Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Nestle boycott at London Marathon (25 April 2010) and exhibition

The main sponsor of the London Marathon, taking place on 25 April 2010, is Virgin. But it is also sponsored by Nestlé Pure Life bottled water. Baby Milk Action will be raising awareness of concerns about Nestlé at the exhibition at the London Marathon exhibition and along the course of the race. If you are entered to r...un in the race, Baby Milk Action has materials, such as t-shirts and leaflets, for raising awareness about Nestlé. See:

Over the next few months we will post details to our site about where and when to turn up to expose Nestlé - although these are life and death issues, we aim for a spirit of fun to gain the support of runners and spectators and the maximum amount of publicity. To start with, you can leave a comment on the discussion board for the London Marathon on Facebook here:

Nestlé is the target of a boycott over its aggressive marketing of baby milk, which undermines breastfeeding and misleads those who use formula. For example, a current concern is its new marketing strategy claiming its formula 'protects' babies - it doesn't, babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. According to UNICEF: "Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed. These facts are not in dispute."

There is also a great deal of controversy over Nestlé's bottled water and it had to halt production of Pure Life in São Lourenço, Brazil after local residents in this historic spa town raised a petition over the destruction of the water resource on which their livelihoods depend - it took ten years to stop Nestlé's pumping operation. Other concerns about Nestlé's business practices include failing to act over child slavery in its cocoa supply chain (don't be misled by Fairtrade KitKat involving just 1% of its cocoa purchase), trade union busting and other labour concerns, spying on campaigners and other issues. See:

Stem cells could be the secret reason why breast is best

Only 3 per cent of UK mothers still breastfeed at five months

Stem cells could be the secret reason why breast is best

Scientist says mother's milk may play vital role in helping children 'fulfil their genetic destiny'

By Susie Mesure

Sunday, 22 November 2009

Breast milk, long revered for the nutritional advantages it gives a newborn, could be just as vital in terms of infant development, a leading scientist will claim this week. Up to three different types of stem cells have been discovered in breast milk, according to revolutionary new research.

Dr Mark Cregan, medical director at the Swiss healthcare and baby equipment company Medela, believes the existence of stem cells means breast milk could help a child "fulfil its genetic destiny", with a mother's mammary glands taking over from her placenta to guide infant development once her child is born.

"Breast milk is the only adult tissue where more than one type of stem cell has been discovered. That is very unique and implies a lot about the impressive bioactivity of breast milk and the consequential benefits to the breastfed infant," said Dr Cregan, who is speaking at Unicef's Baby Friendly Initiative conference this week. His research has isolated adult stem cells of epithelial (mammary) and immune origin, with "very preliminary evidence" that breast milk also contains stem cells that promotes the growth of muscle and bone tissue.

Scientists will use his discovery, made at the University of Western Australia, in Perth, Australia, to attempt to harvest stem cells from breast milk for research on a range of issues – from why some mothers struggle to produce milk to testing out new drugs that could aid milk production. "There is a plentiful resource of tissue-specific stem cells in breast milk, which are readily available and from a non-invasive and completely ethical source," Dr Cregan said.

Advocates hope the discovery will help to lift the UK's breastfeeding rates: only one-third of babies are exclusively breastfed at one week, the number dropping to one-fifth at six weeks. At five months, only 3 per cent of mothers still exclusively nurse their babies – although the World Health Organisation recommends that babies should consume only breast milk until they are at least six months old.

Rosie Dodd, campaigns director at the National Childbirth Trust, said: "This finding highlights the many factors that are in breast milk that we know so little about and that all have different advantages, such as helping a baby's immune system to develop."

Dr Cregan said the discovery of immune stem cells was the "most exciting development", adding, "It's quite possible that immune cells in breast milk can survive digestion and end up in the infant's circulation. This has been shown to be occurring in animals, and so it would be unsurprising if this was also occurring in human infants."

British scientists gave a cautious welcome to Dr Cregan's discovery, warning that just because stem cells exist in breast milk did not mean that they could be used to develop a therapy – the ultimate goal of stem cell research. Chris Mason, professor of regenerative medicine at University College London, said: "It may give us some insight into specific breast diseases and is potentially valuable when it comes to drug discovery and drug development but it is fanciful to think it could provide routine therapies."

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Not-so-Super Nanny

There is so much that bothers me about Jo Frost's attitude towards breastfeeding and natural parenting, I don't even know where to begin.

Let's start with a few tidbits from her book, shall we?

~~Frost says generations have been raised on formula and turned out "just fine".

~~Confident Baby Care recommends breastfeeding mothers consider introducing a formula feed between six weeks and three months as formula will fill babies up more so they sleep longer.

~~Use a dummy to get newborns to sleep - but no baby should go past a year with a dummy.

~~Have baby in a bassinet in your room at the beginning - for ease of feeding and to be there for him. Bed-sharing is a no-no.

~~Avoid soap on your nipples - after nursing, wash them in a teaspoon of vinegar diluted with water to sterilise, and then air-dry.

~~No controlled crying until six months.

Sigh......may I bash my forehead on the screen now? How does this women have her own television show and the admiration of millions of mothers around the world?

Ten points for comments who can spot what is wrong with her advice.

Friday, December 25, 2009

Merry Christmas!

My facebook account was disabled today. Again. No warning, no email, nothing. This upsets me most because every post, every breastfeeding link, every breastfeeding picture I ever put on facebook is gone. I try hard to be a helpful source of support for new breastfeeding moms, and now all my work and words have vanished.

I sent facebook an email asking to reinstate my account, so I will keep you all posted.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

"Nursing In Public" cards

back of card

front of card

I have lots to mail out for FREE....if you would like some to carry in your purse and pass out to moms, please email crunchymama3@yahoo.ca with your mailing address. I will send 20 unless otherwise requested.

Also available are Basinette cards and breastfeeding magnets. (see below)

front of card
back of card

And as an extra special birthday present.....

On December 24th, 2009, facebook deleted a picture of myself breastfeeding my son, Jezek, who turns 4 today. This is the photo, taken in October, 2009

Warned by facebook


You uploaded a photo that violates our Terms of Use, and this photo has been removed. Facebook does not allow photos that attack an individual or group, or that contain nudity, drug use, violence, or other violations of the Terms of Use. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children who use the site.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can visit our FAQ page at http://www.facebook.com/help.php?topic=wphotos.

The Facebook Team

Happy 4th Birthday Jezek!

Today is my son Jezek's 4th birthday, and yes, he is still nursing. Here are some of my favorite breastfeeding pictures of him.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Mothers held to ransom as breast milk sharks charge $1000

Suellen Hinde
December 20, 2009 12:00am

A BLACK market in breast milk has developed in Australia as families desperate to feed their babies the natural elixir are being charged up to $1000 a litre on the internet.

One mother contacted the Gold Coast based Mother's Milk Bank to ask what the real "going rate" was for breast milk after online sharks demanded the extortionate amount when she placed a web advert seeking human milk.

Mother's Milk Bank director Marea Ryan told her that the not-for-profit bank sold milk for $50 for 1.2 litres.

"I think it is increasing more and more as people become a lot more aware of the benefits of breastfeeding," Ms Ryan said.

Breast milk provides antibodies that protect babies against disease and is especially important for premature tots.

The news comes after The Sunday Mail revealed last week that the Gold Coast milk bank – which receives no government funding – may have to close in February if it doesn't raise $50,000 through donations or sponsorship to cover the cost of its pasteurisation unit.

RMIT (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) lactation expert Dr Jennifer James said she was aware of the growing unregulated black market.

"It is very dangerous because in an unregulated fashion there are no checks and balances, the milk would not have been tested for viruses and bacteria," Dr James said.

"Women are being put in this insidious position because of a lack of breast milk banks nationally.

"They have no option but to look outside the system."

The risky practice has increased with the advent of the internet where women advertise their milk for sale.

Dr James said there should be breast milk banks in all major hospitals but blamed inconsistent legislation for making them difficult to set up.

"In some states it is classified as a food while in others it is human tissue or bodily fluids," she said. "The milk bank at the Royal Prince Alfred in Sydney had to close down because it was classified as bodily fluid. We need nationally consistent guidelines."

The Gold Coast milk bank fought with government regulators to have breast milk classified as a food.

Breast milk in Queensland currently comes under the Transplantation and Anatomy Act 1979 and is defined as a human tissue.

The Federal Government says it supports a national breast feeding strategy

but Health Minister Nicola Roxon said there were no plans to fund "any specific milk banks".

To help the Gold Coast milk bank see www.mothersmilkbank.com.au

Cut the Crude Commentary About Breastfeeding Moms

Column: Cut the crude commentary about breast feeding moms
By Ruth Butler | The Grand Rapids Press
December 13, 2009, 5:14AM

A proposed bill to help mothers feed their babies is giving people fits?

I guess folks would prefer mothers with babies stay home - drapes closed, if possible - until the child is old enough to scarf burgers at Mickey Ds the way God intended. Isn’t that, after all, why he created formula via his humble servant Justus von Liebig in 1867? (Thanks, Wiki.)

