrimination on the basis of sex, to ensure a woman's right to breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, where she has the right to be with her child. The law provides that breastfeeding is not a violation of indecent exposure laws. The law also specifies that an employer shall provide reasonable daily unpaid break periods, as required by the employee, so that the employee may express breast milk for her child. These break periods shall run concurrently with any break periods that may already be provided to the employee. Requires that an employer make reasonable efforts to provide a sanitary room or other location, other than a bathroom or toilet stall, where an employee can express her breast milk in privacy and security. The location may include a childcare facility in close proximity to the employee's work location. (2007 D.C. Stat., Chap. 17-58; B 133)

Florida
Fla. Stat. § 383.015 (1993) allows a mother to breastfeed in any public or private location. (HB 231)

Fla. Stat. § 383.016 (1994) authorizes a facility lawfully providing maternity services or newborn infant care to use the designation "baby-friendly" on its promotional materials. The facility must be in compliance with at least eighty percent of the requirements developed by the Department of Health in accordance with UNICEF and World Health Organization baby-friendly hospital initiatives. (SB 1668)

Fla. Stat. § 800.02 et seq. and § 827.071 exclude breastfeeding from various sexual offenses, such as lewdness, indecent exposure and sexual conduct.

2008 Fla. Laws, Chap. 172 excludes a mother breastfeeding her baby from the offense of lewd or lascivious exhibition using a computer. (SB 1442)

Georgia
Ga. Code § 31-1-9 (1999) states that the breastfeeding of a baby is an important and basic act of nurture which should be encouraged in the interests of maternal and child health and allows a mother to breastfeed her baby in any location where the mother and baby are otherwise authorized to be. (1999 SB 29, Act 304; 2002 SB 221)

Ga. Code § 34-1-6 (1999) allows employers to provide daily unpaid break time for a mother to express breast milk for her infant child. Employers are also required to make a reasonable effort to provide a private location, other than a toilet stall, in close proximity to the workplace for this activity. The employer is not required to provide break time if to do so would unduly disrupt the workplace operations.

Guam

Hawaii
Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 367-3 (1999) requires the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to collect, assemble and publish data concerning instances of discrimination involving breastfeeding or expressing breast milk in the workplace. The law prohibits employers to forbid an employee from expressing breast milk during any meal period or other break period. (HB 266)

Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 378-2 (1999) provides that it is unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer or labor organization to refuse to hire or employ, to bar or discharge from employment, or withhold pay, demote or penalize a lactating employee because an employee breastfeeds or expresses milk at the workplace. (HB 2774)

Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 489.21 and § 489-22 provide that it is a discriminatory practice to deny, or attempt to deny, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, priviledge, advantages, and accommodation of a place of public accommodations to a woman because she is breastfeeding a child.

Idaho
Idaho Code § 2-212 provides that a person who is not disqualified for jury service under § 2-209 may have jury service postponed by the court or the jury commissioner only upon a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, or public necessity, or upon a showing that the juror is a mother breastfeeding her child. (2002 HB 497)

Illinois
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20 § 2310/55.84 (1997) allows the Department of Public Health to conduct an information campaign for the general public to promote breastfeeding of infants by their mothers. The law allows the department to include the information in a brochure for free distribution to the general public. (Ill. Laws, P.A. 90-244)

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 705 § 305/10.3 (2005) amends the Jury Act. Provides that any mother nursing her child shall, upon her request, be excused from jury duty. (Ill. Laws, P.A. 094-0391, SB 517)

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/11-9 (1995) clarifies that breastfeeding of infants is not an act of public indecency. (SB 190)

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 740 § 137 (2004) creates the Right to Breastfeed Act. The law provides that a mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be; a mother who breastfeeds in a place of worship shall follow the appropriate norms within that place of worship. (SB 3211)

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 820 § 260 (2001) creates the Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act. Requires that employers provide reasonable unpaid break time each day to employees who need to express breast milk. The law also requires employers to make reasonable efforts to provide a room or other location, other than a toilet stall, where an employee can express her milk in privacy. (SB 542)

Indiana
Ind. Code § 16-35-6 allows a woman to breastfeed her child anywhere the law allows her to be. (HB 1510)

2008 Ind. Acts, P.L. 13 provides that state and political subdivisions shall provide for reasonable paid breaks for an employee to express breast milk for her infant, make reasonable efforts to provide a room or other location, other than a toilet stall, where the employee can express breast milk in private and make reasonable efforts to provide for a refrigerator to keep breast milk that has been expressed. The law also provides that employers with more than 25 employees must provide a private location, other than a toilet stall, where an employee can express the employee's breast milk in private and if possible to provide a refrigerator for storing breast milk that has been expressed. (2008 SB 219)

Iowa
Iowa Code § 135.30A (2002) a woman may breastfeed the woman's own child in any public place where the woman's presence is otherwise authorized.

Iowa Code § 607A.5 (1994) allows a woman to be excused from jury service if she submits written documentation verifying, to the court's satisfaction, that she is the mother of a breastfed child and is responsible for the daily care of the child.

Kansas
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 43-158 and § 65-1,248 provide that it is the public policy of Kansas that a mother's choice to breastfeed should be supported and encouraged to the greatest extent possible and that a mother may breastfeed in any place she has a right to be. The law was amended in 2006 to excuse nursing mothers from jury duty (2006 HB 2284).

Kentucky
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29A.100 (2007) directs judges at all levels of the court to excuse women who are breastfeeding or expressing breast milk from jury service until the child is no longer nursing. (SB 111)

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 211-755 (2006) permits a mother to breastfeed her baby or express breast milk in any public or private location. Requires that breastfeeding may not be considered an act of public indecency, indecent exposure, sexual conduct, lewd touching or obscenity. Prohibits a municipality from enacting an ordinance that prohibits or restricts breastfeeding in a public or private place. (SB 106)

Louisiana
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 46. 1409 B 5 prohibits any child care facility from discriminating against breastfed babies. (HB 233)

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51. 2247.1 (2001) states that a mother may breastfeed her baby in any place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement, and clarifies that breastfeeding is not a violation of law, including obscenity laws. (2001 HB 377)

La. House Concurrent Resolution 35 (2002) establishes a joint study of requiring insurance coverage for outpatient lactation support for new mothers.

2008 La. Senate Resolution 110 requests the Department of Health & Hospitals to study and/or consider a provision of providing non-emergency transportation for new mothers to allow them to visit the hospital and bring their breast milk for their babies.

Maine
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 4634 (2001) amends the Maine Human Rights Act to declare that a mother has the right to breastfeed her baby in any location, whether public or private, as long as she is otherwise authorized to be in that location. (Me. Laws, Chap. 206; LD 1396)

2009 Me. Laws, Chap. 84 (HB 280) requires an employer to provide adequate unpaid or paid break time to express breast milk for up to 3 years following childbirth. The employer must make reasonable efforts to provide a clean place, other than a bathroom, where an employee may express breast milk in privacy. The employer may not discriminate against an employee who chooses to express breast milk in the workplace.

Maryland
Md. Health-General Code Ann. § 20-801 (2003) permits a woman to breastfeed her infant in any public or private place and prohibits anyone from restricting or limiting this right. (SB 223)

Md. Tax-General Code Ann. § 11-211 exempts the sale of tangible personal property that is manufactured for the purpose of initiating, supporting or sustaining breastfeeding from the sales and use tax.

Massachusetts
2008 Mass. Acts, Chap. 466 allows a mother to breastfeed her child in any public place or establishment or place which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public and where the mother and her child may otherwise lawfully be present; specifies that the act of a mother breastfeeding her child shall not be considered lewd, indecent, immoral, or unlawful conduct; provides for a civil action by a mother subjected to a violation of this law. (SB 2438)

Michigan
Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.181,67.1aa and § 117.4i et seq. (1994) state that public nudity laws do not apply to a woman breastfeeding a child.

Minnesota
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.894 directs the state commissioner of health to develop and implement a public education program promoting the provisions of the Maternal and Child Nutrition Act. The education programs must include a campaign to promote breastfeeding.

Minn. Stat. § 145.905 provides that a mother may breastfeed in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding.

Minn. Stat. § 181.939 (1998) requires employers to provide daily unpaid break time for a mother to express breast milk for her infant child. Employers are also required to make a reasonable effort to provide a private location, other than a toilet stall, in close proximity to the workplace for this activity. (SB 2751)

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 617.23 specifies that breastfeeding does not constitute indecent exposure.

Mississippi
Miss. Code Ann. § 13-5-23 (2006) provides that breastfeeding mothers may be excused from serving as jurors. (SB 2419)

Miss. Code Ann. § 17-25-7/9 (2006) prohibits any ordinance restricting a woman's right to breastfeed and provides that a mother may breastfeed her child in any location she is otherwise authorized to be. (SB 2419)

Miss. Code Ann. § 43-20-31 (2006) requires licensed child care facilities to provide breastfeeding mothers with a sanitary place that is not a toilet stall to breastfeed their children or express milk, to provide a refrigerator to store expressed milk, to train staff in the safe and proper storage and handling of human milk, and to display breastfeeding promotion information to the clients of the facility.

Miss. Code Ann. Ch. 1 § 71-1-55 (2006) prohibits against discrimination towards breastfeeding mothers who use lawful break time to express milk.

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-31 and § 97-35-7et seq. (2006) specifies that a woman breastfeeding may not be considered an act of indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, or disturbance of the public space.

Missouri
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 191.915 (1999) requires hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers to provide new mothers with a breastfeeding consultation or information on breastfeeding, the benefits to the child and information on local breastfeeding support groups. The law requires physicians who provide obstetrical or gynecological consultation to inform patients about the postnatal benefits of breastfeeding. The law requires the Department of Health to provide and distribute written information on breastfeeding and the health benefits to the child. (SB 8)

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 191.918 (1999) allows a mother, with as much discretion as possible, to breastfeed her child in any public or private location.

Montana
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-215 et seq. specifies that employers must not discriminate against breastfeeding mothers and must encourage and accommodate breastfeeding. Requires employers to provide daily unpaid break time for a mother to express breast milk for her infant child. Employers are also required to make a reasonable effort to provide a private location, other than a toilet stall, in close proximity to the work place for this activity.

Mont. Code Ann. § 50-19-501 (1999) states that the breastfeeding of a child in any location, public or private, where the mother otherwise has a right to be is legal and cannot be considered a nuisance, indecent exposure, sexual conduct, or obscenity. (SB 398)

2009 Mont. Laws, Chap. 167 (HB 372) specifies that the court may excuse a person from jury service upon finding that it would entail undue hardship for the person; an excuse may be granted if the prospective juror is a breastfeeding mother.

Nebraska
Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-1601-4 (2003) states that a nursing mother is excused from jury duty until she is no longer breastfeeding and that the nursing mother must file a qualification form supported by a certificate from her physician requesting exemption. (LB 19)

Nevada
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.232, § 201.210, and § 201.220 (1995) state that the breastfeeding of a child in any location, public or private, is not considered a violation of indecent exposure laws. (SB 317)

New Hampshire
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 132:10-d and § 121:1 et seq. (1999) state that breastfeeding does not constitute indecent exposure and that limiting or restricting a mother's right to breastfeed is discriminatory. (HB 441)

New Jersey
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 26:4B-4/5 (1997) entitles a mother to breastfeed her baby in any location of a place of public accommodation, resort or amusement wherein the mother is otherwise permitted. Failure to comply with the law may result in a fine.

New Mexico
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-20-1 (1999) permits a mother to breastfeed her child in any public or private location where she is otherwise authorized to be. (SB 545)

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-20-2 (2007) requires employers to provide a clean, private place, not a bathroom, for employees who are breastfeeding to pump. Also requires that the employee be given breaks to express milk, but does not require that she be paid for this time.

2009 N.M. House Memorial 58 requests the governor's women's health advisory council to convene a task force to study the needs of breastfeeding student-mothers and make recommendations for breastfeeding accommodations in school environments.

New York
N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79-e (1994) permits a mother to breastfeed her child in any public or private location. (SB 3999)

N.Y. Labor Law § 206-c (2007) states that employers must allow breastfeeding mothers reasonable, unpaid break times to express milk and make a reasonable attempt to provide a private location for her to do so. Prohibits discrimination against breastfeeding mothers.

N.Y. Penal Law § 245.01 et seq. excludes breastfeeding of infants from exposure offenses.

N.Y. Public Health Law § 2505 provides that the Maternal and Child Health commissioner has the power to adopt regulations and guidelines including, but not limited to donor standards, methods of collection, and standards for storage and distribution of human breast milk.

2009 N.Y. Laws, Chap. 292 Creates the Breastfeeding Mothers Bill of Rights and requires it to be posted in a public place in each maternal health care facility. The commissioner must also make the Breastfeeding Mothers Bill of Rights available on the health department's website so that health care facilities and providers may include such rights in a maternity information leaflet. (2009 AB 789)

North Carolina
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-190.9 (1993) states that a woman is allowed to breastfeed in any public or private location, and that she is not in violation of indecent exposure laws. (HB 1143)

North Dakota
2009 N.D. Senate Bill 2344 specifies that the act of a woman discreetly breastfeeding her child is not in violation of indecent exposure laws. The law allows a woman to breastfeed her child in any public or private location where the woman and child are otherwise authorized to be. The law allows an employer to use the designation "infant friendly" on its promotional materials if they adopt a workplace breastfeeding policy that includes a flexible work schedule that provides time for expression of breast milk; a convenient, sanitary, safe and private location other than a restroom to allow privacy for breastfeeding or expressing breast milk; and other policies.

Ohio
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3781.55 (2005) provides that a mother is entitled to breastfeed her baby in any location of a place of public accommodation wherein the mother is otherwise permitted. (SB 41)

Oklahoma
Okla. Stat. tit. 38 § 28 (2004) exempts mothers who are breastfeeding a baby from jury duty, upon their request. (2004 HB 2102)

Okla. Stat. tit. 40 § 435 (2006) requires that an employer provide reasonable unpaid break time each day to an employee who needs to breastfeed or express breast milk for her child. The law requires the Department of Health to issue periodic reports on breastfeeding rates, complaints received and benefits reported by both working breastfeeding mothers and employers. (HB 2358)

Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28 and tit. 63, § 1-234 (2004) allow a mother to breastfeed her child in any location that she is authorized to be and exempts her from the crimes and punishments listed in the penal code of the state of Oklahoma. (HB 2102)

Oregon
Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.001 (1999) allows a woman to breastfeed in a public place. (SB 744)

Or. Rev. Stat. § 10.050 (1999) excuses a woman from acting as a juror if the woman is breastfeeding a child. A request from the woman must be made in writing. (SB 1304)

Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.075, § 653.077 and § 653.256 (2007) allow women to have unpaid 30-minute breaks during each four-hour shift to breastfeed or pump. Allows certain exemptions for employers. (HB 2372)

Pennsylvania
Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. 35 § 636.1 et seq. (2007) allows mothers to breastfeed in public without penalty. Breastfeeding may not be considered a nuisance, obscenity or indecent exposure under this law. (SB 34)

Puerto Rico
1 L.P.R.A. § 5165 declares August as "Breastfeeding Awareness Month" and the first week of August as "World Breastfeeding Week" in Puerto Rico.

3 L.P.R.A. § 1466 and 29 L.P.R.A. § 478a et seq. provide that breastfeeding mothers have the opportunity to breastfeed their babies for half an hour within the full-time working day for a maximum duration of 12 months.

23 L.P.R.A. § 43-1 directs the Regulations and Permits Administration to adopt regulations, which shall provide that in shopping malls, airports, ports and public service government centers there shall be accessible areas designed for breastfeeding and diaper changing that are not bathrooms.

34 L.P.R.A. § 1735h states that any woman breastfeeding her child under 24 months old and who presents a medical attestation to such fact is exempt from serving as a juror. (2003 SB 397)

Rhode Island
R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-45-2 (1998) specifies that indecent exposure-disorderly conduct laws do not apply to breastfeeding in public. (1998 HB 8103, SB 2319; 2008 R.I. Pub Laws, Chap. 183, SB 2616)

R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-13.2-1 (2003) specifies that an employer may provide reasonable unpaid break time each day to an employee who needs to breastfeed or express breast milk for her infant child. The law requires the department of health to issue periodic reports on breastfeeding rates, complaints received and benefits reported by both working breastfeeding mothers and employers, and provides definitions. (2003 HB 5507, SB 151; 2008 R.I. Pub. Laws, Chap. 475, HB 7906)

2008 R. I. Pub. Laws, Chap. 223 and Chap. 308 allow a woman to feed her child by bottle or breast in any place open to the public and would allow her a private cause of action for denial of this right. (HB 7467, SB 2283)

South Carolina
S.C. Code Ann. § 63-5-40 (2005) provides that a woman may breastfeed her child in any location where the mother is authorized to be and that the act of breastfeeding is not considered indecent exposure. (2008 HB 4747)

South Dakota
S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 22-22-24.1 and § 22-24A-2 (2002) exempt mothers who are breastfeeding from indecency laws.

Tennessee
Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-58-101 et seq. (2006) permits a mother to breastfeed an infant 12 months or younger in any location, public or private, that the mother is authorized to be, and prohibits local governments from criminalizing or restricting breastfeeding. Specifies that the act of breastfeeding shall not be considered public indecency as defined by § 39-13-511; or nudity, obscene, or sexual conduct as defined in § 39-17-901. (HB 3582)

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-305 (1999) requires employers to provide daily unpaid break time for a mother to express breast milk for her infant child. Employers are also required to make a reasonable effort to provide a private location, other than a toilet stall, in close proximity to the workplace for this activity. (SB 1856)

Texas
Tex. Health Code Ann. § 161.071 (2001) requires the Department of Health to establish minimum guidelines for the procurement, processing, distribution, or use of human milk by donor milk banks. (HB 391)

Tex. Health Code Ann. § 165.001 et seq. and § 165.031 et seq. (1995) authorize a woman to breastfeed her child in any location and provides for the use of a "mother-friendly" designation for employers who have policies supporting worksite breastfeeding. (HB 340, HB 359)

U.S. Virgin Islands
14 V.I.C. § 1022 specifies that a woman breastfeeding a child in any public or private location where the woman's presence is otherwise authorized does not under any circumstance constitute obscene or indecent conduct.

