The photo that was banned from facebook in July, 2007
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Breaking it down for Facebook
http://phdinparenting.com/2008/12/30/breaking-it-down-for-facebook/
Let’s start with a bit of history. Back in June 2007, a facebook group was created called “Hey facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene (Official petition to facebook)” after Kelli Roman (see Time interview with Kelli) had breastfeeding pictures removed from the site. The membership of the group grew exponentially, reaching 6,000 members by August 2007, 26,000 members one month later, and then all the way up to 89,971 members at the time I wrote this post. I honestly thought through the strength of that group that facebook had backed down back in 2007 or at least become complacent on the issue.
Then, on November 6th, 2008 I got a tweet from Heather Farley (@TopHat8855) saying “facebook took my profile pic down because it was of me breastfeeding. Calling in the troops (or whatever I can find)“ and later said “going to write an email. Someone is messing with the wrong lactivist “. This kicked off round two against facebook on this issue. Heather has been blogging and tweeting about it ever since her original post called Obscenities and has been involved in arranging protests and nurse-ins, as have many others.
Other than encouraging people to take part in the December 27 virtual protest against facebook, I hadn’t blogged about this issue yet because I thought others were doing a great job. But over the past 24 hours I’ve started hearing way too many things that are getting me riled up. So let me break the issues and arguments down for you.
Three reasons people may wish to post breastfeeding pictures
I keep hearing people say “I know that breastfeeding is normal and natural, but why do these women want to post their breastfeeding pictures anyway?” Ultimately, I don’t think it matters why. Each person will have their own reasons, but here are a few possibilities:
1) It is beautiful and cute: A lot of breastfeeding pictures are beautiful. They are an artistic expression of a relationship between a mother and her child. Like other art, it deserves an audience. Some of this art is photographic (like my portrait taken by photographer Annie Lance). Some are paintings, including historical and contemporary pieces. One of my new favourites is this watercolour by Vancouver artist Erika Hastings . In addition to being artistic, many of these photos are cute and parents love showing off their adorable babies to their friends on facebook.
2) They are proud of their accomplishment: Breastfeeding isn’t easy for everyone. A lot of women struggle through bad latches, poor milk supply, sore nipples, and other breastfeeding challenges and if they persevere, they want to share their success with others. Other people like to post pictures of themselves getting their university degree. Well, honestly, that was a walk in the park compared to the effort I put into breastfeeding my son.
3) Marking a milestone in their child’s life: Parents like to show friends and relatives pictures and videos of their kids meeting milestones. Especially if aunts, uncles, and grandparents are not close-by, facebook can be an ideal platform for being able to share those special moments. Whether it is breastfeeding, first solids foods, standing up, smiling, or going down the slide, these are the moments people want to share with those that are important to them.
Three stupid reasons for wanting to ban breastfeeding pictures from facebook
Okay, now let’s break down the dumbass reasons people keep using to justify facebook’s ban.
1) Breasts are sexual and breastfeeding is private: I put these together because they are linked. The only reason that people think breastfeeding needs to be private is because we sexualize breasts. People will mask this by saying something like “it is a natural and beautiful private moment between a baby and mother“. Hmm…why isn’t it private then when a mother bottle feeds her baby while lovingly holding him and gazing into his eyes. Really, breasts are for feeding babies. Perhaps they have other purposes too, but their primary function is to feed babies. Our society has turned this completely on its head. Daniel does a great job explaining this on culturefeast:
Men and women alike have abysmally poor role models in their parents, extended family, and teachers. Men are taught by example to view breasts as a intensely sexual parts of the female body. They are one of the hottest visual hotspots on a woman. Many men face a sort of sexual confusion when their wives or girlfriends first breastfeed a baby.
2) I don’t want to look at your breastfeeding pictures: People keep saying this over and over again. I don’t want to see pictures of women breastfeeding. Well good for you. I also don’t want to look at pictures of your dog with reindeer antlers, you and your drunk buddies at a bar, you and some celebrity you ran into, or your parents at their 50th wedding anniversary. It simply doesn’t interest me. So I don’t click on those pictures. Or if I’m really repulsed by them, then I can always de-friend you. It is ridiculous to censor something just because some people don’t like it and if we were going to be there, I’d have a list a mile long of things that I consider more offensive and less attractive than breastfeeding.
3) You signed up to facebook, so play by their rules: I like facebook. I like it a lot. It is a great medium for interacting with people and sharing things about my life. But most of all it is great because everyone else uses it too. If I decide not to be part of facebook and instead go to some mommy site that will allow and support my breastfeeding pictures, that won’t be much good to me because the people I want to interact with aren’t there.
The whole “if you don’t like it, go elsewhere” attitude is very typical of current American culture. If you are having problems with your spouse, get a divorce. If you don’t like your boss, quit your job. If you don’t like an employee’s clothes, fire him. If you get bad service somewhere, boycott that place.
Well I’m sorry, but I don’t go away that easily. If I am in a good relationship, but there are a few problems then I’d rather work on those problems than just jump ship. If I am getting crappy service somewhere, then I’d rather bring it up with the manager and see if they can improve. If I don’t like a company’s policies, then I’ll also raise it with them and try to get them to change it.