Whether the bill protecting a mother’s right to breastfeed in public passes through the state House has become secondary. What’s appalling is the reaction of those who are a) offended and/or b) driven to crude commentaries at the prospect of moms offering nutrition to children - the ones who are America’s future and the crux of every really important protest. Cue the “What About the Children?” chorus.

Everyone needs to calm down and accept breasts make people crazy. They are sexual, they are signs of womanhood (ask any 12-year-old girl - or boy.)

They are - insert giggle here - titillating.

Yet, I’ve never met a nursing mother who viewed feeding time with her child as an equivalent to foreplay or exhibitionism.

Sure, those who think mothers caught with a hungry child in public should do it in private - ever eaten your lunch in a bathroom stall? - also claim to have seen examples of flashing during the meal. But having been one, and seen many more nursing mothers, I testify most women are discreet. They cover themselves and focus on the wonderful task at hand, rather than take feeding time as a chance to put it out there for evaluation.

Where are the howls of protest for women who do just that? Why do you think they call it Hooters? Because only wise old owls eat there? Isn’t more being offered than what’s on the menu, in a look-don’t-touch sort of way?

Seriously. Strut your stuff at the beach, on the dance floor, in situations where cleavage is expected. But feeding time? It’s among the least sexual moments of a human’s life.

The only sexual thing going on at nursing time is in the minds of others. Making it their, not the mother’s, problem. Unless, of course, she’s kicked out of a building or the police are called (Google Target, breastfeeding.)

Of course, we could follow the example of other countries that see this and other ways women weave their seductive webs as way too provocative.

Burkas all around! Cover the hair, the lips, the body. Save the weak from themselves.


Saturday, December 19, 2009

Breastfeeding in Public?

Breastfeeding in public?
Posted by Lylah M. Alphonse December 18, 2009 01:18 PM

Mother of three Mary Martinez was ousted from a Target store in Michigan earlier this month, after she began breastfeeding her hungry 4-week-old daughter in the electronics section.

Though there were few other shoppers in the area, Target security approached Martinez and her husband, Jose, and told them to leave. "He said, 'It's against the law. You have to go,'" Jose Martinez told Fox News.

The police were called, and even after an officer admitted that breastfeeding in public was not, in fact, against the law, the family was escorted out of the store.

I'm not sure whether this smacks of ignorance or is indicative of a cultural issue. So I'm throwing it out to you: Do you think this happened because of our society considers breasts to be sexual objects? Or were the security guards just ignorant about the rights of a woman to breastfeed in public?

In an interview with Amy Gates at Crunchy Domestic Goddess, Mary Martinez insisted that she had been discreet and wasn't exposing herself in the store. "She’s my 3rd child and I breastfed the other 2 until they were 2, I know how to be discreet," she said. "If you can watch the news clip [which is here], I was nursing then and I imagine that’s as much skin as I showed in the store…none."

Martinez and her husband were certain that they weren't breaking any laws because Jose Martinez happens to be a Detroit police officer. Still, he says, he asked the local police who came to the scene, just to be sure. "I asked one of them if it was indeed illegal maybe in Harper Woods to breast-feed. He said, 'No.' And that was it. We got our stuff together and we left," he told Fox News.

"Forcing me out of the store. Two security guards, the manager or team leader, two officers, they just made a spectacle and a scene. I feel like I can't go to that specific Target anymore," Mary Martinez told the news station.

The store insists that the incident became a safety issue. "This specific situation escalated to a point where we were concerned for the safety of our guests, so law enforcement was called," the store management said in a statement. "We regret the incident in our store and will continue to provide a shopping environment that respects the needs of all guests, including nursing mothers."

I think that Kate Harding at Salon put it best when she asked: "Are you kidding me? How on earth does feeding a baby "escalate" to a safety issue for other customers?"

For the record, breastfeeding in public is legal throughout the US. Forty-three states have laws on the books specifically protecting the practice, and 28 states have laws that specifically except breastfeeding from public indecency laws (you can find details at the National Conference of State Legislatures website).

The fact that we need laws about it at all, though, speaks to a larger problem. In other countries, breastfeeding is expected, even encouraged. Here, though? It's OK to wear a barely-there bikini on a crowded beach, but women are told to hide in a public restroom to feed their child?

Parents, please weigh in: How do you feel about breastfeeding in public? Moms, in particular: Did you or didn't you, and why?

Lylah M. Alphonse is a Globe staff member and mom and stepmom to five kids. She writes about juggling career and parenthood at The 36-Hour Day and blogs at Write. Edit. Repeat. E-mail her at lalphonse@globe.com.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Mum’s victory in breast milk donor battle

by Sue Carr

December 14, 2009

A MUM who was refused donor milk for her premature baby despite fighting breast cancer has had the decision overturned.

Dawn Hockey was 12 weeks pregnant with her second child when she was diagnosed with cancer in June.

Defying the odds and surviving two bouts of chemotherapy, baby Alex was born seven weeks early on November 1, weighing 4lbs 10oz.

But although doctors agreed to provide donor breast milk until Dawn could feed Alex herself, the 28-year-old ­– who also had a single mastectomy – was left devastated when bosses at Stepping Hill Hospital, in Stockport, said they were stopping the donations.

They claimed there was no evidence there was any benefit in giving milk to babies born after 29 weeks for more than the first few weeks of life.

As reported in the M.E.N. last week, Dawn, of North Road, Glossop, who is married to Michael and also has a 15-month-old son William, decided to

appeal the decision.

But after transferring from Stepping Hill to Tameside Hospital, primary care trust bosses in Tameside and Glossop decided in her favour and will supply donor milk until Dawn can breastfeed, when her chemotherapy ends in March.

Dawn said: “It’s such a relief, it’s amazing. I’m over the moon.

“He has been exposed to two doses of chemotherapy in the womb, we don’t know what damage that has done to him, and there are things in breast milk that strengthen your immune system and they are not in formula milk.

“Now we can concentrate on Christmas and I can concentrate on myself a bit more.

“It’s over and we have got what we wanted. Alex is OK and I’m OK and that’s the main thing. But I am fuming at Stepping Hill. I’m so disappointed they have put us through this.”

Tameside and Glossop PCT says the decision was based on Dawn’s ‘exceptional circumstances’ plus information supporting the continued use of donor milk and the opinion of her new paediatrician at Tameside Hospital. She now plans to make a formal complaint to Stepping Hill.

The former veterinary nurse, who has been flooded with messages of support, said: “I would like to express how grateful we are to Helen Howard, the infant feeding co-ordinator at the PCT.

“She has just been outstanding and so has Tameside Hospital.”

The Duggars

Please keep baby Josie in your prayers and thoughts. She was born prematurely, and only weighs 1 pound, 6 ounces.

Baby Duggar Taking Breast Milk; Michelle May Face Risks

Jim Bob Says Michelle Recovering But Doctors Say Women With Many Children Have Increased Incontinence, Pregnancy Risks

Dec. 16, 2009

The Duggar family's 19th child, Josie Brooklyn, who was born nearly three months premature weighing less than 2 pounds, is giving her famous family something to smile about these days: She's taking breast milk.

Reality TV mom Michelle Duggar has given birth to a premature girl.Freda Ruark, sister of mom Michelle Duggar, said that after three breast milk feedings, Josie Brooklyn was able to keep down two.

"The baby is doing great," said Ruark, who has spoken to her sister and her sister's husband, Jim Bob, every day since her niece was born.

"Josie is holding her own. As long as she can get some of that breast milk, that will help build up her immune system."

Jim Bob Duggar sent an e-mail to ABCNews.com earlier today about his wife's and daughter's condition. "Hello from the Duggar Family," he wrote. "We are so grateful for all of the prayers and emails of support for our family since Josie Brooklyn Duggar was born 12-10-09. Michelle is [recovering] from the emergency c-section and is doing [a lot] better. Josie is beautiful and in stable condition."

Ruark said she expects Michelle to stay in the hospital "for a while."

Back home, her other 18 children are "doing quite well" with the help of their grandmother, Jim Bob's mother, Mary, who lives with them. "They have lots of help," Ruark said, "and a big circle of friends. I'm sure they want mom home but the family just takes care of things."

Ruark said some of the older children were on a mission in El Salvador -- a trip family members have taken for about four years in a row -- when Josie Brooklyn was born. Their family insisted they finish the mission but they kept in touch by calling every day.

Now they all await the day their new sister can come home. Until then, however, they can keep a watch on Josie Brooklyn through the hospital's high-tech monitoring system.

Each bassinet in the neonatal intensive care unit of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences hospital is equipped with "angel-eye cameras," according to the hospital spokeswoman, which allows family, via a password, to view the baby from their home computers.

Each room is also private and equipped with a pull-out sofa to encourage parents to visit and stay with their babies.

Ruark said there have been round-the-clock prayers worldwide and the family is focused on Josie Brooklyn getting stronger and not on why and how this happened. "Really, it is God's will," Ruark said. "There is no second-guessing."

For now all eyes are on "micro-preemie" Josie Brooklyn but doctors point out that the Duggar family tradition of back-to-back pregnancies may be slowly adding to the health risks for Michelle and future Duggars.