Utah
Utah Code Ann. § 17-15-25 (1995) states that city and county governing bodies may not inhibit a woman's right to breastfeed in public.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1229.5 (1995) states that a breastfeeding woman is not in violation of any obscene or indecent exposure laws. (HB 262)

Vermont
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9 § 4502 (2002) and 2002 Vt. Acts, Act 117 state that breastfeeding should be encouraged in the interest of enhancing maternal, child and family health. The law provides that a mother may breastfeed her child in any place of public accommodation in which the mother and child would otherwise have a legal right to be. The law directs the human rights commission to develop and distribute materials that provide information regarding a woman's legal right to breastfeed her child in a place of public accommodation. (SB 156)

2008 Vt. Acts, Act 144 requires employers to provide reasonable time throughout the day for nursing mothers to express breast milk for three years after the birth of a child. Also requires employers to make a reasonable accommodation to provide appropriate private space that is not a bathroom stall, and prohibits discrimination against an employee who exercises rights provided under this act. (HB 641)

2008 Vt. Acts, Act 203 directs the commissioner of health to convene a work group to identify priorities and develop recommendations to enhance collaborative learning and interactive sharing of best practices in worksite wellness and employee health management. The work group shall examine best practices in Vermont and other states, including strategies to spread the adoption of workplace policies and practices that support breastfeeding for mothers (HB 887).

Virginia
Va. Code § 2.2-1147.1 (2002) guarantees a woman the right to breastfeed her child on any property owned, leased or controlled by the state. The bill also stipulates that childbirth and related medical conditions specified in the Virginia Human Rights Act include activities of lactation, including breastfeeding and expression of milk by a mother for her child. (HB 1264)

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-341.1 (2005) provides that a mother who is breastfeeding a child may be exempted from jury duty upon her request. The mother need not be "necessarily and personally responsible for a child or children 16 years of age or younger requiring continuous care during normal court hours." (2005 Chap. 195, HB 2708)

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-387 (1994) exempts mothers engaged in breastfeeding from indecent exposure laws.

Va. House Joint Resolution 145 (2002) encourages employers to recognize the benefits of breastfeeding and to provide unpaid break time and appropriate space for employees to breastfeed or express milk.

Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.88.010 (2001) states that the act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not indecent exposure. (HB 1590)

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.70.640 (2001) allows any employer, governmental and private, to use the designation of "infant-friendly" on its promotional materials if the employer follows certain requirements. (2001 Wash. Laws, Chap. 88)

2009 Wash. Laws, Chap. 164 (HB 1596) provides that it is the right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodations, assemblage, or amusement.

West Virginia

Wisconsin
Wis. Stat. § 944.17(3), § 944.20(2) and § 948.10(2) (1995) provide that breastfeeding mothers are not in violation of criminal statutes of indecent or obscene exposure. (AB 154)

Wyoming
Wyo. House Joint Resolution 5 (2003) encourages breastfeeding and recognizes the importance of breastfeeding to maternal and child health. The resolution also commends employers, both in the public and private sectors, who provide accommodations for breastfeeding mothers.

Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-201 (2007) exempts breastfeeding mothers from public indecency laws and gives breastfeeding women the right to nurse anyplace that they otherwise have a right to be. (HB 105)

Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures and StateNet
Note: List may not be comprehensive, but is representative of state laws that exist. NCSL appreciates additions and corrections.

Resources
The Economic Benefits of Breastfeeding
NCSL LegisBrief, January 2010

The Benefits of Breastfeeding
This article appeared in the April 2005 edition of NCSL's magazine, State Legislatures.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) : Breastfeeding

AAP: New Mother's Guide to Breastfeeding

American Academy of Family Physicians: Promoting and Supporting Breastfeeding

Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Breastfeeding Topics

Breastfeeding Report Card, 2009

Online Data from the Infant Feeding Practices Study II

Guide to Breastfeeding Interventions, 2005

Food and Nutrition Information Center: Breastfeeding

Le Leche League International

March of Dimes: Breastfeeding

Investing in Workplace Breastfeeding Programs and Policies: An Employer's Toolkit
National Business Group on Health, June 2009.

Office on Women's Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Breastfeeding

HHS Blueprint for Action on Breastfeeding

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Breastfeeding

This site is made possible by project, MCU 1 H03 MC 00017, from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Title V, Social Security Act), Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Denver Office
Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230
Washington Office
Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001

©2010 National Conference of State Legislatures. All Rights Reserved.

Don't Shake the Milk!

2010-01-26T10:57:00.001-08:00

Linda J. Smith, IBCLC Founder of BFLRC Ltd.
6540 Cedarview Court, Dayton, Ohio 45459 Fhone (937) 438-9458 Lindaj@bflrc.com

Don't Shake the Milk
Linda J. Smith, BSE, FACCE, IBCLC

Why not?

Because shaking expressed mothers' milk (or boiling or freezing it) denatures the shaped molecules of the protective proteins, leaving only the pieces - the amino acids - the parts. Lactoferrin, lysozyme, and other protective components work their protection magic when they are in their original shaped molecular structure. Some components remain intact, even during freezing, shaking or heating. They not only protect the gut from many kinds of infection, but also prevent inflammation of the gut lining. Even broken up, the separate amino acids are still really good stuff and are digested by the baby as nutrients.

Imagine a set of pop-beads assembled into a necklace or bracelet. When the beads are acting as a bracelet or necklace, they are doing their job as protective elements. When you break apart the beads, you have in your hand many individual chunks of amino acids which are then digested.

Cellular components are also susceptible to damage by physical stress. After all, they are living cells.

With mother's milk, you get at least two functions for the price of one. With manufactured formula, you only get the individual beads, never the necklace or bracelet. And never the living cells.

So, please handle human milk gently, respectfully and kindly. It's far more than perfect food for babies - it's a living tissue and protective shield too.

© 1998 Linda J. Smith, BSE, FACCE, IBCLC

Tesco Update

2010-01-26T10:31:00.000-08:00

http://www.tesco.com/superstore/xpi/8/xpi51478468.htm

Using product information
While every care has been taken to ensure this information is correct, food products are constantly being reformulated and nutrition content may change. We would therefore recommend that you do not rely solely on this information and always check products labels.

Where further dietary information is important to you, for example because you have an allergy or specific dietary requirement, you should contact Tesco Customer Services if the product is Tesco branded or the product manufacturer if the product is not Tesco branded.

Nutritional and guideline daily amounts (GDA) information is based on the typical composition of the product. Guideline daily amounts are those for a typical adult (men and women).

GDA information for non Tesco products is calculated by Tesco based on information provided to Tesco. Tesco has no control over the recipe or nutritional content of such products and information on this site may differ from that given on the product label. We would therefore recommend that you do not rely solely on this information and always check products labels.

Although this information is regularly updated, Tesco are unable to accept liability for any incorrect information.

This does not affect your statutory rights.

This information is supplied for personal use only. It may not be reproduced in any way whatsoever without the prior consent of Tesco Stores Limited nor without due acknowledgement.

Tesco © Copyright 2009

ENGLISH TRANSLATION : "Why you don't send formula to Haiti"

2010-01-26T08:15:00.000-08:00

ENGLISH TRANSLATION : "Why you don't send formula to Haiti" - Dr. Carlos Gonzalez, Spanish pediatricianShare
Today at 11:18am
English translation very kindly prepared by Jeanette Panchula, IBCLC in California.

*************************

The donations of formula for bottle feeding in times of catastrophe such as war, earthquake and floods, are very dangerous. In fact, they are not donations, but instead free samples - it is the means by which formula companies compete to create new markets. If you pay attention to the news, you will frequently hear how an airplane has departed loaded with FORMULA-rarely will you hear of a plane loaded with beans or noodles. That is because the companies that sell noodles and beans, unless they have an especially generous director, have no commercial interest in making donations. While the country in question is in ruins, it is unable to pay for food; when they overcome the catastrophe they will eat their own beans grown in their own country, or their own noodles made in by local enterprises. On the other hand, if in a third world country you can take over lactation, you get millions of women to abandon breastfeeding and millions of doctors and nurses will learn the advantages of bottle feeding, which without a doubt is wonderful because Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) “X” gave it to us as a gift, then you have a captive market that will be worth millions because that milk is not manufactured in the country and it must be imported, and if used to brand Z, they will probably continue to buy brand Z.

Las donaciones de leche para el biberón en casos de catástrofe (guerra,
terremoto, inundación...) son sumamente peligrosas. En realidad no son
donaciones, sino muestras gratuitas: es el medio por el que las empresas
lácteas compiten para hacerse con nuevos mercados. Si estás atento a las
noticias, muchas veces habrás oído cómo ha salido un avión cargado de
leche... raramente oirás de un avión cargado de macarrones o lentejas.
Porque las empresas que venden macarrones o lentejas, fuera de que alguna
en concreto tenga un director especialmente generoso o solidario, no tienen
un interés comercial en hacer una donación. Mientras el país en cuestión esté
en ruinas, no pagarán por la comida; cuando superen la catástrofe, se
comerán sus propias lentejas cultivadas en su país, o sus propios macarrones
fabricados por empresas locales. En cambio, si en un país del tercer mundo
consigues cargarte la lactancia, consigues que millones de madres abandonen
la lactancia y millones de médicos y enfermeras aprendan las ventajas del
biberón, que sin duda es buenísimo porque la asociación X nos lo regalaba
para ayudarnos, luego tendrás un mercado cautivo que valdrá millones,
porque esa leche no se fabrica en el país y la tendrán que importar, y
acostumbrados a la marca Z probablemente seguirán comprando la marca Z.

- Years ago a request was made that donations be given with just a white label stating "milk for babies" with no brand, but of course the manufacturers refused. In addition, the manufacturer saves on transport by giving the free samples to an NGO – SERIOUS NGOs no longer accept them, but at times one will - or a government accepts them and THEY pay for the transport. And the real market, let us not fool ourselves, is in the third world. In Spain only 500,000 babies are born a year. In Indonesia, more than 5 million and in India 25 million. There are many more clients, although some will die on the way, and will only buy their milk for a week, and dilute it so that it will last...

Hace años pidieron que los donativos fueran con una etiqueta blanca,
"leche para bebés", sin marca, y los fabricantes, claro, no quisieron. Además,
muchas veces la empresa fabricante se ahorra el transporte: se limita a
entregarle las muestras gratuitas a una ONG (por suerte las ONG serias ya
no las aceptan, pero a veces encuentras a un primo), o a un gobierno, y estos
pagan los portes. Y el mercado de la lactancia, no nos engañemos, está en
el tercer mundo. En España sólo nacen menos de 500.000 niños al año; en
Indonesia más de 5 millones, en la India más de 25 millones... Son muchos
más clientes, aunque algunos se mueran por el camino, aunque sólo se
compren una lata de leche por semana y la diluyan para que dure...

- Some years ago, at the end of the war in Sarajevo, I met a Bosnian pediatrician in a meeting. He had suffered real hunger and was very thin, and during the meals he would pick up the smallest piece of bread that would fall on the tablecloth and eat it. He explained to us how at the beginning of the war, infant mortality rose horribly, as they were flooded with free samples. Of course, not all the professionals are knowledgeable about breastfeeding, as happens here. Many began to recommend "a little help" thinking the mothers, "stressed" by the war, would have NO milk, or wanted to help the poorly-nourished mothers by reducing the "load" of having to breastfeed. With no drinking water nor gas to boil it (as occurs also in Gaza today), when the explosions destroyed the water system and feces floods the lower floors....the death rate was enormous. It fell upon the more knowledgeable pediatricians who went to UNICEF and called a meeting of the NGO's in the area, getting them to agree to not distribute any more free donations, and also provided their personnel with education on breastfeeding in emergencies...[which is available on-line from UNICEF now] in a few months, while the war continued, they were able to have a higher rate of breastfeeding and a lower infant mortality than prior to the war.

Hace unos años, acababa de terminar la guerra de Sarajevo, conocí a unpediatra bosnio en un congreso. Había pasado hambre, estaba delgadísimo, y en las comidas recogía hasta la más minúscula miga de pan que cayera en el mantel y se la comía. Nos explicó como al principio de la guerra la mortalidad infantil aumentó espectacularmente, porque fueron inundados con muestras gratuitas. Claro, no todos los profesionales tienen buena formación sobre lactancia, igual que pasa aquí. Muchos empezaron a recomendar "ayuditas", pensaban que las madres, "estresadas" por la guerra, no tendrían leche, o que al quitarle a una madre mal alimentada la pesada "carga" de tener que dar el pecho le hacías un favor. Sin agua potable ni gas para hervirla (lo mismo que ocurre ahora en Gaza), cuando las explosiones destruyen las alcantarillas y la mierda inunda las plantas bajas... la mortalidad fue enorme. Tuvieron que ser los pediatras más concienciados los que fueran a quejarse a UNICEF, que convocó una reunión de todas las ONG sobre el terreno, acordaron no distribuir más donaciones, realizaron cursos para el personal... en pocos meses, mientras la guerra continuaba, habían conseguido tasas de lactancia materna más altas y una mortalidad infantil más baja que antes de la guerra.

- Of course some children need artificial milk in times of war; but for these few formula can be found without enormous loads of free samples. And those children, in those conditions, have such a high death rate that we can no longer think "the mother is free to decide if she wants to breastfeed or formula-feed." In these conditions we must do everything we can to promote relactation even if it has been months since the mother breastfed, or find a wet-nurse. And sadly, it is not difficult to find them...because babies are weaker than adults - and in any catastrophe there are more mothers without babies than there are babies without mothers...

Por supuesto algunos niños necesitan leche artificial en las guerras; pero
para esos pocos ya se consigue leche sin necesidad de espectaculares
cargamentos de muestras. Y esos niños, en esas condiciones, tienen un
riesgo de muerte tan alto que ya no vale aquello de "la madre es libre para
decidir, y si ha elegido la lactancia artificial...".En esas condiciones
hay que hacer todo lo posible para que la madre relacte, aunque lleve meses
sin dar el pecho, o para encontrar una nodriza. Y tristemente eso no es muy
difícil, porque los bebés son más frágiles que los adultos: en cualquier
catástrofe hay más madres sin bebé que bebés sin madre.

Greetings…

Dr. Carlos González Rodríguez

Pediatrician, Barcelona, Spain
Founder of the Asociación Catalana Pro Lactancia Materna.
Member of the La Leche League International Advisory Board
Evaluator for the UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative.
Since 1992 he has taught more than 100 breastfeeding courses to health care providers.

Publications:
• Mi niño no me come (1999)
• Bésame mucho, cómo criar a tus hijos con amor (2003)
• Manual práctico de lactancia materna (2004)
• Un regalo para toda la vida, guía de la lactancia materna (2006)

***********************************************

Any donated artificial milk (and even donated breastmilk...) to Haitian babies ultimately prevents them from getting breastmilk at their own mothers' breast, the impact of which is NOT benign. Breastfeeding is the single most effective way to ensure the health and survival of babies in any disaster zone. Please don't send milk. Send your money to an aid agency with experience in supporting lactation/re-lactation/cross-nursing on the ground (AFASS-type relief efforts).

?????????

2010-01-25T19:16:00.000-08:00

I just have nothing to say about this.

Tommee Tippee Vows To Stop The Mom-Xiety

2010-01-25T18:48:00.000-08:00

Tommee Tippee Vows To Stop The Mom-Xiety

As New Products Hit U.S. Shelves at Babies"R"Us, Tommee Tippee Helps Eliminate Moms' Common Worries, from Combining Bottles with Breastfeeding to Which Sippy Cup to Use

Download image WESTPORT, Conn., Jan. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Tommee Tippee®, the number-one brand of infant and toddler feeding products in Great Britain, today announced that its Closer to Nature® baby bottles, nipples, pacifiers and feeding accessories, as well as its Explora® toddler cups and feeding products, are now available exclusively in all Babies"R"Us stores in the United States and online at Babiesrus.com/tommeetippee. In April, the assortment will be available in Toys"R"Us stores nationwide. Both Closer to Nature and Explora are designed to help relieve common feeding anxieties, with simply intuitive designs and features that address the needs and alleviate the common worries of today's busy moms.

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20100125/NE42808 )

In a newly released study by Harris Interactive of more than 300 recent and expectant mothers across the United States, Tommee Tippee explored the worries about being a mom and raising children that are keeping moms up at night and found some common and not so common themes.

Feeding is one of the biggest sources of mom-xiety, according to Tommee Tippee. While experts agree that breastfeeding is best, for many moms (about 20%), breastfeeding isn't possible or practical because they can't always be there to feed their baby. But breastfeeding isn't the only cause for concern:

Almost four in 10 moms (39%) are worried that introducing a bottle will cause their baby to reject breastfeeding;
Forty-four percent (44%) of moms don't quite know when to transition from bottle or breastfeeding to drinking from a cup; and,
When moms do transition from bottle or breastfeeding to a cup, 43% are confused about which type of sippy cup spout to use, and when.

"Moms in the United States are going to simply love our products, because they address many of mom's concerns. Early feedback has been exceptionally strong, especially with the positive responses garnered already through social media," said Brenda Liistro, General Manager of Mayborn USA. "From baby bottles designed to let moms switch from breast to bottle and back again, to a line of sippy cups that are designed to meet the specific developmental ages and stages of every child, to a retail shopping experience that makes finding the right product easy, Tommee Tippee is going to make being a mom easier."

Real-world input and experience drive new Tommee Tippee products and innovations. The company's Closer to Nature line of baby bottles, for example, was inspired by nature, and developed in conjunction with midwives, breastfeeding mothers and babies throughout Great Britain to provide easier and more natural feeding.

The resulting dome-shaped baby bottle and ultra-soft, ultra-wide and supple nipple closely resemble the size and shape of the breast, allowing the same flex, and movement as breastfeeding. Those attributes make feeding a more comfortable and intuitive bonding experience for parent and child and support easy switching from breast to bottle and back again, an important consideration for parents who want to breastfeed but need the convenience of a bottle.

The Closer to Nature line of baby bottles, nipples, pacifiers and accessories includes ingeniously clever and intuitively functional sterilizers, a bottle and food warmer, bottle and nipple cleaner, spillproof weaning cups, portable powder formula dispensers and bibs for children up to 18 months. All Closer to Nature bottles are Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalate free.

The Tommee Tippee Explora line includes BPA-free toddler drinking and feeding products to help children and their parents through the weaning process – from first sips and nibbles to toddler independence and self-feeding – by easing transitions along the way and helping to reduce stress and mess at mealtime.

Explora products feature advance-flo™ valves, designed by a physicist to require almost no force to drink from thereby easing the transition to a cup, while still remaining truly spill and leakproof. Each Explora cup is progressively staged with a specific spout and grip to meet the needs of every age while supporting natural oral development. Bright colors, designs and coordinating mealtime products reflect the individual styles of moms and their children, while making drinking and eating fun.