Discriminatory policies get changed when people fight them. Not when they go elsewhere.
Three reasons why facebook should allow breastfeeding pictures
Now finally, here are three reasons why facebook should allow breastfeeding pictures. I’m not the only one blogging about these issues. Heather Farley mentioned many of them in her letter to facebook and other bloggers have raised these too.
1) The facebook double standard - revenue generating boobies are allowed: As Chris Brogan pointed out in his post “facebook shows me boobies“, breasts (bare breasts, completely topless woman, in sexual context) are allowed on facebook and they’re served up as paid advertising to those that are in the right demographic for boobies. Beyond the advertising issue, there are plenty of photos on facebook of women in bikinis or other low cut outfits that show an awful lot more breast than I do when I’m breastfeeding. Seriously, just search on “breasts” on facebook and you’ll get plenty of examples. So what is it facebook? Breasts or no breasts?
2) Normalizing breastfeeding and protecting human rights: Breast is best. It is by far the best nutrition for a baby. Yet only 31.5% of American babies were still exclusively breastfed at 3 months (exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for at least 6 months by all major health authorities). This is not good enough. We need society to see breastfeeding as normal. Not something to be hidden or ashamed of. It is also a human rights issue, as Heather explains:
When pictures are removed of breastfeeding and not of artificial feeding, breastfeeding mothers are being discriminated against and a wrongful double standard is set. After all, a bottle is simply a plastic, prosthetic disembodied breast in size, form, and function. Additionally, many groups such as the Ontario Human Rights Commission have stated that breastfeeding right issues are human rights issues and that discrimination against a breastfeeding mother is discrimination of her rights.
3) Women and mothers are a big part of facebook’s members: People are mad. Almost ninety-thousand (yes - 90,000) people are members of the Hey facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene (Official petition to facebook) group. Right now, these are mad people that would like to continue using facebook, but that want it to change its policies. But the whole issue is causing some people like Maria Lavis to look at facebook’s policies regarding photos more closely and she is finding plenty of other things she doesn’t like about them and thinking of getting off of facebook (and taking friends and family with her) as a result. This could become much bigger than a few breastfeeding mothers and I don’t think facebook wants it to go there.
It all boils down to this
Not everyone wants to post breastfeeding pictures and not everyone wants to look at breastfeeding pictures, but the same could be said of any picture on facebook. If facebook is going to allow pictures it should allow breastfeeding pictures. HEY FACEBOOK, BREASTFEEDING IS NOT OBSCENE!
P.S. - I syndicate my blog onto my facebook profile, so this post is up there. I would encourage you to share it on your facebook profile too!
Let’s start with a bit of history. Back in June 2007, a facebook group was created called “Hey facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene (Official petition to facebook)” after Kelli Roman (see Time interview with Kelli) had breastfeeding pictures removed from the site. The membership of the group grew exponentially, reaching 6,000 members by August 2007, 26,000 members one month later, and then all the way up to 89,971 members at the time I wrote this post. I honestly thought through the strength of that group that facebook had backed down back in 2007 or at least become complacent on the issue.
Then, on November 6th, 2008 I got a tweet from Heather Farley (@TopHat8855) saying “facebook took my profile pic down because it was of me breastfeeding. Calling in the troops (or whatever I can find)“ and later said “going to write an email. Someone is messing with the wrong lactivist “. This kicked off round two against facebook on this issue. Heather has been blogging and tweeting about it ever since her original post called Obscenities and has been involved in arranging protests and nurse-ins, as have many others.
Other than encouraging people to take part in the December 27 virtual protest against facebook, I hadn’t blogged about this issue yet because I thought others were doing a great job. But over the past 24 hours I’ve started hearing way too many things that are getting me riled up. So let me break the issues and arguments down for you.
Three reasons people may wish to post breastfeeding pictures
I keep hearing people say “I know that breastfeeding is normal and natural, but why do these women want to post their breastfeeding pictures anyway?” Ultimately, I don’t think it matters why. Each person will have their own reasons, but here are a few possibilities:
1) It is beautiful and cute: A lot of breastfeeding pictures are beautiful. They are an artistic expression of a relationship between a mother and her child. Like other art, it deserves an audience. Some of this art is photographic (like my portrait taken by photographer Annie Lance). Some are paintings, including historical and contemporary pieces. One of my new favourites is this watercolour by Vancouver artist Erika Hastings . In addition to being artistic, many of these photos are cute and parents love showing off their adorable babies to their friends on facebook.
2) They are proud of their accomplishment: Breastfeeding isn’t easy for everyone. A lot of women struggle through bad latches, poor milk supply, sore nipples, and other breastfeeding challenges and if they persevere, they want to share their success with others. Other people like to post pictures of themselves getting their university degree. Well, honestly, that was a walk in the park compared to the effort I put into breastfeeding my son.
3) Marking a milestone in their child’s life: Parents like to show friends and relatives pictures and videos of their kids meeting milestones. Especially if aunts, uncles, and grandparents are not close-by, facebook can be an ideal platform for being able to share those special moments. Whether it is breastfeeding, first solids foods, standing up, smiling, or going down the slide, these are the moments people want to share with those that are important to them.