"I am not aware of this couple's reasoning on the matter of contraception," said Dr. John B. Coppes of the Austin Medical Center-Mayo Health System in Austin, Minn. "However, I hope they are aware of the risks for Down syndrome, uterine rupture, future C-sections, pre-eclampsia."

TLC continues to report that mother and baby are doing fine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock.

All pregnancy carries risk, but some doctors say any woman, even with Duggar's stamina, increases her chances for health problems with numerous pregnancies.

For the full story, please visit


Michelle Duggar is a Breastfeeding Mom

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Helena Bonham Carter Still Nursing Her 2 Year Old

"People say, `You're still breast-feeding, that's so generous.' Generous, no! It gives me boobs and it takes my thighs away! It's sort of like natural liposuction. I'd carry on breast-feeding for the rest of my life if I could." - Helena, on breastfeeding her children

Monday, December 14, 2009


Written by Jillian Tyrer
Reposted with permission

2 friends meet at the park.....

Sue, sitting with her 2 overweight kids: Kelly! OMG! Hi! How are you???? Come, sit here!

Kelly: Ya sure! How are you? Wow, your kids are soooo...... uh.... they're really growing..... wow!

Sue: Ya...... they're big boned like their Dad. They were both born big. I can never seem to keep enough food around! Hahahahaha. I mean I admit it, I'm so tired all the time that we probably eat out about 4 or 5 times a week. That's all they'll eat is Hamburger Palace...... I put carrots and pasta and God forbid, broccoli, in front of them and they scream and cry until I give in and go to the drive thru. Hahahaha.

Kelly: Uuummmm.... ya.... hahahahahaha....... Funny, because you're so tiny...... like, you look like you take care of yourself. I'm surprised you eat at Burger Palace.

Sue: Are you kidding? I don't eat there! I get it for the kids; it's just so much easier.... I don't have to listen to all the crying and the fussing and their tummies are full. That's all that matters, ya know.....

Kelly: Uh, right..... listen Sue, I don't mean to be rude here, but you know my husband is a food inspector, right?

Sue: Yesssss......

Kelly: Well, his department just released a study on the quality of the meat that Burger Palace uses in their hamburgers and let's just say that it's not the 100% pure beef they say they use.

Sue: What are you trying to say Kelly?

Kelly: I'm trying to say that Burger Palace says their burgers are made with 100% pure beef. Which, technically, I guess they are. But it is bits of 100% pure beef mixed with lots and lots of, shall we say, non beef products. You know, like really fattening fillers like modified corn fillers and saturated shortening. Plus, my husband told me that they've switched to using this genetically modified hybrid cooking oil that has been linked to cancer!

Sue: Uh, Kelly, I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this.

Kelly: Oh, I'm just saying what he's found out about Burger Palace.... this investigation has been going on for a while and they've done lots of tests on the meat. You know they've followed many thousands of test subjects who eat there often and most of them have high cholesterol and could be classified as clinically obese. Isn't that awful? All from these horrible fillers and fats they add to the meat. Those poor people thought they were eating good old 100% pure beef. Guess not.

Sue: Are you trying to say my kids are obese? Cos that's what it sounds like you're saying.

Kelly: Uuumm, I'm trying to tell you what the studies say, Sue.

Sue: Ya, the studies say that people who eat there a lot are disgusting fat pigs and are all going to die of cancer. Thanks a lot Kelly! Who calls a kid a fat pig? Seriously! Who does that? Who wants little kids to die of cancer?

Kelly: What? I didn't call your kids fat pigs! I didn't say I want them to die of cancer! I said the research has shown that people who eat that food have a statistically higher chance of being overweight and developing cancer. That's not my opinion Sue, it's what the research has shown. Don't take it personally okay.

Sue: How can I not take it personally? I just hear you say all these bad things about my kids' favorite restaurant and I tell you I take them there all the time and then you try and make me feel guilty by spouting off this crap about obese-this and cancer-that. Nice. Nice friend you are......

Kelly: Sue, c'mon...... I just told you that stuff to give you a heads-up, in case you weren't aware..... I thought you might want to know what's in the food you give your kids. I mean, it might not be common knowledge so I thought you might want to be a bit more informed.

Sue: Oh, so now I'm stupid huh? So, I'm a crappy mother for making my kids fat and exposing them to cancer and now I'm stupid too???? You go around telling all your friends how bad they are as mothers? You go around making all your friends feel guilty?

Kelly: Okay, hold up...... I'm MAKING you feel guilty? All I did was tell you what's in the meat. That's it. I haven't said anything about what kind of mother you are. I figured you didn't know because you bring the kids here so often, so I wanted to fill you in. That's all.

Sue: I don't need anymore of your fancy "filling in", thanks Kelly. My kids JUST had doctor's appointments and he said they are super healthy and strong. Ya, maybe a bit pudgy because we don't do tons of sports, but the doctor didn't say anything about not giving them Burger Palace. He's a doctor, you know. I trust him way more than you and all your "filling in", okay......... What am I supposed to do? I mean, that's all they eat, okay? They WON'T eat other foods! So, either I starve them or give them cancer burgers? Great! So, I'm a bad Mom for feeding my kids.... lovely..... thanks for all the great information, Kelly. Thanks a lot for making me feel like the worst mother on the planet!

Kelly: Just thought I'd help........................... guess not.................

Breastfeeding may curb heart, diabetes risk factors

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Mothers who breastfeed seem to have a lower long-term risk of developing a collection of risk factors for diabetes and heart disease than women who bottle-feed, a new study suggests.


Researchers found that among 700 women followed for 20 years, those who had breastfed were less likely to develop metabolic syndrome -- a cluster of risk factors for type 2 diabetes and heart disease that includes abdominal obesity, elevated blood pressure and blood sugar, lower-than-desirable levels of "good" HDL cholesterol and elevated triglycerides (a type of blood fat).

What's more, the apparent protective effect was stronger among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a form of diabetes that arises during pregnancy and goes away after childbirth.

Although it is temporary, gestational diabetes does raise a woman's odds of eventually developing type 2 diabetes.

These latest findings suggest that breastfeeding might help diminish that excess risk, said lead investigator Dr. Erica P. Gunderson, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente's Division of Research in Oakland, California.

However, she told Reuters Health, while the study suggests breastfeeding has a "strong protective effect" against metabolic syndrome, more research is needed to see whether that translates into lower rates of diabetes and heart disease.

The study, published online in the journal Diabetes, included 704 women who were between the ages of 18 and 30 and free of metabolic syndrome at the outset, and who gave birth for the first time during the study period.

Over 20 years of follow-up, 120 were diagnosed with metabolic syndrome.

The researchers found that among women with no history of gestational diabetes, those who had breastfed for more than one month were anywhere from 39 percent to 56 percent less likely to develop metabolic syndrome -- depending on how long they had breastfed.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, breastfeeding for more than one month was linked to a 44 percent to 86 percent lower risk of metabolic syndrome.

These lower risks were seen with a number of important factors taken into account -- including the women's weight, exercise levels and the presence of any metabolic syndrome components before pregnancy.

It is not yet clear why breastfeeding itself might lower a woman's chances of developing risk factors for diabetes and heart disease.

Abdominal obesity is one of the components of metabolic syndrome, and excess weight is closely linked to type 2 diabetes. But while it's widely thought that breastfeeding aids post-pregnancy weight loss, weight changes did not explain the benefits seen in this study, Gunderson said.

Breastfeeding may help women shed a few extra pounds in the months after giving birth, the researcher noted, but there may be other metabolic effects that explain the lower risk of metabolic syndrome.

Breastfeeding may, for example, have positive effects on blood sugar levels, body fat mass or how fat is distributed throughout the body.

Whatever the reasons for the findings, Gunderson said they do suggest that breastfeeding can have "long-term health benefits" for mothers.

SOURCE: Diabetes, online December 3, 2009.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Can Breastfeeding Improve Bone Health?

Written by Kristie Leong, M.D.

If you're pregnant and can't decide whether to breastfeed or bottle feed, consider this. A new study shows that breast feeding may lower the risk of osteoporosis and bone loss. With osteoporosis and bone loss being so common among women, breastfeeding may be a way to improve bone health while building a stronger bond with the newest member of the family.

Breastfeeding to Improve Bone Health: What a New Study Shows

A study published in Family Practice News showed that not only does breastfeeding lower the risk of osteoporosis and bone loss, but delaying pregnancy until after the bones have reached their maximum density also improves bone health. Women who waited until at least twenty-seven years of age before getting pregnant and who breast fed had a five percent incidence of osteoporosis later in life compared to a twenty-five percent incidence in those who had a child at twenty-seven or later who didn't breast feed. In any case, women who breastfed regardless of the age at which they became pregnant had a lower risk of osteoporosis compared to those who didn't '" one more advantage of breastfeeding.