ABOUT TOMMEE TIPPEE

Tommee Tippee, from the UK-based Mayborn Group Limited, the #1 brand of infant and toddler feeding products in Great Britain, is loved by parents and children alike and is one of the top brands of infant products and accessories in the global market. Tommee Tippee has received numerous brand accolades in Great Britain, including top ranks in the prestigious Mother and Baby Gold Awards – a head-to-head assessment of competitive products voted on by moms themselves. The Tommee Tippee Closer to Nature line of baby bottles has been chosen as Great Britain's best baby bottle by The Mother and Baby Gold Awards: winning the category in 2006/7, 2008/9 and again in 2009/10. In 2009, Tommee Tippee was the first and only children's feeding brand to be selected as a UK Superbrand in a nationwide poll of consumers, putting it on par with brands such as Microsoft®, Coca-Cola®, Nike®, Lego® and Google®.

For more information on Tommee Tippee and its products, please visit www.tommeetippee.com, or find us on Twitter @TommeeTippeeUS and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/tommeetippeeus.

SOURCE Tommee Tippee

RELATED LINKS
http://www.tommeetippee.com

Breastfeeding Tips from 'Medical Abortion Clinic'???

2010-01-25T18:31:00.000-08:00

Breastfeeding Do's and Don'ts

A lot of people say that breastfeeding is one of the most natural means to express love between mother and child. Yet despite the consideration that breastfeeding is next to natural, many women still practice breastfeeding in a manner that is not what the process was envisioned to be. In this aspect, it is important for one to be aware of the proper and improper ways of breastfeeding.

Proper Breastfeeding methods

1)During the first week of pregnancy, a woman must feed her baby at least 15 times in a day. This is because the mother’s milk is the only source of nutrition for the baby. As a result, there is a need to frequently feed the baby. However, after the first week of the baby’s life, a woman need not feed her baby that frequent: six to eight feedings in a day is usually enough.

2)Another trademark of proper breastfeeding is to feed the baby whenever the baby demands to be feed. This way, one will avoid the baby becoming hungry. One should not be conscious about the spacing of each feeding time; when pregnant, it is impossible to keep a routine. This is the reason why a mother must be prepared anytime to feed her baby.

3)During each breastfeeding session, the breasts must feel empty. This means that the breasts used to breastfeed is emptied of all its milk, thus making sure that the next time that the baby demands to be feed, only fresh milk will be given. As a sign that the baby is properly feed, the bay must urinate frequently. It is common to have the baby wetting at least eight times in a day.

4)Another sign of proper breastfeeding is cradling the baby with both arms very close to one’s chest with the baby’s mouth directly on the breast used for feeding. This way, the baby will be at a very comfortable position during breastfeeding while preventing the mother from experiencing too much strain.

5)Another sign of proper breastfeeding is to alternate between breasts. It is not considered wise to focus only on one breast for the entire feeding session. This will cause a strain on the affected breast and may cause an imbalance between the breasts.

Improper Breastfeeding methods

1)One of the most common mistakes that mothers make when breastfeeding is feeding the baby while the bay is lying in bed. According to experts, this situation creates the possibility that the milk may not go down immediately and may cause choking.

2)Another mistake that women do when breastfeeding is to stick to a routine. This is rather a danger because it poses the risk of the baby going hungry if the mother religiously sticks to the routine.

3)As a manifestation of improper breastfeeding, one must look for things like the color of the infant’s bowel. If it is dark in color or if there is an irregular bowel movement, then there is a good chance that the baby is not properly or regularly fed.

Medical Abortion Clinic, was established by Dr. James Pendergraft. Our Abortion Clinics Offering the latest, safest and most advanced techniques for providing non-surgical, medical and surgical abortion methods including abortion pill in Orlando. For further information including family planning, please visit our premiere website. www.womenscenter.com

Once again, I must post the comments in a response from Lactivist Helen Schwalme:

Did anyone even read this article before they posted it?... See More
1. How can a mother breastfeed 15 times in her first week of pregnancy???
2.There is no set number of times a baby needs to be fed in a day whether in the first week of life or thereafter. A baby should be allowed access to the breast on demand. A baby can also be at the breast for 15 times a day but if he is not drinking he could be there 100 times and still get nothing. The same infant, drinking well could be at the breast only 7 times…numbers are not relevant or appropriate
3.Breasts are never empty even after the baby has fed well. Some women with good milk supply never feel their breasts are full so how can they know that their breasts are empty?? Research shows that after a baby has “emptied” the breast it still contains 25-35% milk.
4.Your point number 5 does not make any sense at all.
5.Lying down to nurse is not only completely safe and appropriate but very helpful to new mothers who are sleep deprived. There is no more risk of choking than in a baby in cradle hold.
6.Bowel movements of otherwise healthy exclusively breastfed infants can vary dramatically in colour and frequency and can not be used as an indicator of sufficient intake of breastmilk.

And last but not least, why on earth is an Abortion clinic offering advice on Breastfeeding??? If I wanted advice on abortion I would not consider going to a Lactation Consultant!!! Please stick to your are of expertise and do not add to the plethora of inconsistent, inaccurate information on breastfeeding on the internet."

Eyeful of breast-feeding mom sparks outrage

2010-01-25T17:32:00.000-08:00

Eyeful of breast-feeding mom sparks outrage
Magazine cover blasted by public squeamish over sight of nursing breast

AP
Editors at Babytalk magazine were surprised that their August cover, which features a nursing baby, offended readers. The free publication is distributed at doctor's offices and maternity stores.

Updated 8:33 p.m. ET July 27, 2006
NEW YORK - "I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one person wrote. "I immediately turned the magazine face down," wrote another. "Gross," said a third.

These readers weren't complaining about a sexually explicit cover, but rather one of a baby nursing, on a wholesome parenting magazine — yet another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight of a nursing breast, even as breast-feeding itself gains greater support from the government and medical community.

Babytalk is a free magazine whose readership is overwhelmingly mothers of babies. Yet in a poll of more than 4,000 readers, a quarter of responses to the cover were negative, calling the photo — a baby and part of a woman's breast, in profile — inappropriate.

One mother who didn't like the cover explains she was concerned about her 13-year-old son seeing it.

"I shredded it," said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. "A breast is a breast — it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."

It's the same reason that Ash, 41, who nursed all three of her children, is cautious about breast-feeding in public — a subject of enormous debate among women, which has even spawned a new term: "lactivists," meaning those who advocate for a woman's right to nurse wherever she needs to.

"I'm totally supportive of it — I just don't like the flashing," she says. "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."

Another mother, Kelly Wheatley, wrote Babytalk to applaud the cover, precisely because, she says, it helps educate people that breasts are more than sex objects. And yet Wheatley, 40, who's still nursing her 3-year-old daughter, rarely breast-feeds in public, partly because it's more comfortable in the car, and partly because her husband is uncomfortable with other men seeing her breast.

"Men are very visual," says Wheatley, 40, of Amarillo, Texas. "When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast — regardless of what it's being used for."

Babytalk editor Susan Kane says the mixed response to the cover clearly echoes the larger debate over breast-feeding in public. "There's a huge Puritanical streak in Americans," she says, "and there's a squeamishness about seeing a body part — even part of a body part."

"It's not like women are whipping them out with tassels on them!" she adds. "Mostly, they are trying to be discreet."

‘It's not like women are whipping them out with tassels on them!’

— Susan Kane
Babytalk editor

Kane says that since the August issue came out last week, the magazine has received more than 700 letters — more than for any article in years.

"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old.

The evidence of public discomfort isn't just anecdotal. In a survey published in 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, less than half — 43 percent — of 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public places.

The debate rages at a time when the celebrity-mom phenomenon has made breast-feeding perhaps more public than ever. Gwyneth Paltrow, Brooke Shields, Kate Hudson and Kate Beckinsale are only a few of the stars who've talked openly about their nursing experiences.

The celeb factor has even brought a measure of chic to that unsexiest of garments: the nursing bra. Gwen Stefani can be seen on babyrazzi.com — a site with a self-explanatory name — sporting a leopard-print version from lingerie line Agent Provocateur. And none other than Angelina Jolie wore one proudly on the cover of People. (Katie Holmes, meanwhile, suffered a maternity wardrobe malfunction when cameras caught her, nursing bra open and peeking out of her shirt, while on the town with husband Tom Cruise.)

More seriously, the social and medical debate has intensified. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently concluded a two-year breast-feeding awareness campaign including a TV ad — criticized as over-the-top even by some breast-feeding advocates — in which NOT breast-feeding was equated with the recklessness of a pregnant woman riding a mechanical bull.

There have been other measures to promote breast-feeding: in December, for example, Massachusetts banned hospitals from giving new mothers gift bags with free infant formula, a practice opponents said swayed some women away from nursing.
Most states now have laws guaranteeing the right to breast-feed where one chooses, and when a store or restaurant employee denies a woman that right, it has often resulted in public protests known as "nurse-ins": at a Starbucks in Miami, at Victoria's Secret stores in Racine, Wis. and Boston, and, last year, outside ABC headquarters in New York, when Barbara Walters made comments on "The View" seen by some women to denigrate breast-feeding in public.

"It's a new age," says Melinda Johnson, a registered dietician and spokesperson for ADA. "With the government really getting behind breast-feeding, it's been a jumping-off point for mothers to be politically active. Mommies are organizing. It's a new trend to be a mommy activist."

Ultimately, it seems to be a highly personal matter. Caly Wood says she's "all for breast-feeding in public." She recalls with a shudder the time she sat nursing in a restaurant booth, and another woman walked by, glanced over and said, "Ugh, gross."

"My kid needed to eat," says the 29-year-old from South Abingdon, Mass. And she wasn't going to go hide in a not-so-clean restroom: "I don't send people to the bathroom when THEY want to eat," she says.

But Rebekah Kreutz thinks differently. One of six women who author SisterhoodSix, a blog on mothering issues, Kreutz didn't nurse her two daughters in public, and doesn't really feel comfortable seeing others do it.

"I respect it and think women have the right," says Kreutz, 34, of Bozeman, Mont. "But personally, it makes me really uncomfortable."

"I just think it's one of those moments that should stay between a mother and her child."

7 Ways Dads Can Bond With Their Baby That Don't Involve A Bottle

2010-01-25T09:28:00.000-08:00

7 Ways Dads Can Bond With Their Baby That Don’t Involve A Bottle

One of the arguments I hear from so many moms as to why they have to give up breastfeeding, is that Dad feels left out. As my other half mentioned in another post, the one thing that Dads have no real place in, is breastfeeding. There are so many other ways to bond with your baby, that feeding is a moot point. And really Mom’s job

1. Bath your baby. Better still, bath with your baby. Co-Bathing and showering saves water, and gives you some lovely skin to skin bonding time.

2. Massage your baby. You can learn infant massage from a certified instructor, or from a DVD. Massaging your baby is soothing for both of you, and really beneficial for your tot.

3. Wear your baby – Baby wearing isn’t just for moms. Babies like the sound of Dad’s heartbeat too. Invest in a good quality baby carrier (Such as an Ergo) and enjoy the benefits as your baby sleeps, observes, and snuggles in nice and close.

4. Read to your baby – you can start this inutero One of the most beautiful moments after my son’s birth was watching him turn his head to his daddy’s voice, he recognised it from all the chatting and reading to him that was done while he was gestating!

5. Sing to your baby. Your baby doesn’t care if you’re a soprano or a bullfrog. Singing to your baby is a bit of fun, and can soothe them. There are lots of sites with nursery rhyme tunes, and words you can try out with your baby. Or you can do what my husband does, and make up silly songs.

6. Walk your baby. Get the pram (or sling) and get out there and enjoy the big wide world. Explain things to him, chat to him along the way. Babies take in and store everything, so you’re not just talkin to yourself.

7. Play with your baby – it might seem obvious, but just getting down on the the floor, and showing them toys, chatting about things, and simply “being” with your baby is wonderful. As I said, your baby takes in everything, and is constantly learning and developing. Newborns don’t “do” a great deal, but they are still learning all about the world, and their place in it – so show them!

You don’t need to feed your baby to be connected – there are a million and one things that go on during a baby’s day, and you can be a part of all of them. It gives Mom a break, and you can bond with your amazing little creature.

Enjoy!

The author's webiste is:

http://www.naturalparentingtips.com/attached-dads/7-ways-dads-bond-baby-involve-bottle/

Netmums Outcome

2010-01-25T09:21:00.001-08:00

Lo and behold, after several lactivists and breastfeeding advocates sent letters and emails to Netmums for posting a bottlefeeding picture, they have put up a new one! Who says a letter-writing campaign is a waste of time?? Not I!

Formula For Tragedy: Milk-Based Powdered Formula

2010-01-24T19:15:00.000-08:00

Infant Formula Notification
Every week I get news stories that are gathered from Google searches on prematurity. This morning I was looking though the stories and found a series of alarming stories on the use of Enfamil powdered breast milk fortifier

Formula For Tragedy: Milk-Based Powdered Formula
Powdered Baby Formula Could Be Dangerous For Some Infants
CHICAGO (CBS News) ― Connor McGray and his twin brother, Logan, were born prematurely on Nov. 16, 2007 at an Illinois hospital.

Connor appeared to be the healthier of the two. It wasn't until their parents, Amanda Carlin and Tim McGray of Somonauk, Ill., received a call from a doctor at the hospital a week later saying the infant was lethargic and refusing to eat.

Doctors discovered Connor had meningitis and "they basically told us, all we could do was pray," their parents recall.

On May 3, 2008, their baby died at home.

"He knows there's something missing," Amanda Carlin says of their surviving child, Logan, who turned 1 last week.

Officials listed the cause of death as hydrocephalus and bacterial meningitis. The bacterial infection, according to a memo from the Illinois Department of Public Health, "may be associated with the consumption of a powdered breast milk fortifier."

The Enfamil brand powdered formula was fed to the Connor during his time in the the Neo-Natal Intensive Care Unit at Rush-Copley Medical Center.

In a statement released on Nov. 13, 2008, Rush-Copley said: "We have the utmost compassion for the baby and his family."

Hospital officials noted 4,000 babies are born at the facility each year and "the procedures followed here are consistent with the standards of care provided to prematurely born infants in the U.S."

"There was nothing I could do. I felt helpless and part of me was gone forever," Carlin said.

During an investigation by the CBS station in Chicago, research found Connor's death was not the only associated with the tainted baby formula claim.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the danger with powdered formula is that -- unlike the liquid kind -- it cannot be sterilized, which makes it vulnerable to bacteria growing in it, CBS station KTVT-TV reported.

The most severe cases involve babies exposed to a bacteria called Enterobacter sakazakii, or E-sak. The CDC notes e-sak can lead to raging infections, severe brain damage and ultimately death, as in Connor McGray's case.

The baby suffered from seizures and brain abscess. According to official health records, his blood and cerebral spinal fluid tested positive for the organism.

Premature Infants or those with weak immune systems are at greatest risk of getting infections, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports.

There is even a warning on powdered formula containers. One brand warns: "... powdered infant formulas are not sterile and should not be fed to premature infants or infants who might have immune problems unless directed and supervised by your baby's doctor."

During the week before Connor's illness, a health department memo notes he was fed ready-to-feed liquid formula, as well as, breast milk with powdered infant fortifier.

Hospital records show the powdered formula the hospital used was Enfamil by Mead Johnson.

From Nov. 20 to Nov. 24, Connor was fed the product orally and through a nasogastric tube.

The same health department report noted the product was prepared at the hospital in a prep area/station, not a dedicated formula preparation room.

On Dec. 3, 2007, Connor was transferred from Rush-Copley to the University of Chicago because, Tim McGray said, the family wanted the twin boys together. Logan was being treated at the University of Chicago for an intestinal condition.

His mother said the hospital did not tell her about the risks of powdered formula.

She said she also didn't learn about her son being given the powder, until she hired The Collins Law firm in Naperville.

"We didn't find out until afterward, when we got a hold of whatever medical records we could get," McGray adds. "That's the only way we knew."

The CBS2 investigation also uncovered other cases in which powdered formula was blamed for causing brain damage or death in infants. There have been at least two Illinois cases and cases in at least 17 other states, including Texas.

Ed Manzke, one of the attorneys hired in Connor McGray's case said it's not an isolated problem.

"There have been deaths all across the country related to powder infant formulas. And what is so shocking about it, is hardly anyone knows it. It's like leaving a loaded gun in a nursery."

A 2001 E-Sak outbreak in Tennessee led to a 2002 U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning to health professionals.

In a letter the FDA wrote: "FDA recommends that powdered infant formulas not be used in neonatal intensive care settings unless there is no alternative available."

FDA officials also said there are sterilized liquid fortifiers on the market that can be used as an alternative.

The FDA stopped short of issuing a complete ban on the powder, but said it may be used in the NICU when no appropriate liquid product is available.

Despite the warning, five years later Connor McGray was given the powdered formula. His family says he was getting stronger and doing well until he got the powder.

Daniel Korte also was fed powdered infant formula and was struck with the same infection and meningitis. His parents said the contaminated formula was fed to him at Mercy Medical Center in Des Moines, Iowa.

Daniel survived, but is living in a nursing facility on a ventilator.

"It basically turned his brain to mush," said Michelle Korte, Daniel's mother. "He is ventilated and his upper brain is destroyed."

Korte said the hospital in this case also never warned her about the risk associated with the formula.

An attorney she hired, Andy Weisbecker, said powdered formula manufacturers need to do a better job of informing doctors and parents about the danger.

"More needs to be done to increase the level of knowledge about this deadly bug," Weisbecker said. "Who knows how many parents are out there with affected children who may still not be aware of a possible connection between these illnesses and contaminated formula."

Federal regulators believe the number of cases are underreported. There may be other infants diagnosed with meningitis that have not been checked for E-sak.

"They pretty much just want to sweep it under the rug and it's not an issue you can just sweep under the rug. I mean it took a baby's life," Copley stresses.

Babies are not just being sickened by formula in hospitals, however. Parents unknowingly are buying the powdered formula for at-risk babies.

Stephen Meyer, an attorney at the Law Office of Nick Stein in Indiana, has spent nine years working on E-sak cases. He said the FDA's warning should have gone to consumers.

"Most moms would think 'If it's marketed to me, it's safe' … especially if it comes in a hospital gift bag."

Mead Johnson officials said its products are safe as long as they are used according to label directions.

The company said it has "taken the position that powdered infant formula should not be used in neonatal intensive care settings unless no alternative is available."

Tracey Noe, a spokesman for Abbott, which manufactures formula including Similac, said it uses rigorous testing procedures, including bacterial testing, on its powdered formulas.

"Abbott agrees with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention joint recommendation that powdered formula should not be used in hospital neonatal intensive care units — unless no nutritionally suitable alternative is available," Noe responded.