Other Benefits of Breastfeeding: A Reduction in Cancer Risk

Breastfeeding may do more than improve bone health and prevent fractures in old age. Breast feeding a baby also reduces the risk of breast cancer. Like pregnancy, breastfeeding reduces the number of periods a woman has over a lifetime which slightly lowers the overall risk of getting breast cancer; and the longer a women breastfeeds, the greater the reduction in risk. Each year of breastfeeding drops a woman's breast cancer risk by around four percent which adds up if you have multiple pregnancy. Breastfeeding also reduces the risk of other female cancers including uterine and ovarian cancer.

Breastfeeding helps to take off post-pregnancy weight according to some studies - allowing you to get back into pre-pregnancy shape faster. It also supplies health benefits to the growing baby by supplying the little one with antibodies to fight off infection and allergies later in life, and by creating a stronger bond between mom and baby.

The Benefits of Breastfeeding: The Bottom Line

The prevention of osteoporosis and bone loss adds to the growing list of reasons to breast feed rather than bottle feed the newborn baby. Put away the bottle and make the decision to breastfeed. It's a win-win situation for both mom and baby.


Family Practice News. November 1, 2009. page 17

Cancer Mum In Baby Milk Plea

Cancer mum in baby milk plea
Sue Carr
December 10, 2009

A YOUNG mum who was diagnosed with breast cancer while pregnant is appealing against a decision to stop giving donated breast milk to her premature baby.

Dawn Hockey, 28, was 12 weeks pregnant with her second child when she received the devastating news in June this year.

Defying the odds and surviving two bouts of chemotherapy, baby Alex was born on 1 November – seven weeks early – weighing 4lbs 10oz.

But although Dawn – who is unable to breastfeed until she has finished her treatment – claims medics agreed to provide donor milk until she could feed Alex herself, Stepping Hill Hospital has now refused, claiming it is no longer necessary.

Dawn, who lives with husband Michael, 15-month-old William and Alex at North Road, Glossop, also underwent a single mastectomy while pregnant and is currently halfway through chemotherapy.

She said: "When I was diagnosed the first response from my surgeon was to terminate, but after having three lots of surgery for endometriosis so I could have my children in the first place, there was no way they were taking this baby off me as well.

"I had to stop breastfeeding William which was heartbreaking enough and the agreement was that Alex could be on donated breast milk until I could take over when I finish my treatment in April.

"I can’t feed him, not while I’m on chemotherapy.

"He has been exposed to two doses of chemotherapy in the womb, we don’t know what damage that has done to him, and there are things in breast milk that strengthen your immune system, not in formula.

"This is our argument, this is what he needs."

Although Dawn’s address means she should be under Tameside and Glossop PCT, she has been treated at Stockport’s Stepping Hill Hospital in the past and is still in their care. She recently transferred to Tameside Hospital – which supports her case – but is waiting for a report from her new paediatrician and says for now all she can do is appeal.

She added: "Donor milk is more often than not used for women who can’t establish breastfeeding straight away. Tha’s all I am doing, it’s just that I can’t establish breastfeeding for a lot longer. Why should we be penalised because I physically can’t breastfeed him? It breaks my heart that I can’t and donor milk is the next best thing."

Stepping Hill’s chief executive Chris Burke said: "There is evidence that for sick or extremely premature babies, donor breast milk is of benefit as the first few weeks of life are critical for development of the immune system.

"However, there is no evidence that there is any benefit in giving donor breast milk to other groups of babies and North West guidelines do not recommend using donor milk for babies over 29 weeks’ gestation.

"Dawn’s baby was born at 32 weeks’ gestation and therefore there was no clinical reason to continue to provide donor breast milk to a healthy baby which in itself has inherent risks of transmission of infection."

Tameside Hospital chiefs say they support Dawn who also has letters of support from the World Health Organisation, Unicef, two GPs and her oncologist.

A spokesman for Tameside and Glossop PCT, which will make the final decision, said: "The baby has now been transferred to another paediatrician and we have requested a report outlining the need to continue on donor breast milk.

"We continue to provide this milk while it awaits the information requested and will continue to provide the milk if advised this is in the best interests of the child."

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Breast Feeding Does Not Cause Breasts To Sag

Breast Feeding Does Not Cause Breasts To Sag
By admin ⋅ December 11, 2009 ⋅

While the benefits of breastfeeding are unquestionable, many new mothers choose not to for fear of sagging breasts. However, breastfeeding alone has no impact on a woman’s breast shape, according to a first-of-its-kind study presented today at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) Plastic Surgery 2007 conference in Baltimore.

“Many women who come in for breast surgery tell us their breasts are sagging, drooping or are less full because they breastfed,” said Brian Rinker, MD, ASPS Member Surgeon and study author. “Although the amount of sagging in the breasts appears to increase with each pregnancy, we’ve found that breastfeeding does not worsen the effect.”

The study examined 93 women who were pregnant one or more times prior to having cosmetic breast surgery. Fifty-eight percent of patients reported breastfeeding one or more of their children. The duration of breastfeeding ranged from 2 to 25 months, with an average of nine months. Fifty-five percent of respondents reported an adverse change in the shape of their breasts following pregnancy.

As the first study to examine what impacts breast shape in connection to pregnancy, plastic surgeons found that a history of breastfeeding, the number of children breastfed, the duration of each child’s breastfeeding, or the amount of weight gained during pregnancy were not significant predictors for losing breast shape. However, body mass index (BMI), the number of pregnancies, a larger pre-pregnancy bra size, smoking history, and age were significant risk factors for an increased degree of breast sagging.

Nearly 104,000 women had breast lifts in 2006, up 96 percent since 2000, according to the ASPS. In addition, more than 329,000 women had breast augmentation, making it the top surgical cosmetic procedure in 2006.

“Women may be reluctant to breastfeed because of this unfounded myth that doing so means the end of youthful breasts,” said Dr. Rinker. “Now, expectant mothers can relax knowing breastfeeding does not change the appearance of their breasts.”

Breast milk provides indisputable health benefits to infants. Research has shown breastfed infants have improved general health, growth and development as well as a lower risk of many acute and chronic illnesses than bottle-fed infants.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Cancer-hit mother appeals over breastmilk ruling

Cancer-hit mother appeals over breast-milk ruling

By Charlotte McCathie, Press Association

Thursday, 10 December 2009

A new mother who cannot breastfeed because she is fighting cancer has been told she will no longer be provided with donor milk.

Dawn Hockey, 28, from Glossop, Derbyshire, was diagnosed with the illness in June, when she was three months pregnant with her baby son Alex.

The ex-veterinary nurse tried to use formula milk with Alex, who was born seven weeks prematurely on November 1, but it made him sick.

Tameside Primary Care Trust agreed to send her batches of pasteurised breast milk.

But bosses have decided to withdraw the funding, saying he no longer needs it.

The mother-of-two, who lives with her husband Michael, 15-month-old son William and baby Alex, has launched an appeal against the decision.

She said: "Alex was premature and was exposed to two doses of chemotherapy in the womb.

"We don't know what damage this has done to him, and there are things in breast milk that strengthen your immune system that are not in formula milk.

"Since he began on breast milk he has really been thriving and we just don't want it to be taken away."

Mrs Hockey, who had to have a mastectomy while pregnant, was advised to terminate the baby by doctors who feared it would interfere with her treatment, but she refused.

She said it was "heartbreaking" that she could not breastfeed until she has finished her chemotherapy in March.

"We are only asking for a few months' worth of milk.

"I have no idea where I am getting the energy from to fight this, I think it is just adrenaline keeping me going, and I will collapse in a heap when it is finished."

Mrs Hockey urged women to keep donating the milk, which she said had been a lifeline to baby Alex.

Tameside PCT has agreed to keep funding the donor milk until the result of the appeal, a spokesman said.

The decision was based on advice from a paediatrician at Stepping Hill Hospital, in Stockport, where Alex was born, and they are seeking a second opinion, he added.

"We continue to provide this milk whilst we await the clinical information requested, and will continue to provide the milk if advised this is in the best interests of the child," he said.

Oakland Milk

Feeding Moses

Robbie Goodrich, a university professor in Michigan whose wife died hours after delivering their son, always carries with him a list of two dozen telephone numbers.

The list is labelled "moms." The women on it take turns breast-feeding his son, Charles Moses Martin Goodrich, now 10-and-a-half months old.

Some of the women pump breast milk and drop it off at the door for nighttime feeds. Others visit the house and hold Moses in their arms as he sucks, often with their own children and husbands in tow. Moses nurses four times a day.

"Some people think this is just about food. I think there's so much more. It's the nurturing aspect," Mr. Goodrich, 44, said yesterday from his home in Marquette, in northern Michigan, on Lake Superior.

"He's held by mothers. He is held as much as any breast-fed child. He's nuzzled up to a mom who's stroking him, who's cooing with him, who's talking with him, whose voice he recognizes and knows."

The unique arrangement has attracted all kinds of attention, from the local newspaper to the glossy pages of People magazine to a documentary being made by supermodel Christy Turlington. Mr. Goodrich and Moses travelled to New York City for the documentary interview. While on the two-day trip, he emailed a mother in Manhattan who had offered to help not long after Moses was born. She provided breast milk for the baby during their stay.

The tale has also attracted a substantial amount of criticism from observers who question the safety and necessity of the help Mr. Goodrich is receiving. Still others argue such unwavering devotion to breast milk is irresponsible given that there are other options to feed the child.

But Mr. Goodrich dismisses such complaints, saying there is nothing wrong with having a number of women feed his son. "In a society like ours, of course a certain percentage is going to sexualize anything to do with the breast," he said. "That's their choice."

Mr. Goodrich's wife, Susan, fell into a coma soon after Moses was born at their local hospital. The baby was delivered with the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and whisked to the neonatal intensive care unit. Susan died of an amniotic fluid embolism 11 hours later.

The nurses asked for permission to feed the baby. Susan had nursed three other children for a year each. Knowing how important it was to her, he asked whether breast milk was available -- some hospitals have milk banks.

Mr. Goodrich was told breast milk could be trucked in from a milk bank in Kalamazoo, Mich., more than 700 kilometres and an eight-hour drive south. It would take two days and cost US$5 an ounce. He placed an order.

Waiting for the milk to arrive, he received a call from Laura Janowski, a family friend: She offered to breast-feed her friend's baby.

The offer appealed to Mr. Goodrich. Musing to a friend, he wondered whether other women might be willing to help as well. The call quickly went out through doulas, midwives, breast-feeding support groups and friends. By the next morning, his friends had begun organizing a nursing schedule. They checked with doctors and lactation specialists to ensure the plan was safe.

Susan died on a Sunday. The following Wednesday at 9 a.m., as Mr. Goodrich was preparing for his wife's funeral, the first "mom" turned up at the door to breast-feed Moses. The same woman, Carrie Fiocchi, breast-fed the baby just yesterday. She still arrives every morning at the same time.

"Rather than the house being full of death and mourning, it's full of life and love," Mr. Goodrich said.

Earlier this year, Hollywood actress Salma Hayek made headlines for nursing a hungry child during a charity trip in Sierra Leone. She was weaning her own daughter at the time.

Nursing another woman's baby has not always been considered rare. Throughout history, women who have been unable to nurse - or, at times, because of higher economic status - relied on wet nurses to feed their infants. The practice declined at the end of the 19th century, as bottle-feeding became more popular, said Molly Ladd-Taylor, a professor of history at York University.

Moses' story "captures the old and the new," said Prof. Ladd-Taylor, who edited "Bad" Mothers: The Politics of Blame in Twentieth-Century America, a collection of essays.

"What's interestng about this case is that the women involved are part of a community. In that sense, it goes back to a tradition of communal child-rearing - ‘It takes a village to raise a child.' "

National Post


Presented by

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2291572#ixzz0ZR38d8Vy
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
The following article is taken from one of my favorite blogs


Saturday, August 22, 2009
Enfamil's New "RestFull" Formula Discourages Necessary Night-time Parenting
Oh my.

This is just sick.


Parents of newborns are tired. Yes, we know this. It is normal. Baby's sleep patterns are all their own - for their own protective health. See Dr. Sears' The Baby Sleep Book or Elizabeth Pantley's The No-Cry Sleep Solution for more helpful information on your baby's sleep (and better nights for you too).

One thing is for certain: Babies are not *designed* to be left alone, ignored all night long - and to have their tiny developing guts stuffed up with junk (decreasing immunity, increasing constipation and belly aches, raising cortisol and other stress hormones, causing an irregularity in respiration - an increase in SIDS, and denying them the human milk they were meant to consume).

Babies need to sleep lightly and/or wake up frequently at night - it is a very protective feature against SIDS (might this new formula be linked with a SIDS increase?) Babies need frequent night feeding due to the rapid pace of neurological development that occurs especially during those sleepy, night-time hours when calories and energy are all focused on the brain.

If you don't wish to PARENT a baby (even during the nighttime hours), then don't have a baby.

I'll quote Emma, a smart mother and baby-health activist on this one: "This is especially designed to sit & rot in your infant's gut all night! Pick your babies up & feed them at night, too!"

It is frightening that for a profit, Enfamil is playing on parents' exhaustion and need for sleep at the expense of babies' health and wellbeing. It is all about $$$ today, isn't it?

New Enfamil® RestFull™
Specially designed to help babies feel full longer and sleep better.
Give your baby a RestFull Night.
Your baby needs a proper amount of sleep to keep her healthy and happy. That's why we created new Enfamil RestFull, the formula specially designed to naturally encourage a good night's sleep.

A natural way to help keep your baby feeling satisfied.
Thickens gently in baby's tummy and digests slowly.

*If you feel the need to tell me I don't know what I am talking about, rest assured I spent 7 years of my graduate career studying babies' health. I know the research. More details are provided in this linked follow up. Please read and check out the extensive medical literature on the topic. Formula companies exist to make money ~ not to make healthy human beings.*

Waldorf Doll

'Breast is Best' message flawed

'Breast is best' message flawed
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
University of Wollongong
Current promotional and educational programs which describe breastfeeding as 'best' are undermining women’s capacity to make informed decisions about infant feeding, according to an article published by a University of Wollongong doctoral student in Maternal and Child Nutrition.

Ms Nina Berry from UOW’s Centre for Health Initiatives was joint author of a report with Karleen Gribble from the University of Western Sydney called “Breast is no longer best: promoting normal infant feeding”. Breastfeeding is not 'best', say the authors, it is simply the normal way to feed human infants.

The article suggested that breastfeeding promotion and education programs should abandon the ‘breast is best’ message because it is misleading and fails to communicate the importance of breastfeeding.

“In fact, these messages may have obscured the importance of breastfeeding to infant and maternal health and the well-established risks associated with early weaning from breastfeeding,” Ms Berry said. "To say that 'breast is best' is to suggest that what breastfeeding offers is a handful of optional bonuses and that formula-fed infants are the normal standard for comparison. In fact, human babies were designed to be fed human milk."

“Research has found that while most people accept that breastfed babies are healthier, they do not understand that this means that formula-fed babies are likely to be sicker. Because formula feeding is viewed as harmless, women are not getting the support they need to continue breastfeeding and to make informed choices about infant feeding. This misunderstanding demonstrates the failure of the ‘breast is best’ message and the need to rethink breastfeeding promotion”, she said.

The paper in Maternal and Child Nutrition also illuminates an important addition to the body of evidence pointing to the significance of using breastfed babies as the control group when conducting research.

The World Health Organisation (WHO)’s Multicenter Growth Reference study found that the growth of formula- fed babies deviated from that of breastfed babies and that using growth charts based on formula-fed babies could be contributing to the current obesity epidemic.

The use of formula-fed babies in control groups makes it difficult for readers to see that formula-fed babies are at increased risk of adverse health outcomes, Ms Berry said.

The WHO recommends that children are breastfed for up to two years or more and that they should not be given any food or drink other than breast milk for the first six months of their lives.

“It takes a great deal of support for mothers to reach these goals. However, mothers are not being provided with adequate support because the risks associated with early introduction of foods other than human milk are not well understood by health professionals. Furthermore, many health professionals are reluctant to talk to mothers about risks because they do not want to make mothers feel guilty. This is not about guilt. It is about a mother’s right to have all the information she needs to make an informed choice about how she should feed her baby – it is about ensuring that mothers have the support they need,” Ms Berry said.

Editor's Note: Original news release can be found here.

Breastfeeding May Reduce Diabetes Risk

Breastfeeding May Reduce Diabetes Risk
Lactation History Linked to Less Metabolic Syndrome
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MDDec. 3, 2009 -- There is more evidence that breastfeeding benefits moms as well as their babies.

Breastfeeding was shown to significantly lower a woman’s risk for developing metabolic syndrome in a study reported today by researchers with Kaiser Permanente.

The longer the women in the study breastfed, the more protection they seemed to derive.

Insulin Resistance, Belly Fat
Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of risk factors linked to both diabetes and heart disease, including elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance, and belly fat.

The new study is one of the most rigorously designed trials ever to explore the impact of breastfeeding on such risk factors.

Researchers examined data on 704 women who were followed for two decades, starting before their first pregnancy.

Because the women were enrolled in a larger heart disease risk study, the researchers had information on wide range of health and lifestyle factors. None of the women had metabolic syndrome at enrollment, but 120 developed the condition during the 20 years of follow-up.

In the population as a whole, breastfeeding for longer than nine months was associated with a 56% reduction in risk for developing metabolic syndrome during the follow-up period.

In women who developed gestational diabetes during one or more pregnancies, the risk reduction was 86%.

Gestational diabetes is a major predictor of type 2 diabetes. Women who develop diabetes during pregnancy have a fourfold greater risk for developing type 2 diabetes, lead researcher Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, tells WebMD.

“Our study is the first to examine lactation and metabolic syndrome in women with this risk factor,” she says. “Our findings indicate that this very vulnerable group may benefit from breastfeeding.”

Breastfeeding for as little as a month or two appeared to convey some benefit, but not as much as longer lactation.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and will be published in the February, 2010, issue of the journal Diabetes.

Breastfeeding May Lower Belly Fat
There is some evidence that women who breastfeed lose pregnancy weight quicker and that they lead healthier lifestyles than new mothers who do not breastfeed.

The Kaiser researchers adjusted for lifestyle factors such as exercise level and smoking in their study.