Both manufacturers have been sued by families who say they were affected by the tainted formula.

The parents of Connor McGray and Daniel Korte also are planning to file lawsuits. In the meantime, they are talking about what happened in hopes of warning — and educating — doctors, hospital staff and other parents about the potential danger of powdered formula.

"I want other people to be aware of it so they don't have to go through what I did," Amanda Carlin said.

Why Would Children Who Were Breastfed Be Less Depressed?

2010-01-24T17:20:00.000-08:00

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Why Would Children Who Were Breastfed Be Less Depressed?

by Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, Ph.D., IBCLC

I had an interesting call this week from a reporter. A new study is being released showing that children who were breastfed for 6 months or longer were significantly less likely be depressed several years later. Did I have any ideas about why they might have found that?

Actually, I did. It all comes back to the human stress response.

We know from a number of different studies that women who breastfeed past six months are doing a lot of things differently than women who stop in the first few weeks. For example, women who are still breastfeeding at six months are more likely to sleep near their babies, increasing the ease of nighttime breastfeeding while also sustaining their milk supply. These mothers are more likely to practice babywearing, or carrying their babies on their bodies rather than in a carseat or stroller. Finally, they are more likely to breastfeed their babies on cue rather than according to a schedule.

It's this total constellation of behaviors that sustains breastfeeding past the first few days and weeks, and I believe it accounts for the lower rates of depression among breastfed children. This pattern of behavior increases mothers' responsiveness to their babies, which lowers babies' stress levels. That is the key to understanding their lower risk.

When babies are ignored, or left to cry it out, their stress levels rise. If this only happens from time to time, babies adapt. But when this pattern becomes the norm, it has a fundamental effect on babies' developing brains. When their brains are bathed in stress hormones on a regular basis, they become more vulnerable to stress. Further, their bodies become hyper-responsive to stressful stimuli. That increases their vulnerability to depression not only in childhood, but throughout their lives.

By breastfeeding, and parenting in a responsive way, mothers are ensuring that their babies are not chronically stressed--and that shows up years later as decreased rates of depression and myriad other health problems.

Can a non-breastfeeding mother get the same effect? Yes, of course. But she will consciously need to be responsive to her baby's cues. From a practical standpoint, the beauty of breastfeeding is that this responsiveness is built into the system.

I think the takeaway message from this study is that responsive parenting does make a difference in how children fare throughout their lives. So it's something important for parents to consider next time someone advises them to let their babies cry it out.

Visit the author's blog here:

http://mind-bodyconnection.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-would-children-who-were-breastfed.html

Picture of Bottlefeeding Baby on NetMums

2010-01-24T12:56:00.000-08:00

This photograph is on the homepage of "NetMums", a parenting information website. The picture is the header for the infant feeding section. We would like to voice our displeasure and have the photo removed or replaced by a breastfeeding baby, because breastfeeding should be seen as the norm.

If you would like to email or write to NetMums in regards to the photo, here is the information:

Contact Us

How to Contact Us
We are always happy to receive comments, suggestions and queries. To ensure your email reaches the appropriate person within Netmums, please choose from the relevant department below.

Editorial
Netmums employ a team of writers and rarely accept articles from outside sources. However if you have a suggestion for something we haven't covered then please email contactus@netmums.com.
Please Note: Large Attachments can not be received by this email address.

General Enquiries
For anything that doesn't fit into the other departments please email contactus@netmums.com
Please Note: Large Attachments can not be received by this email address.

Media and Research Requests
If you are a journalist, reporter or researcher and you wish to post a message or notice on our Media Requests Forum please contact mediarequests@netmums.com with the text you'd like us to submit on your behalf. It is helpful if you let us know the publication you're writing for.

Our Address

Netmums
124 Mildred Avenue
Watford
WD18 7DX

Read more: http://www.netmums.com/home/Contact_Us.3008/#ixzz0dZ7g9TsS
Netmums - the local parenting network

Night Waking Protects Against SIDS, by Dr. William Sears

2010-01-24T12:48:00.000-08:00

by Dr. William Sears
New Beginnings, Vol. 16 No. 3, May-June 1999, pp. 68-70

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), also known as crib death, is one of the most tragic of all nighttime crises. A healthy infant is put to bed and is later found dead for no apparent reason. Parents are devastated, left wondering why, and while medical research has produced a number of theories about SIDS, it still cannot explain exactly what happens when an infant dies unexpectedly during sleep.

Newer studies, however, suggest that various factors that are under parents' control influence SIDS risk. While you cannot guarantee that your baby will not become a SIDS victim, you can lessen the chances. I have come to believe that practicing the attachment style of nighttime parenting is one of the most important things you as a parent can do to lower the risk of SIDS in your baby.

SIDS and Breathing Mechanisms

Because the infant dies during sleep, SIDS can be thought of as a sleep disorder. The infant who becomes a SIDS victim may be unable to control his breathing automatically during sleep or to arouse from sleep in response to a breathing problem. In order to understand this theory of SIDS causation it is first necessary to understand how the infant normally continues breathing while sleeping.

In order for the body to function there must be a balance of just the right amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood. In order to maintain this balance, tiny sensor cells called chemoreceptors are located along some major blood vessels. During sleep, the body is particularly dependent on these chemoreceptors to keep breathing going.

In the first few months, the infant's automatic breathing mechanisms are immature. When watching a sleeping baby breathe, you will notice that his breathing lacks a regular pattern. Periodically he appears to stop breathing, sometimes for as long as ten to fifteen seconds, and then self-starts without any apparent problem. This is called periodic breathing and is normal for the tiny infant. The younger or the more premature the baby, the more irregular the breathing pattern and the more noticeable the periodic breathing. As the baby matures (around six months), breathing patterns during sleep become more regular and periodic breathing lessens. The episodes when the baby stops breathing are called apnea. Sometimes they are prolonged for more than fifteen to twenty seconds, and the heart rate drops significantly (greater than twenty percent). As a response to this sleep apnea, either automatic start mechanisms click on or the infant awakens. Either way, normal breathing resumes.

Sometimes the apnea is prolonged, and breathing fails to start again. Infants who are hooked up to apnea monitors show signs that the oxygen in the blood is at a dangerously low level: the heart rate becomes alarmingly slow, and the infant turns pale, blue, and limp. An observer must intervene and arouse the infant. Sometimes a simple touch will trigger the self-starting mechanism; sometimes the infant must be aroused from sleep in order to breathe; sometimes mouth-to-mouth resuscitation is necessary to initiate breathing again. Infants who have experienced an apnea episode that required outside intervention to restart their breathing are called near-miss SIDS. In other words, they would have died had someone not intervened. Tragically some infants stop breathing permanently, succumbing to SIDS.

SIDS as a Sleep Disorder

The peak incidence of SIDS is around three months, which coincides with the time most babies begin to sleep “better,” that is, to spend a larger percentage of sleep time in quiet sleep. During quiet sleep, infants are less responsive to the breathing-stimulating effects of low oxygen and increased carbon dioxide (Harper 1982).

In addition, studies of near-miss infants and siblings of SIDS infants show that these babies have fewer night-waking episodes. In the first few months, infants normally have frequent periods of night-waking as they ascend from quiet sleep to active sleep and back into quiet sleep. Researchers have suggested that arousal from sleep may be essential for resumption of breathing in babies who have less effective self-starting mechanisms (Harper 1981). Difficulty with waking up may place infants at higher risk for SIDS. Infants presumed to be at high risk for SIDS also show more frequent episodes of sleep apnea and periodic breathing (Guillemmault 1981). This apnea occurs most frequently between 1:00 AM and 6:00 AM and within ten minutes of awakening. The infants who woke most often at night had fewer episodes of apnea. Active sleep guards against SIDS. Sleep studies have shown that the onset of active sleep (REM sleep) stimulates breathing and heart rate. On the basis of their studies, researchers hypothesized that active sleep “protects” human infants from SIDS. The peak risk period for SIDS coincides with the rapid decrease in active sleep between two and three months of age. By six months of age, cardiopulmonary compensatory mechanisms in quiet sleep are more mature and the risk of death (from failure of these mechanisms) is reduced (Baker and McGinty 1977).

In other words, infants are not designed to sleep through the night until they're mature enough to do so safely.

SIDS and Breastfeeding

For many years, SIDS researchers maintained that there was no difference in the incidence of SIDS between breastfed and artificially fed babies, but newer studies have shown that infants who were never breastfed may have two to three times the risk of dying of SIDS. Breastfeeding's protective effect has been confirmed by research in New Zealand (Mitchell 1991), England (Fleming 1994), and the United States (Hoffman 1988). There are a number of possible explanations for the lowered risk of SIDS in breastfed babies. Breastfeeding protects infants from respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, and these have been shown to contribute to SIDS risk. Human milk enhances the development of the central nervous system, providing vital nutrients for the process of myelination, the development of an insulating sheath around nerves. Better brains may provide babies with better respiratory control during sleep. Breastfed babies sleep less soundly than artificially fed infants and are more likely to sleep with their mothers; thus, they may be more easily aroused when they experience a stop-breathing episode. While SIDS does occur in breastfed babies, breastfeeding is one way of lowering the risk.

How Parenting Style Can Decrease the Risk of SIDS

What are the practical implications of this research for nighttime parenting? In the 1984 edition of NIGHTTIME PARENTING I proposed the following hypothesis:

In those infants at risk for SIDS, natural mothering (unrestricted breastfeeding and sharing sleep with baby) will lower the risk of SIDS.

This was a new idea at the time, one that I based upon my reading of SIDS research and my understanding of the close relationship between a breastfeeding mother and her baby. My hope was that publication of this hypothesis would stimulate more scientific research in this area. Fifteen years later, in 1999, I am happy to report that the body of evidence available to support my original idea is growing, and experts are beginning to understand how a mother's presence with her baby during sleep can help to prevent SIDS. Here's the reasoning behind my theory - and the evidence and ideas that support it.

Sharing Sleep May Lower SIDS Risk

If SIDS is related to a diminished arousal response during sleep in some infants, it follows that anything that increases the infant's sensitivity or the mother's awareness of her baby may decrease the risk of SIDS. This is exactly what sharing sleep and night nursing do.

As a father of several all-night nursers, I have noticed that mother and baby often stir or awaken briefly at the same time. The nursing pair have a heightened awareness of each other. A study of mothers and babies co-sleeping in a sleep laboratory has documented the shared awakenings of co-sleeping, breastfeeding mothers and babies (McKenna 1994). When one stirred, coughed, moved, or changed positions, so did the other. The researchers also demonstrated that co-sleeping mothers and babies were often in the same stage of sleep during the night. Clearly, the presence of each affects the other.

Interestingly, anthropological studies have shown that the rate of SIDS is approximately three to four times higher in cultures where mothers do not sleep with their babies. More extensive research is needed on exactly what happens when mother and baby sleep close to each other. It seems odd that science demands proof that co-sleeping is good for babies, since mothers and babies sharing sleep has been the norm through most of human history, but there is still much to learn about how mothers help their babies develop. Meanwhile, I have to ask, if there were fewer cribs, would there be fewer crib deaths?

Babies Breathe Better When Sharing Sleep

My interest in the relationship between shared sleep and lowered risk of SIDS led me to arrange a study involving our daughter, Lauren, when she was eight weeks old. Using sophisticated monitoring equipment in our home, a technician and I monitored Lauren's sleep on two separate nights. On one night, my wife, Martha, slept beside Lauren. On the other night, Martha nursed Lauren to sleep in our bed, but slept in an adjacent room. We found that Lauren's heart rate and her breathing were more regular during shared sleep, with far fewer low points in blood oxygen levels. Monitoring another mother-infant pair produced similar results.

Obviously, this was a very small sample group, from which it is impossible to draw statistically valid conclusions. However, it does suggest a theory that needs further testing: a baby who sleeps next to mother is likely to experience fewer apnea episodes and thus may be at lower risk for SIDS. While again, this is not scientifically tested evidence, I have had many breastfeeding and co-sleeping mothers in my practice tell me that they have noticed that their infants breathe more rhythmically lying next to mother in bed than they do in a crib. One mother, whose baby was monitored with an apnea monitor during sleep because of breathing difficulties, found that the alarm went off frequently when the baby slept alone, but not at all when the baby slept with mother.

If SIDS is related to a baby’s inability to arouse himself from sleep, it follows that babies are simply not designed to sleep through the night until they are mature enough to avoid respiratory failure during quiet sleep. Parents need to be aware that studies which show that babies sleep through the night at a given age were performed in artificial settings: a sleep laboratory, a hospital, or some other nighttime environment in which baby sleeps alone. Sleeping alone is considered the norm, so babies are studied sleeping alone in cribs. The conclusions drawn from these studies of “normal” sleeping infants are that infants begin to have a higher proportion of quiet or non-REM sleep and sleep in longer stretches ("through the night") by three months of age - incidentally, the peak age for SIDS. From erroneously set-up experiments come erroneous norms. Parents (and doctors) should not use these norms as a justification for training babies to sleep through the night at a given age.

One study suggests that the sleep norms extracted from these studies that babies sleep through the night by six months of age may be attributed to the early weaning and separate sleeping practices of Western culture (Elias,1986). Researchers compared sleep/wake patterns in infants reared with two different parenting styles. One group consisted of sixteen mother-infant pairs, called the standard care group, who breastfed but tended to wean earlier and sleep separately. The other was made up of sixteen mother-infant pairs from La Leche League. These pairs breastfed more frequently throughout the day, weaned later, and usually slept together. Sleep/wake patterns developed differently in the two groups of infants. The sleep periods of the infants in the standard care group increased in duration from a median of 6.5 hours at two months to 8 hours at four months of age. The sleep periods of infants in the La Leche League group never increased from the median of four hours; they continued to awaken at night throughout the period of study.

These researchers also showed that the combination of nursing and sharing sleep had the greatest effect on sleep patterns. Babies who nursed and shared sleep with their mothers slept shorter stretches at a time; those who nursed but did not share sleep slept longer; and babies who neither nursed nor shared sleep slept the longest.

The human infant is meant to be a continuous contact species. The composition of milk of each species gives a clue to the infant care practices natural to that species. Animals who leave their young for extended periods produce a milk high in fat and protein which satisfies the young for a relatively long period of time between feedings. Human milk is relatively low in fat and protein, necessitating frequent, seemingly continuous nursing. The human infant is meant to be carried in arms during the day and nestled with mother in bed at night - not trained into a separate sleeping arrangement before he is ready.

A Final Word

While I believe that there is much parents can do to lower the risk of SIDS in their infant, I do not mean to suggest that parents of a baby who dies of SIDS are in any way at fault. SIDS is a terrible tragedy, and it is not entirely preventable.

For additional information on how attachment parenting can lower the risk of SIDS, see Dr. Sears' book, Nighttime Parenting, published by La Leche League International.

References

Baker, T. L. and McGinty, D. J. 1977. Reversal of cardiopulmonary failure during active sleep in hypoxic kittens: Implications for sudden infant death. Science 198:419.

Carpenter, R. G. and Emory, J. L. 1977. Final results of study of infants at risk of sudden infant death. Nature 268:724.

Elias, M. F. 1986. Sleep-wake patterns of breastfed infants in the first two years of life. Pediatrics 77:332-39.

Fleming, P J. 1994. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual SIDS Alliance National Conference, Orlando, FL, November 9-12.

Guillemmault, C. et al. 1981. Sleep parameters and respiratory variables in near-miss sudden infant death syndrome infants. Pediatrics 68:354.

Harper, R.M. et al. 1981. Periodicity of sleep states is altered in infants at risk for the sudden infant death syndrome. Science 213: 1030.

Harper, R. M. et al. 1982. Developmental patterns of heart rate and heart rate variability during sleep and waking in normal infants and infants at risk for the sudden infant death syndrome. Sleep 5:28.

Hoffman, H. et al. 1988. Risk for SIDS: Results of NICHD SIDS cooperative epidemiological study. Ann NY Acad Sci 533:13-30.

Keens, T. G. and Van der Hol, A. L. 1984. Use of hypoxic and hypercarbic arousal responses in evaluation of infant apnea. Perinatol Neonatol 8:32.

McKenna, J. J. and Mosk, S. S. 1994. Sleep and arousal, synchrony and independence, among mothers and infants sleeping apart and together (same bed): An experiment in evolutionary medicine. Acta Paediatr Suppl 397:94-102.

Mitchell, F. A. eta1. 1991. Results of the first year of the New Zealand cot death study. NZ Med 104:7.

Babywise: A Flawed Parenting Philosophy?

2010-01-24T12:13:00.000-08:00

http://www.rickross.com/reference/gfi/gfi5.html

Baby care book could be dangerous (Child magazine, August 1998).
Babywise advice linked to dehydration, failure to thrive ("AAP News," April 1998).
A Tough Plan for Raising Children Draws Fire: Babywise Books Worry Pediatricians and Others (Washington Post, February 27, 1999).

These startling headlines refer to the top-selling and highly controversial childcare guides On Becoming Babywise and Babywise II, written by Gary Ezzo, a self-described Christian pastor, and endorsed by Robert Bucknam, a pediatrician. Chances are you've heard of these books; since it was published in 1995, On Becoming Babywise reportedly has sold more than 290,000 copies. Babywise is recommended for parents of babies up to 5 months old, and Babywise II addresses parents of children 5 to 15 months old. Soon to be released is On Becoming Childwise, a guide for toddlers through 8-year-olds.

Ezzo, who has no formal theological or medical training, is executive director of the for-profit organization Growing Families International (GFI). With his wife, Anne Marie, Ezzo runs church-based classes for parents who wish to give their children a rigid religious upbringing. Although few readers know it, the Babywise books are the secular versions of Ezzo's original parenting program, which includes guides such as "Preparation for Parenting" and "Growing Kids God's Way" (GKGW). The content of these guides is based on GFI's own unpublished self-conducted studies. The studies have not been subjected to peer review, which means there has been no independent, professional evaluation of the studies or their findings, the usual method of verifying the worth of scientific studies.

Despite the fact that Ezzo has a large and growing following — reportedly more than a million families in 93 countries, with his books translated into 17 languages — distress over his program is also growing. What are doctors, lactation specialists, and child development experts — some of whom are Christians — concerned about? Ezzo's self-designed, strictly regimented feeding program, called Parent-Directed Feeding (PDF), which has a parent put their newborn on a strict feeding / waking / sleeping schedule. Rather than feed a baby when he shows signs of hunger — a technique known as demand feeding — parents are instructed to feed by the clock. The goal? Ostensibly to establish routine in your baby's life from day one and stick to it no matter what.