And Gunderson says overall weight differences did not explain the protection breastfeeding appeared to convey in this study.

But there is a suggestion that breastfeeding is specifically linked to a reduction in belly fat. Central obesity, or belly fat, and insulin resistance are two important risk factors for metabolic syndrome.

“Belly fat seemed to be disproportionably increased due to pregnancy, and perhaps lactation helps women lose this abdominal fat,” she says. “This is something we need to look at more closely.”

The study is not the first to suggest that women who breastfeed have a lower risk for developing diabetes years later.

In 2005, researchers from Harvard Medical School came to the same conclusion after analyzing data on 160,000 female nurses enrolled in two health studies.

The research suggested that each year of breastfeeding is associated with a 15% reduction in diabetes risk within the next 15 years.

Lead researcher Alison M. Stuebe, MD, told WebMD at the time that a woman with two children could potentially lower her risk for developing diabetes by almost a third by following the advice of child health experts and breastfeeding each child for a year.

Attachment Parenting

Breastfeeding And Jaundice

Breastfeeding and Jaundice
Introduction Jaundice is due to a buildup in the blood of bilirubin, a yellow pigment that comes from the breakdown of old red blood cells. It is normal for old red blood cells to break down, but the bilirubin formed does not usually cause jaundice because the liver metabolizes it and gets rid of it into the gut. The newborn baby, however, often becomes jaundiced during the first few days because the liver enzyme that metabolizes bilirubin is relatively immature. Furthermore, newborn babies have more red blood cells than adults, and thus more are breaking down at any one time; as well many of these cells are different from adult red cells and they don’t live as long. All of this means more bilirubin will be made in the newborn baby’s body. If the baby is premature, or stressed from a difficult birth, or the infant of a diabetic mother, or more than the usual number of red blood cells are breaking down (as can happen in blood incompatibility), the level of bilirubin in the blood may rise higher than usual levels.

Two Types of Jaundice
The liver changes bilirubin so that it can be eliminated from the body (the changed bilirubin is now called conjugated, direct reacting, or water soluble bilirubin--all three terms mean essentially the same thing). If, however, the liver is functioning poorly, as occurs during some infections, or the tubes that transport the bilirubin to the gut are blocked, this changed bilirubin may accumulate in the blood and also cause jaundice. When this occurs, the changed bilirubin appears in the urine and turns the urine brown. This brown urine is an important clue that the jaundice is not “ordinary”. Jaundice due to conjugated bilirubin is always abnormal, frequently serious and needs to be investigated thoroughly and immediately. Except in the case of a few extremely rare metabolic diseases, breastfeeding can and should continue.

Accumulation of bilirubin before it has been changed by the enzyme of the liver may be normal— “physiologic jaundice” (this bilirubin is called unconjugated, indirect reacting or fat soluble bilirubin). Physiologic jaundice begins about the second day of the baby's life, peaks on the third or fourth day and then begins to disappear. However, there may be other conditions that may require treatment that can cause an exaggeration of this type of jaundice. Because these conditions have no association with breastfeeding, breastfeeding should continue. If, for example, the baby has severe jaundice due to rapid breakdown of red blood cells, this is not a reason to take the baby off the breast. Breastfeeding should continue in such a circumstance.

So-Called Breastmilk Jaundice
There is a condition commonly called breastmilk jaundice. No one knows what the cause of breastmilk jaundice is. In order to make this diagnosis, the baby should be at least a week old, though interestingly, many of the babies with breastmilk jaundice also have had exaggerated physiologic jaundice. The baby should be gaining well, with breastfeeding alone, having lots of bowel movements, passing plentiful, clear urine and be generally well (see the information sheet Is my Baby Getting Enough Milk? and see also the video clips at the website nbci.ca). In such a setting, the baby has what some call breastmilk jaundice, though, on occasion, infections of the urine or an under functioning of the baby's thyroid gland, as well as a few other even rarer illnesses may cause the same picture. Breastmilk jaundice peaks at 10-21 days, but may last for two or three months. Breastmilk jaundice is normal. Rarely, if ever, does breastfeeding need to be discontinued even for a short time. Only very occasionally is any treatment, such as phototherapy, necessary. There is not one bit of evidence that this jaundice causes any problem at all for the baby. Breastfeeding should not be discontinued “in order to make a diagnosis”. If the baby is truly doing well on breast only, there is no reason, none, to stop breastfeeding or supplement even if the supplementation is given with a lactation aid, for that matter. The notion that there is something wrong with the baby being jaundiced comes from the fact that the formula feeding baby is the model we think is the one that describes normal infant feeding and we impose it on the breastfed baby and mother. This manner of thinking, almost universal amongst health professionals, truly turns logic upside down. Thus, the formula feeding baby is rarely jaundiced after the first week of life, and when he is, there is usually something wrong. Therefore, the baby with so called breastmilk jaundice is a concern and “something must be done”. However, in our experience, most exclusively breastfed babies who are perfectly healthy and gaining weight well are still jaundiced at five to six weeks of life and even later. The question, in fact, should be whether or not it is normal not to be jaundiced and is this absence of jaundice something we should worry about? Do not stop breastfeeding for “breastmilk” jaundice.

Not-Enough-Breastmilk Jaundice
Higher than usual levels of bilirubin or longer than usual jaundice may occur because the baby is not getting enough milk. This may be due to the fact that the mother's milk takes longer than average to “come in” (but if the baby feeds well in the first few days this should not be a problem), or because hospital routines limit breastfeeding or because, most likely, the baby is poorly latched on and thus not getting the milk which is available (see the information sheet Is my Baby Getting Enough Milk? and see also the video clips at the website nbci.ca). When the baby is getting little milk, bowel movements tend to be scanty and infrequent so that the bilirubin that was in the baby's gut gets reabsorbed into the blood instead of leaving the body with the bowel movements. Obviously, the best way to avoid "not-enough-breastmilk jaundice" is to get breastfeeding started properly (see the information sheet Breastfeeding—Starting Out Right). Definitely, however, the first approach to not-enough-breastmilk jaundice is not to take the baby off the breast or to give bottles (see the information sheet Protocol to Manage Breastmilk Intake). If the baby is breastfeeding well, more frequent feedings may be enough to bring the bilirubin down more quickly, though, in fact, nothing really needs be done. If the baby is breastfeeding poorly, helping the baby latch on better may allow him to breastfeed more effectively and thus receive more milk. Compressing the breast to get more milk into the baby may help (see the information sheet Breast Compression). If latching and breast compression alone do not work, a lactation aid would be appropriate to supplement feedings (see the information sheet Lactation Aid). See also the information sheet: Protocol to Manage Breastmilk Intake. See also the website nbci.ca for videos to help use the Protocol by showing how to latch a baby on, how to know the baby is getting milk, how to use compressions, as well as other information on breastfeeding.

Phototherapy (Bilirubin Lights)
Phototherapy increases the fluid requirements of the baby. If the baby is breastfeeding well, more frequent feeding can usually make up this increased requirement. However, if it is felt that the baby needs more fluids, use a lactation aid to supplement, preferably expressed breastmilk, expressed milk with sugar water or sugar water alone rather than formula.

Questions? First look at the website nbci.ca or drjacknewman.com. If the information you need is not there, go to Contact Us and give us the information listed there in your email. Information is also available in Dr. Jack Newman’s Guide to Breastfeeding (called The Ultimate Breastfeeding Book of Answers in the USA); and/or our DVD, Dr. Jack Newman’s Visual Guide to Breastfeeding (available in French or with subtitles in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian); and/or The Latch Book and Other Keys to Breastfeeding Success; and/or L-eat Latch and Transfer Tool; and/or the GamePlan for Protecting and Supporting Breastfeeding in the First 24 Hours of Life and Beyond.

To make an appointment online with our clinic please visit www.nbci.ca. If you do not have easy access to email or internet, you may phone (416) 498-0002.

Breastfeeding and Jaundice, 2009©
Written and revised (under other names) by Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC, 1995-2005©
Revised by Jack Newman MD, FRCPC, IBCLC and Edith Kernerman, IBCLC, 2008, 2009©


Breastfeeding PSA's From Around the World


Breastmilk Component Kills Cancer Cells

Breastmilk component kills cancer cells

A few years ago immunology student, Anders Hakansson1, of Lund University, Sweden, was experimenting by mixing human milk, cancer cells and bacteria. To his surprise the cancer cells were "acting up". Their volume was decreasing and their nuclei shrinking. Hakansson's supervisor, Catharina Svanborg, quickly recognized that the cancer cells were committing suicide. The phenomenon of apoptosis, whereby the body rids itself of old and unnecessary cells was well known, however for this to occur with cancer cells was unknown as their usual pattern is to reproduce in an uncontrolled fashion. Something in the breastmilk caused the cancer cells to self-destruct. Svanborg and her team had already done extensive investigation in the ability of breastmilk to protect the gut lining from invasive bacteria such as pneumococcus that causes the increased rates of upper respiratory tract infections and otitis media in children not breastfed. And so they began to track down the cancer-killing component in breastmilk. Then in 1995 they reported2 that the protein alpha-lactalbumin, or alpha-lac for short, was capable of targeting not only cancer cells but also other immature and rapidly growing cells, leaving stable, mature cells for growth and development. Alpha-lac's amazing capabilities may explain in part why formula fed infants suffer from increased rates of infectious diseases as well as childhood cancers.