A recent outcry from medical and child development experts persuaded Ezzo to revise his 1998 version of Babywise to say that babies should be fed when they're hungry. However, the book still instructs otherwise: Parents are told that if their baby doesn't eat at a scheduled feeding, he must wait until the next one.

Distress among doctors and childcare professionals

About six years ago, alarm bells went off when doctors began seeing more and more infants who were showing signs of failure to thrive, poor weight gain, and dehydration. When questioned about their feeding practices, many of the parents admitted they were following Ezzo's PDF program. And though they could see something was drastically wrong with their infants, the parents found it hard — sometimes impossible — to blame PDF. After all, they were following the advice of a Christian pastor and a pediatrician. How could such experts be wrong?

Members of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the highly respected body of primary care pediatricians, have found a great deal wrong. In fact, in April 1998, after receiving a letter signed by a hundred doctors, lactation specialists, and childcare professionals exposing a number of Ezzo's statements as unsubstantiated and false, the AAP issued a Media Alert. In it, the AAP directly contradicted Ezzo's advice on scheduled feedings, and instead advised parents that "newborns should be nursed whenever they show signs of hunger, such as increased alertness or activity, mouthing, or rooting. Crying is a late indicator of hunger. Newborns should be nursed approximately eight to 12 times every 24 hours until satiety."

The AAP is currently reviewing several parenting programs, including Gary Ezzo's, and within the next couple of years will publish guidelines to help parents evaluate the programs. For more information, visit the AAP Web site.

Doctors and Christians part company with Babywise

Matthew Aney, M.D., a Christian pediatrician and member of the AAP, worries that the advice in Babywise doesn't allow for individual differences among breastfeeding mothers and babies. He points out that while some parents may be able to follow the PDF method, Ezzo offers no alternative for those who can't. It's a one-size-fits-all prescription that can leave parents who "fail" the program feeling guilty and filled with doubt about their parenting skills. Aney found parents were often reluctant to admit they were following the PDF schedule, especially if they had a strong religious commitment to the program.

Aney points out at least 35 unsubstantiated medical "facts" in Babywise. Here are three examples:

"Demand-fed babies don't sleep through the night."
"A mother who takes her baby to her breast 12, 15, or 20 times a day will not produce any more milk than the mom who takes her baby to her breast six to seven times a day."
"Mothers following PDF have little or no problem with the letdown reflex compared to those who demand-feed."
Aney says that Ezzo simply throws out these statements without offering data to support them. He is also disturbed by Ezzo's questioning of recent research that shows that putting a baby to sleep on his back will reduce the chance of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Ezzo says that the research is not conclusive, and that experts used questionable methods of gathering data. In fact, research conclusively shows that back sleeping has reduced the incidence of SIDS by about 30 percent.

BabyCenter's sleep expert Jodi Mindell says that while babies thrive on schedules and routine, she doesn't know of a single medical expert who supports using a PDF system. "Babies should be fed when they are hungry. Limiting a baby's feeding times is physically and emotionally dangerous," Mindell says.

James McKenna, director of the Mother-Baby Behavioral Sleep Laboratory at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, agrees. "The Ezzos appear to be the masters of the 'one-size-should-fit-all' school of childcare," he says. "Their simplistic, judgmental, and utterly self-serving program confuses personal and religious values with science, and strictly controlled infant care with successful parenting. The two are anything but compatible."

It's not just doctors and researchers who have parted company with Gary Ezzo and GFI. The board of elders of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California (the church where Ezzo first developed his parenting guides), issued a public statement ending all association with Ezzo and his GFI ministry. In their statement, they express concern about GFI's rigid feeding schedule and the organization's "blurring of the line between that which is truly Biblical and simple matters of preference." The elders worry that GFI's parents tend to isolate their children from those outside the GFI community. They also feel uncomfortable about Gary Ezzo's practice of responding "with exaggerated and even false accusations against his critics."

Another respected Christian organization that does not support the use of Ezzo's materials is Focus on the Family. The group has received numerous letters from parents, pastors, midwives, physicians, and lactation professionals reporting cases of failure to thrive in infants subjected to the PDF program. In a letter to Matthew Aney, one member of Focus expressed concern that parents who follow Ezzo's "controlled feeding proposals" could even wind up abusing their children.

The Child Abuse Prevention Council of Orange County, California, expressed similar fears. In a public document, council members reported their concerns about the risk of physical abuse to children when parents follow "Growing Kids God's Way." They note that "although the Ezzos advocate several alternatives to corporal punishment, they include the use of a strip of firm rubber to strike children." The council worries that condoning corporal punishment could lead some parents to abuse their children.

With so many people speaking out against it, what is the continuing appeal of Babywise?

"The appeal of Babywise is that everyone wants a good night's sleep, and everyone wants their kids to turn out well," says Kathleen Terner, a research associate at the Christian Research Institute who has spent several years investigating GFI and its programs. "Ezzo promises both if you follow his book faithfully. His information is very specific and is presented as foolproof. Sadly, many parents believe that if something is in print, then it has to be true."

In an article in the Christian Research Journal (Spring 1998) called "More than a Parenting Ministry: The Cultic Characteristics of Growing Families International," Terner, who is herself a Christian and a mother of a young child, and co-author Elliot Miller, acknowledge that GFI has some good things to contribute to the subject of Christian parenting, such as teaching children to be responsible, obedient, and respectful of others. But Terner feels the potential dangers of the program far outweigh the benefits. Jan Barger, an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, agrees. "The overarching goal of Babywise is to shape children who are outwardly compliant, sleep a lot, and don't interfere with their parents' lives, rather than teaching parents how to develop happy, healthy, contented, intelligent babies."

So what's a parent to think?

"Do your homework before deciding what's best for your children," says Kathleen Terner. When it comes to choosing a childcare guide, check the author's credentials. Is he trained in medicine and child development? Does she back up her statements with medically proven facts? Who has endorsed the book? Get advice on choosing a guide from your pediatrician, lactation consultant, religious leader, or other parents. You also can contact the American Academy of Pediatrics or read the organization's own series of childcare books and brochures.

As a general rule of thumb, keep in mind that some babies don't need to be fed more than every three hours, but many need to be fed more often. Especially in the first few months, when your baby is growing rapidly, you should feed him when he shows signs of hunger. As he gets older, he will require less frequent feeding and will sleep for longer periods between meals. Above all, trust your baby to communicate his needs — and trust yourself to satisfy those needs.

More from Haiti

2010-01-24T04:33:00.000-08:00

Joint statement re: Haiti from UNICEF, the WHO and WFP...>-Feeding of the non-breastfed child less than six months of age-Infants less than six months of age who are not breastfed need urgent identification and targeted skilled support. The priority to feed these infants should be relactation.

For the complete statement from UNICEF, the WHO, and WFP, please see:

http://www.ennonline.net/pool/files/ife/joint-statement-iycf-haiti.pdf

A Letter to Fife Social Services

2010-01-23T12:21:00.000-08:00

This letter was written by Morgan Gallagher, in regards to baby Ben being taken away from his parents.

Morgan's blog is here:

http://one-of-those-women.blogspot.com/2010/01/dear-fife-social-services.html

Baby Ben's story is here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225878/Couple-flee-save-baby-social-workers-girl-17-told-clever-look-child.html#ixzz0WJ6OScOX

The facebook group in support of Ben's parents is here:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=39027100910#/group.php?gid=171632313212

Dear Fife Social Services...

Nursing Matters

..advocating for breastfeeding babies.. everywhere

From: Morgan Gallagher, chairperson

www.nursingmatters.org.uk

January 22nd, 2010

To: Stephen Moore, Executive Director, Social Work, Fife Social Work Department, Rothesay House, Rothesay Place, Glenrothes, KY7 5PQ Tel: 08451 555555 ext. 444112 | Fax: 01592 583253 stephen.moore@fife.gov.uk

cc: Nicola Sturgeon, Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, St. Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG +44 (0)131 556 8400. FAX: 0131 348 5949 scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Nicola.Sturgeon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

cc: Mike Brady, Baby Milk Action, 34 Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1QY, UK. From the UK phone: 01223 464420 From outside the UK phone +44 1223 464420 Email: info@babymilkaction.org

Dear Mr Moore,

I’m writing as chair of an NGO, to express our utmost concerns over the handling of the removal of Ben Robertson, from his mother’s breast, this past weekend, under the direction of your Social Work department.

Breastfeeding, as you will know, is a human right. We are concerned that Ben Robertson’s Human Rights are being infringed by the actions of your social work department.

As we understand it, Ben was removed from his mother’s breast on day 4 of his life, and he is only being allowed access to his mother for 2 hours every other day. This is totally unsupportable. I would draw your attention to the following ruling from the English and Welsh courts:

"Per curiam. If the state, in the guise of a local authority, seeks to remove a baby from his parents at a time when its case against the parents has not yet even been established, then the very least the state can do is to make generous arrangements for contact, those arrangements being driven by the needs of the family and not stunted by lack of resources. Typically, if this is what the parents want, one will be looking to contact most days of the week and for lengthy periods. Local authorities also had to be sensitive to the wishes of a mother who wants to breast-feed, and should make suitable arrangements to enable her to do so, and not merely to bottle-feed expressed breast milk. Nothing less would meet the imperative demands of the European Convention on Human Rights."...
In the matter of unborn baby M; R (on the application of X and another) v Gloucestershire County Council. Citation: BLD 160403280; [2003] EWHC 850 (Admin). Hearing Date: 15 April 2003 Court: Administrative Court. Judge: Munby J. Abstract. Published Date 16/04/2003

Whilst this is the English and Welsh courts, it refers to the European Court in terms of its ruling on Human Rights. Therefore you’d think that a Scottish council, would be aware of the magnitude of the injury that has been inflicted upon Ben.

Lack of breastfeeding injures Ben’s health. It increases his chances of several life threatening illnesses. As a breastfed baby, removed from his mother’s breast, his pain and anxiety will be extreme. Babies removed from their mother’s breast in this fashion, often suffer a lifetime of stress and the medical results of such stress. I don’t feel I need to outline the entire catalogue of disaster that could be triggered in Ben’s life, by the lack of provision to accommodate his well being, whilst his care order is being processed. The risks of not breastfeeding are well documented, and the risk of harm to Ben from removal of his mother’s breast should have been part and parcel of the risk assessment of the care package being offered to support Ben at this extremely vital time.

We are extremely concerned about the apparent lack of thought about any aspect of maintaining Ben’s breastfeeding. Why, for instance, were Ben and his mother not removed to a mother and baby unit, where they could be monitored? As Fife is in charge of this care order, we require that Fife stand responsible for the arrangements.

Why is regular daily access to allow breastfeeding to be established, not in place? Has the mother received adequate lactation support, to prevent her suffering pain and the loss of her milk supply? Our understanding is that the mother has requested her milk to be fed to Ben – has this been carried out? Has she been taught to hand express? Is her milk being collected and taken to Ben? Has she been supplied with an industrial grade hospital pump? Her milk supply would be barely in on day 4, has Ben’s milk been protected? Is he being cup fed to protect his ability to latch? Has the foster family been told that Ben should not be given a dummy or pacifier, if he has never had one, in line with NHS and WHO guidance on protecting and establishing breastfeeding in the newborn?

The mother is still the mother, and as the above court ruling makes clear – it is the duty of social services to support the baby’s breastfeeding, in order to protect the Human Rights of the Child. We see no evidence of this in your reported care plan for Ben.

We protest in the strongest possible terms, and ask that adequate facilities are immediately put in place to support Ben’s breastfeeding, at all costs. Formula feeding is a risk activity – it risks Ben’s health both directly, and indirectly. On this, there is no confusion or doubt. As a child in the care of Fife Social Services, you have a duty to uphold Ben’s Human Rights, and to allow him access to his mother’s breast in order to support his breastfeeding. At the very least, you can ensure that formula is not given to Ben unless the mother herself wishes it.

I look forward to your early reply to our concerns and questions. We can supply expert witness, on all the statements I have made above, as well as extend any professional help that Fife may require in making sure that Ben’s needs are met adequately under the care order. We have been campaigning for years for adequate guidelines to be published by the Department of Children, Family and Schools to enable them to care for the needs of breastfed children, whilst their safety is assessed. We do understand the complete lack of appropriate guidance leaves you in a vacuum.

However, the vacuum that Ben is now in, without access to his mother’s breast, is completely intolerable. I’m sure that many others in the lactation community will be in touch, to request that Ben’s rights are upheld at all costs. Until a permanent order is in place, removing the mother’s rights to her child, Ben’s breastfeeding should be upheld – it is his right.

Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you require further information

Yours

Morgan Gallagher

Chair, Nursing Matters

---

If you wish to also complain, do not complain about the removal. You cannot complain about the removal, and be heard. It is their right, and brief, to assess for harm. They have a duty to the child, to keep it safe. That's why the complaint is about not making provision for breastfeeding, whilst that assessment is made. It is no business of ours, to second guess the assessment. Only after the assessment, can comment be made on the outcome. The issue is the care provision.

Confessions of a Failed Babywiser

2010-01-23T12:13:00.000-08:00

Saturday, January 23, 2010
Confessions of a Failed Babywiser
by Alexandra Bush

I cradled my six month old son in my arms. J* was peacefully sleeping. Tears were streaming down my face, and anxious thoughts raced through my mind. For the first time since he was born, I was watching the video my sister had taken of his birth. I was reliving the joy of a new life coming into this world. But at the same time I was so fearful this miracle would be taken from me. Something was wrong with my baby. I cried more. The doctor had not yet determined if it was something that could be treated easily, or if my precious first born was facing a terminal illness.

That morning I had taken J* in for a routine six-month well-baby visit. My pediatrician asked at each visit, "And are you still breastfeeding? Good job, Mom!" I glowed at her praise each time we were in the office. Of course I was breastfeeding-my Mom had modeled it for me when she nursed my younger siblings and I just assumed that's what was done. Only later did I realize there was any "controversy" over breastfeeding or formula feeding. From birth, J* nursed like a champ. We teasingly called him "Baby Sumo" and could count the chubby wrinkles on his legs. At a well-baby appointment at 3 ½ months he weighed a hefty 16 lbs--the 95% percentile on the baby charts.

That is why the drastic drop to 14 lb 2 oz, caused red flags to go up at the pediatrician's office. I could see the concern on our doctor's face throughout the visit, but she remained calm as she talked to me. Before we left the office, the doctor had scheduled an appointment for us with a specialist in Tampa for the following Monday. We had firm instructions to call her immediately if J* had certain symptoms before then.

Waiting through that weekend for our appointment was agony. They were some of the longest days of my life. Waiting, worrying, not knowing--scared I was going to lose my baby, my firstborn.

On Monday my husband took off work so we could go see the specialist together. We drove the two hours to All Children's Hospital in Tampa. The specialist was laid back and tried to calm our fears. He reviewed the very serious possibilities we were facing. Likely suspects included a gastrointestinal birth defect, missing enzymes needed for metabolism, and other possibilities that ranged from the more minor to life-threatening. Our doctor recommended we take a conservative diagnostic approach, rather than bombard our son with tests right away. The first step in finding the root of the problem was to measure the calories he was taking in, observe him, and do weight checks. I saw the doctor notate on the medical forms that the diagnosis was Failure to Thrive.

The doctor suggested that I could pump my breastmilk and notate the amount the baby ate through the bottle, and follow up with super-concentrated formula. Whenever I had tried pumping before, I couldn't get more than an ounce. I was so worried about knowing the exact amount my son was eating that we decided that I would just stop nursing cold-turkey. My baby had his very first bottle of formula on the way home from Tampa. I kept a journal and wrote down exactly how much he ate and when.

J* was weighed every other day that first week, and then once a week for several months. Follow up appointments with my pediatrician and phone consultations with the specialist led us to forgo further testing. It was determined that J*'s FTT was due to insufficient caloric intake.

I had starved my baby.

"Whatever happened to common sense?"

Often people defend Gary Ezzo's parenting materials with "The materials are great! As long as you use common sense and don't follow the books legalistically. . ." The assumption is that there is no inherent problem with Babywise -- just in parents not using common sense.

All I wanted to be when I grew up was a wife and mother. I remember telling people, in part truthfully and in part for shock value, "I want six boys!" From the time I was in high school, I read everything I could get my hands on about educational theories, child development, pregnancy and childbirth, and parenting. In college I volunteered at a Pregnancy Care Center. I read all I could about reproduction, birth, child care. I checked out nursing texts from the library to read the sections related to this, and even considered getting a specialized degree in reproductive studies. Much of it was from libraries, with dated collections of books from the '70s and hippies-flavored natural parenting. I planned on home birthing of course--my mother had home birthed and so would I. Breastfeeding, homeschooling, healthy eating--all of these things might be considered part of 'Attachment Parenting' today, but at the time had no real name. It seemed right. It was in line with what my mother had modeled for me and it was full of love.

So how did a well-educated, widely-read woman disregard previous information in favor of Ezzo's parenting books?! How did the 30+ documented medical misstatements in Babywise fail to raise yellow flags for me?!

Within just a few months of marriage, I found out I was pregnant with our first child. From the beginning I had a feeling it was a boy. I tried to be careful what I ate, a la Dr. Brewer and his emphasis on good nutrition in pregnancy. I wanted to do everything right. I contacted a midwife as soon as I could, and began reviewing the books I had collected along the way about pregnancy. It wasn't just something in books anymore! Here I was living it for real.

Then I received a couple of books in the mail from a dear friend of mine. I had been her mother's helper when she was working at home and had two small boys. One of those books was Gary Ezzo's "Babywise." It was interesting, a bit strange--nothing like the other books I had read about infant parenting. But the way in which it was written was persuasive and I found myself skimming over it again.

When another friend, a nurse who had worked in NICU units, called me to congratulate me on my pregnancy, she raved about a parenting program she took at her church. We had known each other during our college activism days. "I'll send you the philosophy section of Preparation for Parenting," she promised. When I read the photocopies she sent comparing the Biblical worldview as it relates to parenting vs. the secular humanist philosophers, I was convinced that I needed to look into this more. After all, I was a Christian. I knew I wanted to do the right thing for our child--no humanistic philosophies for us.

So I read the turquoise-colored Babywise book carefully before my son was born. Right before he was due, I discovered that Ezzo's Preparation for Parenting classes were being sponsored by our church! We began taking them the week after he was born.

In his Preparation for Parenting books and videos Gary Ezzo characterizes attachment parenting as in line with the philosophies of Secular Humanism and extreme permissiveness. He then asserts that his parenting ideas are derived from Biblical principles. With our society filled moral ambiguity and relativism, I wanted to teach my children right from wrong and help them develop the character to make good choices in life. The desire to give my children the best start made me willing to accept what Ezzo taught.

"It seemed to work great! I was well rested. My baby slept well."

I remember my husband and I looking at what Ezzo was teaching, and looking at the Bible. We could see the principles, but just didn't see how they connected to the Bible. It raised yellow flags, but we didn't look too closely at the time because everything "worked" and seemed to make sense.

And so my pre-parenting theories made a 180 degree turn--from natural parenting ideas to Babywise schedules. Every family we knew at our church was in a Prep or Growing Kids God's Way class.

Everything seemed to be working great! J* fell into a schedule, for the most part. He latched on right after he was born, and nursed like a champ from the beginning. I was thrilled with the program and encouraged everyone I knew to read the book or go to the class. I would even hand out our church's name and phone number to pregnant women I met at the grocery store! I was a confident mother, as Gary Ezzo said I would be. I was well rested. My baby slept well. We were doing the right thing and I felt so sorry for all the frazzled mothers out there who didn't have their babies on a Babywise schedule.

A whole video session in the Prep class was devoted to breastfeeding. I still remember Anne Marie using a teddy bear to illustrate how a baby should be correctly aligned, stomach to stomach, when breastfeeding. Breastfeeding was covered just enough with just enough facts thrown in to make it all seem accurate. And yet, much of the information is faulty, especially in the context of Ezzo's eat-wake-sleep cycle.

One of the things that influenced me was their explanation of the "demand/supply cycle" of breastfeeding. They emphasized that it was a combination of frequency/duration/intensity of the nursing sessions. Thus, the less frequent feedings that result from an Ezzo schedule seem reasonable because of course the babies would be eating more at that time. Babies "snacking" at the breast was belittled and the emphasis was on encouraging babies to eat full meals at each nursing session. All of this information seemed reasonable, and enough seemed accurate that the things that were contrary to what I had read before in The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding seemed to make them all fit together okay.

However, Ezzo neglected to give a thorough explanation of the physiology of breastfeeding. He neglected to factor in that each mother's capacity for milk storage varies, as does babies' stomach sizes. Those things in conjunction can make for breastfeeding problems.

Add into this that the friend who endorsed Prep was a NICU nurse with children slightly older than mine. With her endorsement and experience, I never imagined that it wouldn't be medically sound. Also, this was mid-1996 when the outrage over Ezzo's teachings were still in their infancy. I was not aware of any legitimate problems with Ezzo's teachings-I was under the impression that the only ones who would oppose what he taught were those with a "humanistic" philosophy of life.

So here I was, still sold on the Ezzo materials even after my firstborn was diagnosed FTT. I quit breastfeeding cold-turkey when the doctor recommend switching to a calorie-dense formula. My fertility returned and our second child was soon on his way. We moved to another state. There were no churches in our area offering Prep classes, so we approached the pastor of the the church we were attending and told him how great the materials were. It was a "seeker" church and wanted to offer more resources to the community, and so was willing for us to facilitate the Prep classes.

Looking back, I wonder how my husband and I had the gall to lead a parenting class! Our oldest child was barely a year and a half old-definitely not the voices of experience! But we were thrilled with our experience with Ezzo (we thought) and wanted to help other young parents.

Modifying the schedule as needed?

But because of J*'s FTT, we did caution during the two classes we led that it was VERY important to continue to use the "healthy baby growth charts" and to modify the schedule as needed. With our second, we decided to stick to a 2 ½-3 hour schedule religiously-and not go longer than three hours between feedings during the day. I didn't want to have the milk supply problems I had before, and thought this would help.

It was during this time that I was first hearing of objections to the Ezzo materials. I dismissed them pretty easily--they just don't understand the materials, I thought. They must be permissive parents feeling defensive about their parenting. Even though we experienced major problems ourselves, we were blind to the fact that the fault lay with the philosophy of the materials. We thought the problems we had with the materials were because of us, not the basic ideas Ezzo taught.

I thought T*, our second child, had started sleeping through the night early--as Babywise promised and as J* had done. It was only because my sister was staying with us for a few months that I found out I had become immune to his nighttime cries. I just didn't hear and register them--she occasionally woke me up to take care of the baby or would ask "Didn't you hear him crying last night?"

Preparation for the Toddler Years (Babywise II)

Meanwhile, with J* we began implementing the "Preparation for the Toddler Years" program. In essence, it led to me controlling his actions and activities throughout the day. While child development experts agree that routine and rhythm is healthy for young children, the Ezzo material schedule tends to be rooted in control. My parenting at this point was influenced not only by the Ezzo printed materials, but by contact moms both in real life and on the internet. Room time, playpen time, highchair time, blanket time. . . These were to teach the child self-control, but were really a way for me as a parent to control my child. I remember teaching "Come to Mommy" as suggested by Ezzo mothers, and "chastising" him (Ezzo-speak for spanking) when he didn't. My sister was watching and I remember her flinching. Looking back, I see I set up false conflict to teach him this through spanking. We could have taught that same concept in another way, a way that was not setting my child and me up to be adversaries.

Many things were taught this way, and all of it it was me, as a parent, controlling my child in a way that set up an antagonistic relationship.

Still it didn't "click" that something was wrong with Ezzo's programs.

Low supply & early weaning in spite of a modified schedule

T* didn't have the weight gain problems J* had, but my breast milk supply was always precarious. Getting the flu led to my sister giving him a few bottles, less nursing, and again and early return of fertility. When I becamed pregnant, it further affected my milk supply and T* was not satisfied while nursing. I remember him latching on and then crying because he wasn't getting much. Except for those few bottles while I was sick, he hadn't had any formula or solids-we were trying to exclusively breastfeed. When I found out I was pregnant and that was influencing my supply, I began supplementing with formula. He soon completely weaned. He was only 7 1/2 months old.

Still, I thought a schedule was good. With this third baby, though, I was determined to breastfeed successfully. I was (and still am) convinced that our bodies are designed to breastfeed. If what I had been doing with the schedule was undermining that, then it must not really be what we are intended to do. That was the first chink in the armor of my closed mind. For R*, I thought I would try a eat-wake-eat-sleep cycle. With a move and an extended vacation with relatives, the cycle became less defined.

I felt guilty about not being "on schedule" and still didn't subscribe to cue-feeding. I was worried that I was feeding "on demand" and that would lead to a demanding child. I was afraid I wouldn't get good sleep, that the baby wouldn't get good sleep, and that that would be bad for us. All of these things were fears planted in my mind by Ezzo's false dichotomy set up by his manufactured "biblical" philosophy of parenting vs. the "secular mystics" of parenting.

Ezzo vs. Science, Ezzo vs. Doctrine of Grace

So what made me see the light?

Online resources, primarily. I read articles that explained more fully the physiology of breastfeeding, including researching on La Leche League's website about hormones and breastmilk production. Funny, in a way, that it was the dry and scientific that helped me cut through the philosophical bullcrap of Ezzo. Also the Evidence for Cue-Feeding article.

I visited the Parent's Place Ezzo Debate Board as a closet Ezzo supporter. I realized that the critics of Ezzo were intelligent Christian mothers and fathers--not the permissive parents of whiny children Ezzo portrayed them to be. I read the theological concerns on Rebecca Prewett's page, and that made a big impression on me.

My husband has told me the reason he left politics to work in the ministry is that one day he woke up and realized that even if he elected all the godly officials he supported, and they passed the most wonderful legislation, and the citizens of the land all obeyed the laws, his work would have only created better behaved pagans. That is a lot of what I see in Ezzo's materials. In the name of Christianity, parents are taught to have better behaved children. But only God changes the heart.

Concurrent with this, was some spiritual struggles of my own, especially in the area of truly understanding God's grace. I like legalism, I like following the rules and being a good girl. Yet, there is sin in my life that rears its ugly head on a daily basis. How does God deal with me and the sin in my life? I realized that I was not relating to my children the way that God relates to me. I was expecting my children to "Obey, right away, all the way with a happy heart!" I realized that I do not do that. I procrastinate. I complain. I do jobs halfway. I argue with God. Are these good things? No--and I want better for my children. Yet God has dealt with me, an adult, with more understanding and gentleness than I have with my children. God is often described as being "Slow to anger, abounding in love, full of compassion..."

When I tried to make my children obey the Ezzo way, I wasn't responding the way I see God respond to me. Of course I loved my children! And some days I was slow to anger. But I wasn't full of compassion and often anger was just under the surface. God allowed me to starkly see my sin, my disobedience, my need for Jesus every day, my need for His grace--and that was really the key for me to see that what Gary Ezzo teaches is not what I see as being in line with Biblical parenting.

Cue-feeding brings breastfeeding success at last

So where am I now?

My third I began to cuddle and nurse in the morning. We cue-fed and I was able to breastfeed him until he was about 19 months old. At that point, I was pretty "touched out" and expecting #4, and we were in the middle of another move.

With our fourth, from the beginning I wanted to focus more on nurturing and less on controlling. He has been cue fed. I got a wonderful mayawrap pouch and dh and I jokingly referred to myself as a "marsupial mom." That title was derisively applied by Gary Ezzo to mothers who use slings frequently, but now it's a badge of honor. I haven't struggled with my milk supply at all and he's still nursing strong at 26 months. He does wake to nurse at night or I rouse him before I go to bed. I am not losing any sleep with it. We co slept-with him in a pack 'n' play in our room or cuddling in our bed until he was about a year. Now he sleeps in his brothers' room.

Our boys co-sleep--piled together like puppies. Some of them come to crawl in bed with me in the middle of the night, and sometimes I welcome that and sometimes I groggily tell them to make a bed on the floor. I'm still wary of the label "Attachment Parenting" because of the negative connotations it was given by Gary Ezzo. It's hard to change those early impressions. But if you were to look at how I parent now it would probably look like "Attachment Parenting."

God has been working in my life in many areas, and I am still not the mother I want to be. Yet I am thankful for His grace and that He has used my mistakes and failures in parenting to teach me more about Himself. I trust that even my failures with my children He will use to make them who He wants them to be.

contact Alexandra Bush at ezzoweek@gmail.com

~~

Crying It Out Causes Brain Damage

2010-01-23T07:17:00.000-08:00

Research suggests that allowing a baby to "cry it out" causes brain damage.

by Dr. Stephen Juan

Experts warn that allowing a baby to "cry it out" causes extreme distress to the baby. And such extreme distress in a newborn has been found to block the full development of certain areas of the brain and causes the brain to produce extra amounts of cortisol, which can be harmful.

According to a University of Pittsburgh study by Dr. DeBellis and seven colleagues, published in Biological Psychiatry in 2004, children who suffer early trauma generally develop smaller brains.

A Harvard University study by Dr. Teicher and five colleagues, also published in Biological Psychiatry, claims that the brain areas affected by severe distress are the limbic system, the left hemisphere, and the corpus callosum. Additional areas that may be involved are the hippocampus and the orbitofrontal cortex.

The Science of Parenting (2006) by Dr. Margot Sunderland points out some of the brain damaging effects that can occur if parents fail to properly nurture a baby -- and that includes forcing them to "cry it out." Dr. Sunderland, who is the director of education and training at the Centre for Child Mental Health in London, draws upon work in neuroscience to come to her conclusions and recommendations about parenting practice.

In the first parenting book to link parent behavior with infant brain development, Dr. Sunderland describes how the infant brain is still being "sculpted" after birth. Parents have a major role in this brain "sculpting" process.

Dr. Sunderland argues that it is crucial that parents meet the reasonable emotional needs of the infant. This is helped along by providing a continuously emotionally nurturant environment for the infant.

Allowing a baby to “cry it out” when they are upset will probably be regarded as child abuse by future generations.

Lactose Intolerance and the Breastfed Baby (Australian Breastfeeding Association)

2010-01-23T07:04:00.001-08:00

Lactose intolerance and the breastfed baby
Original Article published in 'Essence' magazine
Volume 35, Number 1
Exclusively for ABA subscribers
Lactose Intolerance and the breastfed baby
Joy Anderson BSc(Nutrition), PostgradDipDiet, APD, IBCLC, ABA Breastfeeding Counsellor

Lactose is the sugar in all mammalian milks. It is produced in the breast. The amount of lactose in breastmilk is independent of the mother's consumption of lactose and hardly varies. The milk the baby gets when he first starts to feed contains much the same amount of lactose as does the milk at the end of a breastfeed. However, the milk at the end of a breastfeed does contain more fat.

Lactase is the enzyme that is required to digest lactose. Lactose intolerance occurs when a person does not produce this enzyme, or does not produce enough of it, and is therefore unable to digest lactose.

The symptoms of lactose intolerance are liquid, frothy stools and an irritable baby who may pass wind often. If a baby is lactose intolerant, the medical tests ('hydrogen breath test' and tests for 'reducing sugars' in the stools) would be expected to be positive. However they are also positive in most normal breastfed babies under 3 months. Their use in diagnosing lactose intolerance in young babies is therefore open to question.

There are some common myths about lactose intolerance that you may hear in the community:

There will be less lactose in the breastmilk if the mother stops eating dairy products.
Baby is more likely to be lactose intolerant if adult family members are.
If a mother is lactose intolerant then her baby will be as well.
A baby with symptoms of lactose intolerance should be taken off the breast immediately and fed on soy-based or special lactose-free infant formula.
Lactose intolerance is the same as intolerance or allergy to cows' milk protein.
Read on to see what is wrong with these ideas!
Lactose intolerance in babies
Primary (or true) lactose intolerance
This extremely rare genetic condition is incompatible with normal life unless there is medical intervention. A truly lactose-intolerant baby would fail to thrive from birth (ie not even start to gain weight) and show obvious symptoms of malabsorption and dehydration. This is a medical emergency and the baby would need a special diet from soon after birth.
Secondary lactose intolerance
Because the enzyme lactase is produced in the very tips of the microscopic folds of the intestine, anything that damages the gut lining can cause secondary lactose intolerance. Even subtle damage to the gut may wipe off these tips and reduce the enzyme production, for example:
Gastroenteritis.
food intolerance or allergy. In breastfed babies, this can come from food proteins, such as in cows' milk, wheat, soy or egg, or possibly other food chemicals that enter breastmilk from the mother's diet, as well as from food the baby has eaten.
parasitic infection such as giardiasis or cryptosporidiosis.
coeliac disease (intolerance to the gluten in wheat and some other grain products).
following bowel surgery.

Cows' milk protein allergy (or intolerance) is often confused with lactose intolerance and many people think they are the same thing. This is not the case. The confusion probably arises because cows' milk protein and lactose are both in the same food, ie dairy products. Since allergy or intolerance to this protein can cause secondary lactose intolerance, they may be present together, further adding to this confusion.

Secondary lactose intolerance is temporary, as long as the gut damage can heal. When the cause of the damage to the gut is removed, for example by taking the food to which a breastfed baby is allergic out of the mother's diet, the gut will heal, even if the baby is still fed breastmilk. If your doctor does diagnose 'lactose intolerance', continuing to breastfeed will not harm your baby as long as she is otherwise well and growing normally.

While the baby has symptoms of lactose intolerance, it is sometimes suggested that the mother alternate breastfeeding the baby with feeds of lactose-free artificial baby milk or even take the baby off the breast. Authorities recommend the use of lactose-free artificial baby milk if the baby is artificially-fed and is very malnourished and/or losing weight. However, human milk remains the best food and will assist with gut healing. In addition, sensitivity of the baby to foreign protein (cow or soy) should be considered before introduction of any artificial baby milk, as regular types, including lactose-free ones, may make this problem worse. You should seek professional advice on the need for hypoallergenic artificial baby milk. A medical adviser should see any baby with long-term symptoms who is failing to thrive.

Before even partially taking a baby off the breast for a short time, thought should be given to other aspects of the breastfeeding relationship. Questions you could ask include:

How will alternative feeding methods affect my baby?
Could bottle-feeding other milk products result in breast refusal later?
How easily will I be able to express my milk to maintain my supply?

Average recovery time for the gut of a baby with severe gastroenteritis is 4 weeks, but may be up to 8 weeks for a baby under 3 months. For older babies, over about 18 months, recovery may be as rapid as 1 week. If a medical adviser orders alternative feeds for the baby, it is important that the mother understands that her breastmilk is still the normal and proper food for her baby in the long term.

You may have heard about giving drops containing the enzyme lactase to babies who have symptoms of lactose intolerance. There is little evidence that these are of much value when used this way, although there are anecdotal reports that relatively large doses may have helped in some cases. Lactase drops are designed to be put into expressed breastmilk (or other milk) and left overnight for the enzyme to predigest the lactose in the milk. In practice they seem to be occasionally useful for babies.

Lactose intolerance in adults
The lactase enzyme levels normally change over a person's life span. They rise rapidly in the first week after birth, start to fall from about 3-5 years of age and fall sharply in later childhood, The low levels of the enzyme present in the first week of life are matched by low levels of lactose in colostrum.

Cows' milk is commonly consumed by adults in some populations, but mostly by people of northern European descent. In about 70% of the people of the world, and in at least 10% of Australians, levels of this enzyme fall so low in adulthood that they become lactose intolerant. The tendency to adult lactose intolerance is genetically determined. Some races, such as Asian, African, Australian Aboriginal and Hispanic populations are more likely to have adult lactose intolerance. Caucasians are more likely to be able to consume milk as adults because they tend to continue producing the enzyme lactase throughout life. Even so, the levels do fall with age. People who have been able to drink milk as adults may find they become lactose intolerant when elderly. An adult who has very low levels of the enzyme can usually tolerate some lactose because normal bacteria living in the gut provide a limited capacity to handle it. However, the person may find it gives them loose stools and 'wind'.

Human babies of all races can tolerate lactose. In fact human milk has a very high concentration of lactose compared to cows' milk and that of other mammals. This is thought to be related to a human baby's rapid brain growth in infancy, compared to other mammals. Removing lactose from any baby's diet for more than a short period should not be done lightly and then only under medical supervision.

Lactose overload in babies
Lactose overload can mimic lactose intolerance and is frequently mistaken for it. An overload is often seen in babies consuming large amounts of breastmilk, that is when their mothers have an oversupply. This may result in an unsettled baby with adequate to large weight gains. The baby usually passes urine more than 10 times a day and has many (often explosive) bowel motions in 24 hours. This usually occurs in babies under 3 months old. Ironically, a mother may think that she has a low milk supply because her baby always seems to be hungry. The nappies can be the biggest clue to what's happening. What comes out the bottom must have gone in the top!