1. Discover Magazine, June 30, 1999

2. Hakahsson, A. et al. Apoptosis induced by a human milk protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 92:8064-8068, 1995


Breastfeeding Twins and Triplets

Check out this blog!


Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Breastfeeding Not to Blame for Recent Infant Death

Breastfeeding Not to Blame for Recent Infant Death, Urge Experts
Co-Sleeping -- Not Breastfeeding -- May Be At Fault, Experts Say
ABC News Medical Unit
Dec. 2, 2009

A mother may have accidentally smothered her child when she fell asleep while nursing on board a transatlantic flight last Tuesday, according to reports in the British media.

United Airlines declined to confirm to ABCNews.com that an infant had died aboard one of their flights, but did say that flight 982 from Washington, D.C., to Kuwait last Tuesday, Nov. 24, was diverted to London Heathrow Airport due to an "ill passenger."

But according to U.K. press reports, the unscheduled landing occurred after an Egyptian woman dozed off while nursing her 4-week-old infant and woke to find her child was pale and not breathing.

While this rare scenario, if true, could alarm many mothers, pediatric experts caution that breastfeeding is safe -- and the episode should not discourage its practice.

"This has nothing to do with breastfeeding," says Heather Kay, a lactation consultant in Princeton, N.J. She says it's not the breastfeeding, but rather, the act of falling asleep while holding an infant that can lead to accendental death.

"If she had been holding the child and she fell asleep, she could have smothered it as well [and] making it sound like [breastfeeding] is the reason the baby died...is a really uncomfortable idea," Kay says.

Though an on-board doctor attempted to resuscitate the child and the plane diverted to London's Heathrow Airport so that the child could be rushed to nearby Hillingdon Hospital, the child was pronounced dead upon arrival according to reports in the British newspaper The Sun.

United Airlines declined to identify the woman due to privacy laws.

Breastfeeding Not to Blame, Experts Say
Though it is very rare, this would not be the first time that sleep-nursing has resulted in accidental death.

In 2006, British mother Lisa Briggs told the U.K. press that she accidentally smothered her child after falling asleep while nursing and said she had previously lost an infant under similar circumstances.

"Breastfeeding doesn't smother babies," says Dr. Ruth Lawrence, past president and founder of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. "I don't know a mother who hasn't fallen asleep while feeding her child, whether nursing or bottle-feeding," Lawrence adds.

Instead, Lawrence feels there must have other extenuating circumstances responsible for the death because "under normal circumstances, babies do not get smothered [while breastfeeding]."

Monday, November 30, 2009

New HIV Recommendations---WHO

New HIV recommendations to improve health, reduce infections and save lives
World AIDS Day 2009
30 November 2009 -- On the eve of World AIDS Day, WHO is releasing new recommendations on treatment, prevention and infant feeding in the context of HIV, based on the latest scientific evidence.

WHO now recommends earlier initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for adults and adolescents, the delivery of more patient-friendly antiretroviral drugs (ARVs), and prolonged use of ARVs to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV. For the first time, WHO recommends that HIV-positive mothers or their infants take ARVs while breastfeeding to prevent HIV transmission.

"These new recommendations are based on the most up to date, available data," said Dr Hiroki Nakatani, Assistant Director General for HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases at the World Health Organization. "Their widespread adoption will enable many more people in high-burden areas to live longer and healthier lives."

An estimated 33.4 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and there are some 2.7 million new infections each year. Globally, HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of mortality among women of reproductive age.

New treatment recommendations
In 2006, WHO recommended that all patients start ART when their CD4 count (a measure of immune system strength) falls to 200 cells/mm3 or lower, at which point they typically show symptoms of HIV disease. Since then, studies and trials have clearly demonstrated that starting ART earlier reduces rates of death and disease. WHO is now recommending that ART be initiated at a higher CD4 threshold of 350 cells/mm3 for all HIV-positive patients, including pregnant women, regardless of symptoms.

WHO also recommends that countries phase out the use of Stavudine, or d4T, because of its long-term, irreversible side-effects. Stavudine is still widely used in first-line therapy in developing countries due to its low cost and widespread availability. Zidovudine (AZT) or Tenofovir (TDF) are recommended as less toxic and equally effective alternatives.

The 2009 recommendations outline an expanded role for laboratory monitoring to improve the quality of HIV treatment and care. They recommend greater access to CD4 testing and the use of viral load monitoring when necessary. However, access to ART must not be denied if these monitoring tests are not available.

Preventing mother-to-child transmission and improving child survival
In 2006, WHO recommended that ARVs be provided to HIV-positive pregnant women in the third trimester (beginning at 28 weeks) to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. At the time, there was insufficient evidence on the protective effect of ARVs during breastfeeding. Since then, several clinical trials have shown the efficacy of ARVs in preventing transmission to the infant while breastfeeding. The 2009 recommendations promote the use of ARVs earlier in pregnancy, starting at 14 weeks and continuing through the end of the breastfeeding period.

WHO now recommends that breastfeeding continue until the infant is 12 months of age, provided the HIV-positive mother or baby is taking ARVs during that period. This will reduce the risk of HIV transmission and improve the infant's chance of survival.

"In the new recommendations, we are sending a clear message that breastfeeding is a good option for every baby, even those with HIV-positive mothers, when they have access to ARVs," said Daisy Mafubelu, WHO's Assistant Director General for Family and Community Health.

National health authorities are encouraged by WHO to identify the most appropriate infant feeding practice (either breastfeeding with ARVs or the use of infant formula) for their communities. The selected practice should then be promoted as the single standard of care.

Benefits and challenges
An earlier start to antiretroviral treatment boosts the immune system and reduces the risks of HIV-related death and disease. It also lowers the risk of HIV and TB transmission.

The new prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) recommendations have the potential to reduce mother-to-child HIV transmission risk to 5% or lower. Combined with improved infant feeding practices, the recommendations can help to improve child survival.

The main challenge lies in increasing the availability of treatment in resource-limited countries. The expansion of ART and PMTCT services is currently hindered by weak infrastructure, limited human and financial resources, and poor integration of HIV-specific interventions within broader maternal and child health services.

The recommendations, if adopted, will result in a greater number of people needing treatment. The associated costs of earlier treatment may be offset by decreased hospital costs, increased productivity due to fewer sick days, fewer children orphaned by AIDS and a drop in HIV infections.

Another challenge lies in encouraging more people to receive voluntary HIV testing and counselling before they have symptoms. Currently, many HIV-positive people are waiting too long to seek treatment, usually when their CD4 count falls below 200 cells/mm3. However, the benefits of earlier treatment may also encourage more people to undergo HIV testing and counselling and learn their HIV status.

WHO, in collaboration with key partners, will provide technical support to countries to adapt, adopt and implement the revised guidelines. Implemented at a wide scale, WHO's new recommendations will improve the health of people living with HIV, reduce the number of new HIV infections and save lives.

For more information please contact:
Saira Stewart
Telephone: +41 22 791 2511
E-mail: stewarts@who.int

Olivia Lawe-Davis
Telephone: +41 22 791 1209
Mobile: +41 794 755 545
E-mail: lawedavieso@who.int

Heidi Klum Finding Four Kids "Tough"


German supermodel Heidi Klum has found being a mother of four ''tough'' since she gave birth to her new daughter Lou last month.

Heidi Klum admits it's "tough" having four children.

The German supermodel - who gave birth to daughter Lou last month - is struggling to adapt because her newborn baby demands a lot of her time and attention.

Heidi - who is married to singer Seal - told German magazine Gala: "Of course this is all very tough for me at the moment because Leni, Henry and Johan want to continue to do things with their mama and papa. They are not really interested in the fact that you have just had a baby. Seal and I have a lot of work because we have to divide everything among us. But it's great! We are incredibly happy and the family really satisfies me.

"At the moment Lou needs me enormously. Not only because of breastfeeding but also because she needs to be close to her mother. She will sleep now for a year with us in our bedroom - just as her siblings did. It's easier at night if she is hungry."

The 36-year-old beauty keeps her other children - daughter Leni, five, and sons Henri, four, and Johan, three - happy by making sure they're kept busy.

Heidi - who along with Seal have released photographs of their new daughter on the 46-year-old musician's official website, Seal.com - explained: "You must always think of new things - this is sometimes a challenge. We often make play dates with other kids or we go to the park. On weekends we like to go to Disneyland."

30 November 2009 10:08:56 AM

Friday, November 27, 2009

A note from Dr. Jack Newman on Milk Production

A note from Dr Jack Newman on Milk ProductionShare
Friday, November 27, 2009 at 10:20am
I am hearing more and more often that mothers are being told that if they haven't developed an adequate milk production by 6 or 8 weeks after birth, that they never will. From our clinic experience and the experience of many many mothers, this is patently untrue.