There is a vicious cycle here. A large-volume, low-fat feed goes through the baby so quickly that not all the lactose is digested (more fat would help slow it down). The lactose reaching the lower bowel draws extra water into the bowel and is fermented by the bacteria there, producing gas and acid stools. The acid stools often cause a nappy rash. Gas and fluid build-up cause tummy pain and the baby 'acts hungry' (wants to suck, is unsettled, draws up his legs, screams). Sucking is the best comfort he knows and also helps move the gas along the bowel. This tends to ease the pain temporarily and may result in wind and stool being passed. Since the baby indicates that he wants to suck at the breast, his mother, logically, feeds him again. Sometimes it is the only way to comfort him. Unfortunately another large feed on top of the earlier one hurries the system further and results in more gas and fluid accumulation. The milk seems almost literally to 'go in one end and out the other'.

Many mothers whose babies have had this problem have found it helpful to change from an 'on-demand' breastfeeding routine. This is usually only necessary for a short time. The aim is to slow the rate at which milk goes through the baby by feeding one breast per feed, or by 'block-feeding'. To block-feed, set a 4-hour time period (this may be adjusted according to the severity of the oversupply) and every time the baby wants to feed during this period, use the same breast. Then use the other breast for the next 4 hours, etc. Each time the baby returns to the already used breast, he gets a lower-volume, higher-fat feed that helps slow the system down. While block-feeding, check that the unused breast does not get overfull. When the baby's symptoms are relieved, the mother is able to go back to a normal breastfeeding routine and feed according to need.

Where the problem is severe and/or long-lasting, it is worth trying to work out why there is an oversupply of breastmilk.

Is the mother timing feeds and switching sides after a set number of minutes?
Has something caused the baby to be unusually unsettled, resulting in frequent comfort sucking and an oversupply?
Is secondary lactose intolerance adding to the overload situation?
Sometimes a mother who is worried about having a low supply overcompensates by offering more feeds than the baby needs and overstimulates her supply.
Perhaps the baby has been unwell, or is suffering discomfort from a difficult birth, and seeks comfort in frequent feeds.
Some mothers just have a tendency to oversupply - there is a normal variation in this as in everything else about our bodies. In days gone by, these may have been the mothers who could have made a living as wet nurses!

Specific ways to help with each of these is beyond the scope of this article. However, individual situations can be discussed with an Australian Breastfeeding Association counsellor, an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC), paediatric dietitian or other health professional. The Association's booklet Too Much has tips for helping oversupply problems. Why Is My Baby Crying? has lots of suggestions for soothing unsettled babies.

In conclusion, there are several types of lactose intolerance, but it is very rare for a baby to have to stop breastfeeding because of this condition. Except for the extremely rare primary type, there is always a cause behind lactose intolerance in babies. Getting to the cause and fixing that is the key to resolving the baby's symptoms.

References:
Brodribb W (ed), 2004, Breastfeeding Management. 3rd edn. Australian Breastfeeding Association, Melbourne.
Heyman MB for the Committee on Nutrition, 2006, Lactose intolerance in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatrics 118(3): 1279-1286 (Available at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/3/1279)
Lawlor-Smith C & Lawlor-Smith L, 1998, Lactose intolerance. Breastfeeding Review 6(1): 29-30.
Leeson R, 1995, Lactose intolerance: What does it mean? ALCA News 6(1): 24-25, 27.
Minchin M, 1986, Food for Thought. 2nd edn. Unwin Paperbacks, Sydney.
Rings EHHM et al, 1994, Lactose intolerance and lactase deficiency in children. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 6: 562-567.
Royal Australian College of Physicians 2006, Paediatric policy: Soy protein formula. RACP, Sydney.
Saarela T, Kokkonen J & Koivisto M, 2005, Macronutrient and energy contents of human milk fractions during the first six months of lactation. Acta Paediatrica 94: 1176-1181.
Woolridge M, Fisher C 1988, Colic, 'overfeeding' and symptoms of lactose malabsorption in the breast-fed baby: a possible artifact of feed management? Lancet (ii): 382-384.

Revised January 2010

Copyright Australian Breastfeeding Association, 1818-1822 Malvern Rd, East Malvern VIC 3145, Australia. ABN 64 005 081 523.

Breastfeeding After a Traumatic Birth

2010-01-23T07:00:00.000-08:00

Breastfeeding after a Traumatic Birth

By Samantha Cambray Copyright 2009

First Feeds

The quiet, early hours of a new day envelop me. I am exhausted from two days of hard labouring and groggy as I struggle upwards to full consciousness after the arrival of my son via an emergency caesarean under general anaesthetic. I am in a dark maternity ward, a midwife and my husband looking over me, as I hold my baby. I am trembling and woozy.

The midwife encourages me to try the first breastfeed. He undoes my gown for me, and moves the various wires and monitors strapped to my body so my little boy can snuggle in close to my breast. I whisper to my little one: “It’s time to have some nourishment now. We’ll do our best, but it may take a while to get used to.”
Holding the baby, and my breast (I am still too drugged to manage this), he brings them together. Bodhi- my son- opens his mouth wide and the midwife helps him to attach himself. Almost immediately I feel a delicious tugging and sucking. How amazing my two hour old baby knows inherently what to do!

“There you go, you’re doing so well!” I coo. After a little while, though, he falls off, and we have trouble attaching again. I am nearly falling asleep and so is he. “We’ll try again first thing in the morning,” the midwife reassures me as I fall asleep to the sound of my husband trying to get comfortable in the chair in the corner, the little cot by his side.

True to the midwife’s word, he is back as the sun begins to creep into the window. My husband leaves to get some things from home and after helping me sit comfortably and attach Bodhi to my breast, the midwife leaves us in peace. I sit there for half an hour, as my baby sucks away vigorously, regaining faith in the body that I felt had failed me.

Birth Trauma is more common than you may realise

Birth Trauma is a general term for a range of undesirable psychological consequences following childbirth- this may include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or the symptoms thereof. The birth process, whilst natural, can often be traumatic, through the unpredictability of the event, deviations from what is considered to be a ‘normal’ birth are common, and some births may be life threatening to mother and/or baby .

Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is one condition linked with birth trauma. PTSD is an anxiety disorder which is developed after exposure to a traumatic event where horror, fear and/or helplessness are experienced. Symptoms and effects can include nightmares and flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, emotional numbing and character restriction, psychological distress in response to internal or external cues that symbolise the event, physiological reactivity to these cues, avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma, detachment, sense of a shortened future, hyper vigilance and other symptoms . Obviously, this creates many problems for the new mother.

In one study (Alcorn, 2006), 45.5% of women had traumatic birth events as classified by the DSM-IV (a diagnostic tool for psychological conditions)-that is, partial PTSD, and 53.8% reported their birth as traumatic when asked “Was your birth traumatic?” This study also found that 6.3% of women had full PTSD at 3 months post partum .

Another study (White, Matthey, Boyd and Barnett, 2006), found that co morbidity of PTSD and post natal depression is high .

Maternal distress following childbirth can affect the effectiveness of the functioning of the maternal role, depression and anxiety, adaptation to motherhood, self perceptions, lifestyle, and quality of personal relationships, among other things.

Birth Trauma and Breastfeeding

There is, sadly a lack of information and research into the effect of birth trauma on establishing and maintaining a breastfeeding relationship. However, it is evident that the two are related, but given an appropriate amount of attention and support, this can be effectively addressed and dealt with.

In the most prominent article in this area, Cheryl Tatano Beck, Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor of Nursing, has found that birth trauma can lead women down to very different paths: it may propel them to persevere with a breastfeeding relationship and regain a sense of “motherliness”, or it may impede breastfeeding through trauma symptoms such as detachment from the child and intrusive flashbacks .

Beck suggests that intensive one-on-one support is needed to assist the mother breastfeed successfully. A woman experiencing and/or recovering needs to look at her support network to find such support- perhaps the local ABA group, a lactation consultant, a doula, a counsellor or a well informed GP or child health nurse, or more likely, a combination of the above, can assist.

Francesca Naish and Janette Roberts, in their book The Natural Way to Better Breastfeeding state “a natural, unmedicated birth, unlimited skin to skin contact, the freedom to explore your baby’s body, and for your baby to come to the breast in his own time and for the bonding between you to take place without interruption will all ensure a wonderful start for a trouble free and continuing breastfeeding relationship.” They go on to point out that many of the medical procedures that can accompany delivery of a baby can impede bonding and make establishing breastfeeding more difficult.

These practices, such as immediate skin on skin contact, as well as other practices such as rooming in and breastfeeding on demand are all part of the requirements hospitals need to adhere to when accredited under the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, designed to maximise the ability of women to successfully breastfeed their infants .

Physical pain may be a factor in breastfeeding after a difficult birth. For example, the Australian Breastfeeding Association suggests that after a caesarean birth, breastfeeding may be more comfortable by putting a pillow on your lap for extra support, feeding whilst laying down, or feeding the baby in the underarm (or “twin”) position, with the feet pointing towards your back. These kinds of positions are not limited to helping those who have had a caesarean delivery; they may be more comfortable for women who have sustained injury and/or tearing after a vaginal delivery .

If the baby and mother are separated for whatever reason, colostrum may be expressed to ensure the baby still receives amazing nutritive benefits. Avoid artificial teats, as this can cause nipple confusion in the baby .
To strengthen mother-baby bonding, the Australian Bush Flower Essence Bottlebrush may be used. Boronia is useful for flashbacks, and Waratah can assist in alleviating depression. Similarly, Bach Rescue Remedy may assist in dealing with anxiety that the combination of PTSD and breastfeeding may elicit .

Activities that facilitate for close contact and bonding, such as massaging and bathing with your baby, wearing your baby in a sling, and sleeping with your baby may also facilitate breastfeeding.

To deal with flashbacks and other symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, both consultation with a empathic GP and counselling- which can offer cognitive tools to overcome such symptoms- is highly recommended.

The path to successful breastfeeding may have extra obstacles to the woman recovering from birth trauma. However, breastfeeding is so important in healthy development in the child, and the woman may need support in finding the resources to assist her breastfeed successfully. Encouragement and practical help from a partner, mother, friend or health care provider, such as getting details of local ABA meetings, providing complementary therapies such as Bush Flower Essences, or simply holding the mother’s hand whilst she breastfeeds (if indeed, she isn’t “touched out”) can play an important role in the health of the child.

Breastfeeding- A Year On

Bodhi is now a year old. Breastfeeding Bodhi, whilst it has had its challenges, has been a delight. It has also been integral to both forming a strong bond which was jeopardised by a traumatic birth, and to feeling trust in my body and my ability to mother again.

Birth trauma made me feel guilty, resentful and sad. It made me think that my body was faulty, that I wasn’t a “real woman” and that I had given my son a terrible start to life (thankfully, after much proactive work, I have resolved these issues).

Breastfeeding, on the other hand, made me feel wonderful. I felt womanly, maternal and natural. I felt a commonality with all mothers worldwide and knew I had made the best decision I could for his health and wellbeing (not to mention my own!).

Staring into his eyes that first morning was only the first of thousands of like stares. And every time I am feeling overwhelmed by life and its dramas, I can sit down and gaze into his eyes whilst I feed him. It doesn’t take long for me to get my priorities right again.

Samantha Cambray is the owner of Birth Healing, a forum community for support, healing, growth and action after birth trauma

You can't show THAT!

2010-01-23T06:46:00.000-08:00

2 pictures from Haiti

The top photograph is of a mother breastfeeding her baby, but the breast has been blurred out, because 'you can't show that' in the media.

The second photograph shows a baby drinking out of a bottle, with the brand name clearly seen, because that is acceptable in the media.

Breastfeeding: The Miracle of Mother's Milk

2010-01-22T14:09:00.000-08:00

Photo: CORBIS

Breastfeeding: the miracle of mother's milk
Whatever the studies say, breast is still best, says Victoria Lambert.

By Victoria Lambert
Published: 7:00AM GMT 22 Jan 2010

Breastfeeding is the cheapest, cleanest and healthiest way to nurture a baby

We've all known mothers who can whip out a breast, whip on a baby, and lactate like mad – without effort, embarrassment or, in some cases, embonpoint. For me, breastfeeding was a slog: six months of broken nights, screaming and tears (mine, mostly). But I don't regret a moment.

Breastfeeding – if you can – is the cheapest, cleanest and healthiest way to nurture a baby. That's not just my opinion or that of the World Health Organisation (which recommends breastfeeding for the first six months) – it's common sense, isn't it?

Perhaps, but Breast v Bottle is still one of the most furious debates in modern mothering, fuelled by powerful hormones on one hand, and the billion-pound formula industry on the other. This month, the fire has been fed by two scientific studies suggesting that breastfeeding might not be worth the bother – let alone the guilt and distress if you can't or choose not to.

In the first, Prof Sven Carlsen, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, reviewed more than 50 studies into the relationship between health and breastfeeding. Most concluded that the longer a child was nursed, the healthier it would be. He attributed this, however, to a healthier pregnancy, not breast milk, claiming "baby formula is as good as breast milk".

This week, the second study, from Southampton University found that breastfeeding does not make babies more intelligent. It noted that breastfed infants tended to be brighter simply because their mothers were (and brighter women are more likely to breastfeed). So lactation doesn't make our loved ones brainier or healthier? Can we break out the bottles and book a long night's pain-free sleep then?

Not so fast. For every study that concludes that breast milk is on a par with formula, twice as many conclude it is liquid gold. They find it protects against stomach bugs, and wards off asthma and chest infections. Mothers who breastfeed lower their risk of breast and ovarian cancers, and shed baby weight more easily.

And as every scientist knows, there are different classes of study – some are tiny; some may appear in little-known journals that other professionals do not rate seriously; and some are paid for by organisations that have their own point to prove, such as formula manufacturers.

Formula milk is big business. In Britain, Save the Children reckons that for every £1 spent in 2006-7 on breastfeeding promotion, £10 was spent by manufacturers on advertising and promotion. The market leader, Nestlé, has been subject, off and on, to a worldwide boycott for more than 30 years because of the way it is seen to target mothers in countries where formula feed can be expensive and dangerous to use.

It can be argued that Prof Carlsen's investigation doesn't stand up to scrutiny, although it was funded by the central Norway regional health authority and published in the peer-reviewed, although not well-known, journal Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

And the news that breast milk doesn't boost brainpower can be contradicted by other studies that have found the reverse: a 2001 study concluded that children who were breastfed for fewer than three months were more likely to score below average for mental skills at 13 months, and have lower IQ levels at five years, than those who were breastfed for six months or more.

It is difficult to master science at the best of times – let alone in the fog of exhaustion and hormones caused by giving birth. Had anyone presented me with a research paper three days postpartum, I'd have found a use for it – but not one connected to what went into my child.

The most important boon of lactation cannot be analysed or peer-reviewed. It's something our ancestors knew instinctively: breastfeeding is a chance for mother and baby to connect physically and emotionally. And for mum to put her feet up.

2010-01-22T14:01:00.000-08:00

Sleep Training: Not For Breastfeeding Mothers (from drsears.com)

2010-01-22T11:03:00.000-08:00

SLEEP-TRAINING – NOT FOR BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS

Ever since parenting books found their way into bedrooms, authors have touted magical formulas promising to get babies to sleep through the night and follow a more convenient schedule. While babies have a lot of wonderful attributes, convenience is not one of them. Beware of using someone else's training method to get your baby to sleep or get your baby on a predictable schedule. Most of these methods are variations of the tired old theme of letting baby cry it out. Before trying anyone else's method, run it through your intuitive wisdom. Does this advice sound sensible? Does it fit your baby's temperament? Does it feel right to you?

With most of these baby-training regimens you run the risk of becoming desensitized to the cues of your infant, especially when it comes to letting baby cry it out. Instead of helping you to figure out what baby's signals mean, these training methods tell you to ignore them. Neither you nor your baby learn anything good from this.

If your current daytime or nighttime routine is not working for you, think about what changes you can make in yourself and your lifestyle that will make it easier for you to meet your baby's needs. This is a better approach than immediately trying to change your baby. After all, you can control your own reactions to a situation. You can't control how your baby reacts. Use discernment about advice that promises a sleep-through-the-night more convenient baby, as these programs involve the risk of creating a distance between you and your baby and undermining the mutual trust between parent and child. On the surface, baby training sounds so liberating, but it's a short-term gain for a long-term loss. You lose the opportunity to know and become an expert in your baby. Baby loses the opportunity to build trust in his caregiving environment. You cease to value your own biological cues and judgment and follow the advice of someone who has no biological attachment, nor investment, in your infant.

Clicking into the cry-it-out method also keeps you from continuing to search for medical or physical causes of nightwaking, such as GER and food allergies. Nightfeedings is normal; frequent nightwaking is not.

Stay flexible. No single approach will work with all babies all the time, or even all the time with the same baby. Don't persist with a failing experiment. If the "sleep program" isn't working for your family, drop it.

Follow your heart rather than some stranger's sleep-training advice, and you and your baby will eventually work out the right nighttime parenting style for your family.

Quotes from Haiti

2010-01-22T10:52:00.000-08:00

UNICEF IMAGE

“A woman who is breast-feeding is given a can of formula when cleanwater to mix it is unavailable and her baby needs the support of herimmune system more than ever,” Ms. Shaikh said.“Baby formula,” she said firmly, “does nothing for babies in the middle of a disaster and can even be fatal.”

For full story, visit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/21charity.html

For now, a group of Dominican women are ensuring that the babies in the ward have adequate food.

"A lot of infant children have arrived at the hospital without their parents. They need mother’s milk to continue to live," said Dr. Quezada. "We currently have some Dominican mothers who have donated their milk to feed these infants. This is a gesture of a generosity and solidarity."

For full story, visit:

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/haiti_52557.html

Getting wise to "Babywise"

2010-01-21T12:10:00.000-08:00

BY KATIE ALLISON GRANJU |

Lori Rivas finds it painful to think back to the first few months after her 2-year-old son Daniel's birth. Rivas, a 29-year-old stay-at-home mother from Santa Clarita, Calif., remembers days and nights of struggling to ignore her baby's crying, of feeling guilty when she longed to rock him to sleep in her arms but believed that she should not. Worst of all, Rivas recalls the day of Daniel's two week checkup, when the previously healthy infant was discovered to be more than one pound below his birth weight and so dehydrated that he was unable to produce tears.

"I felt that I was failing as a parent," says Rivas.

Rivas and her 38-year-old husband, Theo, a customer service representative, were not only worried about their son -- they were confused. After all, they were conscientiously following the highly detailed dictates of one of today's most popular child-care guides, a book that glowingly described itself in its own introduction as "an infant management program" that has "worked for thousands of parents and, when faithfully applied, will work wonderfully for you!" In a soothing, authoritative tone, the guide further assured Lori and Theo that, if they adhered to the book's recommendations, their baby would sleep through the night by approximately 8 weeks of age, cry less than other babies and even have a reduced risk of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and learning disabilities down the road.