Many mothers will give up breastfeeding on hearing this sort of information. But there is so much more to breastfeeding than the milk so that even if the mother cannot produce all the milk the baby needs, it's still worth maintaining the breastfeeding.

See the websites www.nbci.ca or www.drjacknewman.com for our Protocol to manage breastmilk intake by the baby.

Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Stem cells could be the secret reason why breast is best

Stem cells could be the secret reason why breast is best

Scientist says mother's milk may play vital role in helping children 'fulfil their genetic destiny'

By Susie Mesure

Only 3 per cent of UK mothers still breastfeed at five months

Breast milk, long revered for the nutritional advantages it gives a newborn, could be just as vital in terms of infant development, a leading scientist will claim this week. Up to three different types of stem cells have been discovered in breast milk, according to revolutionary new research.

Dr Mark Cregan, medical director at the Swiss healthcare and baby equipment company Medela, believes the existence of stem cells means breast milk could help a child "fulfil its genetic destiny", with a mother's mammary glands taking over from her placenta to guide infant development once her child is born.

"Breast milk is the only adult tissue where more than one type of stem cell has been discovered. That is very unique and implies a lot about the impressive bioactivity of breast milk and the consequential benefits to the breastfed infant," said Dr Cregan, who is speaking at Unicef's Baby Friendly Initiative conference this week. His research has isolated adult stem cells of epithelial (mammary) and immune origin, with "very preliminary evidence" that breast milk also contains stem cells that promotes the growth of muscle and bone tissue.

Scientists will use his discovery, made at the University of Western Australia, in Perth, Australia, to attempt to harvest stem cells from breast milk for research on a range of issues – from why some mothers struggle to produce milk to testing out new drugs that could aid milk production. "There is a plentiful resource of tissue-specific stem cells in breast milk, which are readily available and from a non-invasive and completely ethical source," Dr Cregan said.

Advocates hope the discovery will help to lift the UK's breastfeeding rates: only one-third of babies are exclusively breastfed at one week, the number dropping to one-fifth at six weeks. At five months, only 3 per cent of mothers still exclusively nurse their babies – although the World Health Organisation recommends that babies should consume only breast milk until they are at least six months old.

Rosie Dodd, campaigns director at the National Childbirth Trust, said: "This finding highlights the many factors that are in breast milk that we know so little about and that all have different advantages, such as helping a baby's immune system to develop."

Dr Cregan said the discovery of immune stem cells was the "most exciting development", adding, "It's quite possible that immune cells in breast milk can survive digestion and end up in the infant's circulation. This has been shown to be occurring in animals, and so it would be unsurprising if this was also occurring in human infants."

British scientists gave a cautious welcome to Dr Cregan's discovery, warning that just because stem cells exist in breast milk did not mean that they could be used to develop a therapy – the ultimate goal of stem cell research. Chris Mason, professor of regenerative medicine at University College London, said: "It may give us some insight into specific breast diseases and is potentially valuable when it comes to drug discovery and drug development but it is fanciful to think it could provide routine therapies.

Nestle seen weighing possible Cadbury bid: report

Sun Nov 22, 1:40 PM
ZURICH (Reuters) - Swiss food giant Nestle may consider a bid for Britain's Cadbury to challenge a hostile 9.9 billion-pound bid by Kraft Foods Inc and a potential move by Hershey, Bloomberg reported on Sunday.

Nestle was still weighing its options and could decide against a bid, Bloomberg said, citing two unnamed people with knowledge of the matter.

Nestle declined to comment on Sunday.

Italian chocolate maker Ferrero and U.S.-based Hershey , have teamed up and said on Wednesday they were reviewing a possible offer for Cadbury.

Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore has reported that Hershey executives will go to Italy to hold a definitive meeting with Ferrero in the coming days.

Ferrero was not available for a comment.

Meanwhile, Cadbury's Chairman Roger Carr told the Sunday Telegraph his group would prefer a merger with U.S. chocolate maker Hershey rather than Kraft . But he added both bids could fail should they not be generous enough.


Analysts had been viewing Nestle as a potential suitor for Cadbury. But such a deal may face some antitrust hurdles.

Nestle said in October it was likely to exercise its option beginning in January 2010 to sell its remaining 52 percent stake in Alcon, potentially raising up to $28 billion, so it could easily afford big buys.

The Swiss giant has declined to comment on Cadbury so far. It has said it does not plan any big acquisitions this year or next, but will focus on a strategy of "bolt-on" buys.

Due to competition issues, analysts had speculated that the Swiss company might consider a joint offer with U.S.-based Hershey Co, with the U.S. group seeking Cadbury's chocolate interests and leaving Nestle with the Trident chewing gum business.

But Nestle has been silent since Hershey and Italy's Ferrero said separately on Wednesday they were considering a bid.

Some market players have suggested Nestle could still help Hershey fund a bid by buying its U.S. license for the KitKat brand, potentially worth around $3 billion to 3.5 billion.

The Cadbury riddle is a difficult one to solve as virtually all players would face antitrust issues if they move, said an M&A expert who declined to be named.

(Writing by Lisa Jucca and Emma Thomasson; additional reporting by Jo Winterbottom in Milan; Editing by Maureen Bavdek)

Monday, November 16, 2009

Why is breastmilk critical for babies?

To view video, please visit:


Saturday, November 7, 2009

Couple flee to save their unborn baby from social workers after girl, 17, is told she is not clever enough to look after her child

Couple flee to save their unborn baby from social workers after girl, 17, is told she is not clever enough to look after her child
By Alison Smith Squire
Last updated at 12:03 PM on 07th November 2009

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225878/Couple-flee-save-baby-social-workers-girl-17-told-clever-look-child.html#ixzz0dTAtD6dw
A heavily pregnant woman and her fiance have gone on the run after social workers threatened to take away their baby at birth.
Kerry Robertson, 17, and Mark McDougall, 25, had been told that she was not bright enough to raise their child and that they would have to give him up.
It was another blow for the couple, whose wedding this year was halted just 48 hours before the ceremony in a row over whether Miss Robertson was intelligent enough to marry.

Miss Robertson, who is 29 weeks pregnant, has since been told the couple will be allowed only a few hours with their baby - a boy they have already named Ben - before he is taken into care and placed with foster parents.
Desperate to keep their family together, the pair fled their home yesterday for a secret safe house.
Last night, Miss Robertson, who has mild learning difficulties, said: 'I have been out of my mind with worry about my unborn baby being taken away.
'Although Ben isn't born yet, I already love my baby and know I will be a good mum. Mark and I talk to him inside me every day and tell him we love him.
'We've already bought him clothes and my cousin, who recently had a baby, has handed down a beautiful crib for him.
'But social workers aren't even giving me a chance to be a mum. It's as if social workers are trying to rule my life and I just couldn't take the pressure from them any more.'

Mr McDougall, an artist, said they had made their decision after seeing minutes of a meeting this week where social workers claimed their baby could suffer 'emotional harm' if left with Miss Robertson - an allegation they say is 'ridiculous'.
He said: 'It was clear to Kerry and I that although social workers recently appeared to backtrack, telling us they would not make any decision about our baby until he is born, the truth is they intend to take him away. Kerry was in pieces.
'She is pregnant with her first baby so we don't see how, before he is even here, social workers can say she won't be a good parent. The pressure that social workers have been putting both of us under is huge.
'When Kerry found out she was pregnant, a care worker mentioned she might not be able to keep the baby but we never believed they would do something as cruel as to take him away.
'We are constantly lying awake at night worrying what the next day will bring.
'Not only am I extremely angry and upset about the way we've been treated, I have become worried for Kerry's and our unborn baby's health. I defy anyone to put up with what we've had to put up with.'
The couple, who left their home in Fife, Scotland, after a leaving party for friends and family, say they do not know how long it will be before they can return.
A family law expert said: 'If Miss Robertson gave birth in Fife and then fled with the baby, after the local authority had got a care order, she would be liable for child abduction.
'But by fleeing while pregnant, Miss Robertson has not broken any law, as far as I'm aware.
'If she has her baby outside the jurisdiction of Fife council, they no longer have any power to take the child into care.
'Rather, they would have to locate her and alert the relevant council who would have to apply for a removal order themselves.'
Miss Robertson has been in the care of her grandmother since she was nine months old after her parents were unable to care for her, with her welfare overseen by social workers at Fife Council.
She and Mr McDougall decided to marry after she became pregnant. But in a highly unusual step, Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife Council wrote a letter of objection.
Under British law, a registrar can refuse to marry a couple if he believes one or both parties lack the mental capacity to understand what marriage is about.
Their case has been referred to the European Human Rights Commission, which is investigating whether Fife has broken human rights laws.
Mr McDougall said: 'Kerry and I always wanted our baby to be born to married parents and we are still hoping to get married.
'We have also offered to go to parenting classes and have a lot of support from family and friends. We feel if Fife really wanted to help us they would allow us to get married.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225878/Couple-flee-save-baby-social-workers-girl-17-told-clever-look-child.html#ixzz0dTAd2L8S

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225878/Couple-flee-save-baby-social-workers-girl-17-told-clever-look-child.html#ixzz0dTAQLSni