This was enough to convince these eager first-time parents. They wanted the best for baby Daniel.

"We went by the book," explains Lori Rivas.

"The book" is called "On Becoming "Babywise," from a Christian publishing house, Multnomah/Questar. This slim paperback and its companion volume, "Babywise II," for parents of "pretoddlers" ages 5 to 15 months, have sold at least a quarter million copies over the past several years, consistently placing in the top 10 most requested parenting titles on both mainstream and Christian booksellers' lists. The author behind "Babywise I" and "II" is Gary Ezzo, an enigmatic, 50-something, evangelical Christian minister. Ezzo, along with several close family members, heads up Growing Families International, a huge, for-profit "parenting ministry" based in Simi Valley, Calif. GFI has stated that its goals as an organization are "to capture the hearts and minds of the next generation," because "it takes two generations to affect change (sic). We gave the last over to the ideological humanists; they have our tax dollar and the public classroom to bring about their agenda. We cannot collectively capture the minds of the next generation without educating the minds of today's parents." Ezzo's personal parenting philosophy can be summed up in his public statement: "Raising good children is not a matter of chance but a matter of rightly applying God's principles in parenting."

GFI's ever-expanding product line of conservative Christian parenting materials is reportedly now used by at least 70,000 parents in 6,000 churches across the country each week. "Babywise" and "Babywise II" are the ostensibly secular versions of GFI's original and still widely used Christian child-care guides. Dr. Robert Bucknam, a young Denver-area pediatrician, is listed as co-author of the "Babywise" books, while Ezzo and his wife, Anne Marie, are named as the sole authors of their religious counterparts. The bestselling "Babywise" books, generally available in the family and parenting aisles of major bookstores, are fundamentally the same guides as the Ezzos' Christian versions, but with a crucial difference: All biblical and theological references have been removed. GFI refers to the "Babywise" books as "outreach materials" and describes them in its catalog as "the ideal gift for your expectant friends," and as offering "many of the same biblical principles as (other GFI child-care guides)." The catalog goes on to suggest that "Babywise I" and "II" are "ideally written for the Christian obstetrician, pediatrician or health-care provider to distribute to their patients." Although GFI makes no attempt to obfuscate its own agenda as an activist evangelical Christian organization in its other, openly religious materials, parents who buy or are given the seemingly mainstream "Babywise" books have no way of knowing that the books' advice is based largely on GFI's own unique biblical interpretations. Neither are most "Babywise" readers likely aware that the child-care guide that now sits on their bookshelf next to their well-thumbed Spock or "What to Expect the First Year" is designed to "capture the minds" of their children.

For the full article, please visit:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/1998/08/cov_06feature.html

"Moms, Don't Forget to Feed Your Marriages "

2010-01-21T11:30:00.000-08:00

Moms, Don't Forget to Feed Your Marriages

Why nurturing a passionate marriage is more important than breast-feeding.
written by Rabbi Schmuley Boteach

The science section of The New York Times recently featured a lengthy study on breast-feeding and its benefits. Breast-feeding, the study found, helps reduce the chances of infection, cold, diarrhea, illness, and even later childhood obesity. No one argues with any of these benefits, but what the report neglects to mention, and what I have personally witnessed when counseling couples, is how breast-feeding can come between a husband and wife.

One of the episodes of "Shalom in the Home" this season featured a young couple in Pennsylvania who were madly in love when they married, but had slowly drifted apart after the birth of two children. Indeed, a Harvard University study maintains that a couples' love life decreases by 74 percent in the first year after the birth of a child. Now, given that sex is nearly dead in the American bedroom anyway, with national sex rates in marriage figuring at about once a week, a three-quarters decrease means that sex takes place once every few months—sparse pickings indeed.

With this particular couple, the situation was even worse. Their sex life had died completely, and one of the main causes was the mother's obsession with breast-feeding well into the child's eleventh month. The baby was attached to his mother like a limb, and he even slept with her every night, consigning her husband to a different bedroom.

I told the mother that in being so devoted to her son, she had committed the cardinal sin of marriage, which is to put someone else before her spouse, even if that someone is your child. Furthermore, I said, her obsession had turned one of her most attractive body parts into a feeding station, an attractive cafeteria rather than a scintillating piece of flesh.

In my book "Kosher Adultery," I make the point that infidelity is primarily a sin of omission rather than commission. It is not the bad thing you do that destroys a marriage, but all the good that you fail to do, preoccupied as you are with a sinful relationship that diverts your attention away from your spouse. Similarly, with the example of breast-feeding, a wife who spends a year giving all her emotional and physical affection to the baby has left her marriage a barren wasteland, bereft of romance and affection.

Obviously, breast-feeding is not the same as carrying on an extramarital affair. But when a mother gives her breasts to her son and takes them away from her husband, the effect on the marriage can feel the same.

I am surprised that when scientists discuss all the benefits of breast-feeding, they neglect its most negative consequence. If breast-feeding gets in the way of the marriage—if it means that a husband and wife never go out on dates, or that the mother is so tired from always waking up with the baby that she has no energy to ever be intimate with her husband—the child will probably end up worse off, however many colds or bouts with diarrhea he now avoids.

For the full article, please visit:

http://www.beliefnet.com/Love-Family/Relationships/2006/07/Moms-Dont-Forget-To-Feed-Your-Marriages.aspx?p=1We

Trustee Relieved New Baby Fits Into Work Day

2010-01-21T07:37:00.000-08:00

Trustee relieved new baby fits into work day

Veteran mom gets support from colleagues so she can do job, raise infant as well

By Sarah O'Donnell, Edmonton JournalJanuary 21, 2010

Edmonton Catholic school trustee Kara Pelech was a little nervous.

She had an announcement she wanted to share with her board colleagues, exciting news that had to be delivered soon: "Surprise. We're all having a baby."

Today, 16-week-old Madelyn is the tiniest member of the board, minus voting privileges of course. With a bouncy chair in the board room and a change table in the trustee office, there is no question her coos, gurgles and occasional squawks have made school board business a little more interesting and a lot more adorable. "She's a really good baby and I'm thankful for that," Pelech said as she gently bounced Madelyn on her knee. "If she'd been a crying, colicky baby, this would be a completely different scenario. You just can't bring a screaming baby to a board room, so we've been truly blessed in that aspect."

Fort Edmonton Catholic, Madelyn and her mom are something of a novelty. District officials can't recall the last time that a serving trustee had an infant. Young children, yes. But not a nursing newborn.

It has helped that Pelech and husband, Alan, are no rookies in parenting department. Madelyn has three older siblings, including 17-year-old brother Alex, nine-year-old brother Jeffery and three-year-old sister Meleena. "Your fourth, you know what works and what doesn't," she said, which is why she's temporarily added items from home like a baby swing to the school district's downtown office. "When she's fussy, it's time to leave the room for a minute and get her whatever she needs and then go back to rejoin."

While she may miss a few minute here and there, the 44-year-old is proud of the fact that she has only missed one meeting for baby-related reasons, a planning meeting in September when she was in labour.

She credits her colleagues for being helpful and receptive, despite the inevitable inconveniences and interruptions that come with an infant.

In fact, or the first several meetings after Madelyn's birth, she barely held her daughter as other trustees took turns with the brown-haired, blue-eyed baby.

"She would just be bounced around, although nobody really ran to go and change her for me," Pelech said, adding with a laugh, "I guess there's a line."

That support helped diffuse what could have been a stressful situation. "The only other option for me would be to quit and that's not something I want to entertain," said Pelech, who was elected to represent southeast Ward 6 for the first time in the 2007 election and came to the job with a particular interest in improving support for children with special needs.

"So far, it has worked out really well."

Other trustees on the Catholic board say Madelyn's presence has yielded some unexpected benefits. For one, she is a constant reminder of the district's future students, board chairwoman Debbie Engel said. "It does tell you, this is what we're here for."

Trustee Cindy Olsen said the experience also has some practical results. "We've turned a challenge into an opportunity. As a board, we've been able to develop strategies within ourselves to make meetings more efficient."

As school boards across the province look toward another round of trustee elections in October, Alberta School Boards Association president Heather Welwood said it is important to have a broad cross-section of the community represented, including the parents of young children. "We want to encourage that wide range of diverse points of view," Welwood said. "To limit it only to people retired, with no children in the system currently would not be a wide view and not represent the demographics."

Pelech plans to run for re-election, particularly keen to expand a project she's been a part of in Mill Woods encouraging more students to partake in sacraments such as First Communion. By then, she said Madelyn's regular attendance at board meetings will be over.

"She has until the end of June to keep cooperating," Pelech said. "Then we should be good to go."

sodonnell@thejournal.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

AAP Media Alert on Scheduled Feedings

2010-01-21T07:06:00.001-08:00

AAP ADDRESSES SCHEDULED FEEDINGS VS. DEMAND FEEDINGS
CHICAGO - Recent media reports have focused on the issue of whether scheduled feedings or demand feedings are best for babies. In response to these reports, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reaffirms its stance that the best feeding schedules are ones babies design themselves. Scheduled feedings designed by parents may put babies at risk for poor weight gain and dehydration.

The AAP has always advocated breastfeeding as the optimal form of nutrition for infants, and in December 1997, the AAP issued its latest recommendations about breastfeeding infants. The policy statement says, "Newborns should be nursed whenever they show signs of hunger, such as increased alertness or activity, mouthing, or rooting. Crying is a late indicator of hunger. Newborns should be nursed approximately eight to 12 times every 24 hours until satiety ... In the early weeks after birth, nondemanding babies should be aroused to feed if 4 hours have elapsed since the last nursing."

AAP releases Warning for Ezzo's "Babywise"

2010-01-21T07:01:00.000-08:00

Infant Feeding Advice
Take A Brochure

This printable tri-fold brochure educates parents and professionals about issues raised in Babywise & Preparation for Parenting. Permission is granted to copy and distribute.
Download here Babywise and Preparation for Parenting (also known as Let the Children Come: Along the Infant Way) have been criticized by hundreds of professionals in pediatric medicine, human lactation, psychology, anthropology, child development, and theology. Problems have been associated with these programs -- cases of slow weight gain, failure to thrive, depressed babies, even hospitalization. Its feeding recommendations were the subject of a warning sent out by the AAP.

The following are some of the concerns experts share :

Lack of expertise and credentials. The primary authors of the material, Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, are self-proclaimed experts. Gary Ezzo has no background or expertise in child development, psychology, breastfeeding, or pediatric medicine, and holds neither an associate's nor a bachelor's degree from any college; his master of arts degree in Christian ministry was granted through a program that awarded credit for life experience in lieu of an undergraduate degree. Anne Marie Ezzo worked only briefly as an R.N. decades ago. It is unclear what, if anything, Babywise co-author Dr. Robert Bucknam contributed to that book, since the earlier religious versions are essentially the same with additional material and do not have his name on the cover.

Risks for breastfeeding mothers and babies. Breastfeeding on a parent-determined schedule (including a "flexible routine" as it is called in Babywise) may reduce a mother's milk supply and contradicts the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which has stated, "The best feeding schedules are the ones babies design themselves. Scheduled feedings designed by parents may put babies at risk for poor weight gain and dehydration."

Poor breastfeeding information. Although it is presented as authoritative, the breastfeeding information presented in Babywise is inaccurate and substandard (compare with the AAP Breastfeeding recommendations from the 2005 AAP Policy Statement on Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk).

One Size Doesn't Fit All. All babies and mothers are treated alike without any respect given for individual differences in breastmilk storage capacity, rate of milk synthesis, rate of infant metabolism or stomach capacity. In actuality, the number of feedings one mother's body requires in order to supply her baby with plenty of milk each day will be quite different from other mothers around her. Similarly, breastfed babies need varying amounts milk in varying numbers and sizes of feedings, and they do not feed exactly the same way from one feeding to the next in any case. Ezzo seemingly expects all babies to respond in an identical manner. This is no more realistic than expecting adults to consume the same amounts of food on the same schedule and grow (or lose weight!) at the same rate.

A high-pressure presentation impacts parents' perception of what is at stake:

Pressure to maintain the regimen. The rules for sleep, feedings and wake time are portrayed as critical to follow in order to achieve a healthy outcome, while health and behavior problems for the baby, and sleepless nights for the parents, are predicted if the program is not followed. (Flexibility is praised but is described as small, short-term adjustments to the prescribed regimen. Parents are warned against making open-ended adaptations.)

Misplaced moral dilemmas. How well the parents and the baby adhere to the program is framed as a moral or biblical issue (e.g. permissiveness on the part of parents, uncooperativeness on the part of the baby).

Parents are reluctant to give up on the method. Health care professionals have observed that even when their babies were doing poorly on the program, parents often wanted to stick with it

Ezzo's "Babywise" linked to dehydration and failure-to-thrive in infants

2010-01-21T06:54:00.000-08:00

THE OFFICIAL NEWSMAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 14 Number 4

by Matthew Aney, M.D.

Expectant parents often fear the changes a new baby will bring, especially sleepless nights. What new parent wouldn’t want a how-to book that promises their baby will be sleeping through the night by three to eight weeks?

One such book, On Becoming Babywise, has raised concern among pediatricians because it outlines an infant feeding program that has been associated with failure to thrive (FTT), poor weight gain, dehydration, breast milk supply failure, and involuntary early weaning. A Forsyth Medical Hospital Review Committee, in Winston-Salem N.C., has listed 11 areas in which the program is inadequately supported by conventional medical practice. The Child Abuse Prevention Council Of Orange County, Calif., stated its concern after physicians called them with reports of dehydration, slow growth and development, and FTT associated with the program. And on Feb. 8, AAP District IV passed a resolution asking the Academy to investigate “Babywise,” determine the extent of its effects on infant health and alert its members, other organizations and parents of its findings.

I have reviewed numerous accounts of low weight gain and FTT associated with “Babywise” and discussed them with several pediatricians and lactation consultants involved.

The book’s feeding schedule, called Parent Directed Feeding (PDF), consists of feeding newborns at intervals of three to three and one-half hours (described as two and one-half to three hours from the end of the last 30- minute feeding) beginning at birth. Nighttime feedings are eliminated at eight weeks.

This advice is in direct opposition to the latest AAP recommendations on newborn feeding (AAP Policy Statement, “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk,” Pediatrics, Dec. 1997): “Newborns should be nursed whenever they show signs of hunger, such as increased alertness or activity, mouthing, or rooting. Crying is a late indicator of hunger. Newborns should be nursed approximately eight to 12 times every 24 hours until satiety...”

Although demand feeding is endorsed by the Academy, WHO, and La Leche League among others, “Babywise” claims that demand feeding may he harmful and outlines a feeding schedule in contrast to it. The book makes numerous medical statements without references or research, despite that many are the antitheses of well-known medical research findings. In 190 pages, only two pediatric journals are referenced with citations dated 1982 and 1986.

Many parents are unaware of problems because the book is marketed as medically supported. It is co-authored by pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D., who not only states in the book that the “Babywise” principles are medically sound,” but also writes, “Babywise” has brought a needed reformation to pediatric counsel given to new parents.” Obstetrician Sharon Nelson, M.D., also warns: “Not following the principles of “Babywise” is a potential health concern.”

The book’s other author is Gary Ezzo, a pastor with no medical background. Ezzo’s company, Growing Families International (GFI), markets the book as “ideally written” for “obstetricians, pediatricians, or health-care providers to distribute to their patients.” (GFI promotes the same program under the title “Preparation for Parenting,” a virtual duplicate with added religious material).

Though “Babywise” does say, “With PDF a mother feeds her baby when the baby is hungry,” it also instructs parents to do otherwise. In a question-and-answer section, parents of a 2-week-old baby, who did not get a full feeding at the last scheduled time and wants to eat again, are instructed that babies learn quickly from the laws of natural consequences. “If your daughter doesn’t eat at one feeding, then make her wait until the next one.”

Unfortunately, the schedule in “Babywise” does not take into account differences among breastfeeding women and babies. According to one report, differences of up to 300 percent in the maximum milk storage capacity of women’s breasts mean that, although women have the capability of producing the same amount of milk over a 24-hour period for their infants, some will have to breastfeed far more frequently than others to maintain that supply. Babies must feed when they need to, with intervals and duration determined according to a variety of factors in temperament, environment, and physiological makeup. Averages may fit into a bell-shaped curve, but some babies will require shorter intervals. (Daly S., Hartmann P. “Infant demand and milk supply, Part 2. The short-term control of milk synthesis in lactating women.” Journal of Human Lactation; 11; (1):27-37).

Examples of the many other un- substantiated medical claims in “Babywise” include:

• “Lack of regularity [in feeding intervals] sends a negative signal to the baby’s body, creating metabolic confusion that negatively affects his or her hunger, digestive, and sleep/wake cycles.”

• “Demand-fed babies don’t sleep through the night.”

• “A mother who takes her baby to her breast 12, 15, or 20 times a day will not produce any more milk than the mom who takes her baby to breast six to seven times a day.”

• “Mothers following PDF have little or no problem with the let down reflex, compared to those who demand-feed.”

• “Colic, which basically is a spasm in the baby’s intestinal tract that causes pain, is very rare in PDF babies but is intensified in demand-fed babies.”

• “In our opinion, much more developmental damage is done to a child by holding him or her constantly than by putting the baby down. In terms of biomechanics alone, carrying a baby in a sling can increase neck and back problems, or even create them.”

• “Some researchers suggest that putting a baby on his or her back for sleep, rather than on the baby’s tummy, will reduce the chance of crib death. That research is not conclusive, and the method of gathering supportive data is questionable.”

My review of the low weight gain and FTT accounts associated with “Babywise” revealed several disturbing trends. Parents were often adamant about continuing with the feeding schedule, even when advised otherwise by health care professionals. They were hesitant to tell their physicians about the schedule, making it difficult to pinpoint the cause for the weight gain problems. Many elected to supplement or wean to formula rather than continue breastfeeding at the expense of the schedule. The parents’ commitment call be especially strong when they are using the program for religious reasons, even though numerous leaders within the same religious communities have publicly expressed concerns.

Pediatricians need to know about “Babywise” and recognize its potential dangers. History taking should include questions to determine if parents are using a feeding schedule, especially before advising formula supplement to breastfeeding mothers or when faced with a low-gaining or possible failure to thrive baby. Lactation consultants also should be instructed to probe this area.
Efforts should be made to inform parents of the AAP recommended policies for breastfeeding and the potentially harmful consequences of not following them.

Dr. Aney is an AAP candidate fellow based in Lancaster, Calif.