Three stupid reasons for wanting to ban breastfeeding pictures from facebook
Okay, now let’s break down the dumbass reasons people keep using to justify facebook’s ban.
1) Breasts are sexual and breastfeeding is private: I put these together because they are linked. The only reason that people think breastfeeding needs to be private is because we sexualize breasts. People will mask this by saying something like “it is a natural and beautiful private moment between a baby and mother“. Hmm…why isn’t it private then when a mother bottle feeds her baby while lovingly holding him and gazing into his eyes. Really, breasts are for feeding babies. Perhaps they have other purposes too, but their primary function is to feed babies. Our society has turned this completely on its head. Daniel does a great job explaining this on culturefeast:
Men and women alike have abysmally poor role models in their parents, extended family, and teachers. Men are taught by example to view breasts as a intensely sexual parts of the female body. They are one of the hottest visual hotspots on a woman. Many men face a sort of sexual confusion when their wives or girlfriends first breastfeed a baby.
2) I don’t want to look at your breastfeeding pictures: People keep saying this over and over again. I don’t want to see pictures of women breastfeeding. Well good for you. I also don’t want to look at pictures of your dog with reindeer antlers, you and your drunk buddies at a bar, you and some celebrity you ran into, or your parents at their 50th wedding anniversary. It simply doesn’t interest me. So I don’t click on those pictures. Or if I’m really repulsed by them, then I can always de-friend you. It is ridiculous to censor something just because some people don’t like it and if we were going to be there, I’d have a list a mile long of things that I consider more offensive and less attractive than breastfeeding.
3) You signed up to facebook, so play by their rules: I like facebook. I like it a lot. It is a great medium for interacting with people and sharing things about my life. But most of all it is great because everyone else uses it too. If I decide not to be part of facebook and instead go to some mommy site that will allow and support my breastfeeding pictures, that won’t be much good to me because the people I want to interact with aren’t there.
The whole “if you don’t like it, go elsewhere” attitude is very typical of current American culture. If you are having problems with your spouse, get a divorce. If you don’t like your boss, quit your job. If you don’t like an employee’s clothes, fire him. If you get bad service somewhere, boycott that place.
Well I’m sorry, but I don’t go away that easily. If I am in a good relationship, but there are a few problems then I’d rather work on those problems than just jump ship. If I am getting crappy service somewhere, then I’d rather bring it up with the manager and see if they can improve. If I don’t like a company’s policies, then I’ll also raise it with them and try to get them to change it.
Discriminatory policies get changed when people fight them. Not when they go elsewhere.
Three reasons why facebook should allow breastfeeding pictures
Now finally, here are three reasons why facebook should allow breastfeeding pictures. I’m not the only one blogging about these issues. Heather Farley mentioned many of them in her letter to facebook and other bloggers have raised these too.
1) The facebook double standard - revenue generating boobies are allowed: As Chris Brogan pointed out in his post “facebook shows me boobies“, breasts (bare breasts, completely topless woman, in sexual context) are allowed on facebook and they’re served up as paid advertising to those that are in the right demographic for boobies. Beyond the advertising issue, there are plenty of photos on facebook of women in bikinis or other low cut outfits that show an awful lot more breast than I do when I’m breastfeeding. Seriously, just search on “breasts” on facebook and you’ll get plenty of examples. So what is it facebook? Breasts or no breasts?
2) Normalizing breastfeeding and protecting human rights: Breast is best. It is by far the best nutrition for a baby. Yet only 31.5% of American babies were still exclusively breastfed at 3 months (exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for at least 6 months by all major health authorities). This is not good enough. We need society to see breastfeeding as normal. Not something to be hidden or ashamed of. It is also a human rights issue, as Heather explains:
When pictures are removed of breastfeeding and not of artificial feeding, breastfeeding mothers are being discriminated against and a wrongful double standard is set. After all, a bottle is simply a plastic, prosthetic disembodied breast in size, form, and function. Additionally, many groups such as the Ontario Human Rights Commission have stated that breastfeeding right issues are human rights issues and that discrimination against a breastfeeding mother is discrimination of her rights.
3) Women and mothers are a big part of facebook’s members: People are mad. Almost ninety-thousand (yes - 90,000) people are members of the Hey facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene (Official petition to facebook) group. Right now, these are mad people that would like to continue using facebook, but that want it to change its policies. But the whole issue is causing some people like Maria Lavis to look at facebook’s policies regarding photos more closely and she is finding plenty of other things she doesn’t like about them and thinking of getting off of facebook (and taking friends and family with her) as a result. This could become much bigger than a few breastfeeding mothers and I don’t think facebook wants it to go there.
It all boils down to this
Not everyone wants to post breastfeeding pictures and not everyone wants to look at breastfeeding pictures, but the same could be said of any picture on facebook. If facebook is going to allow pictures it should allow breastfeeding pictures. HEY FACEBOOK, BREASTFEEDING IS NOT OBSCENE!
P.S. - I syndicate my blog onto my facebook profile, so this post is up there. I would encourage you to share it on your facebook profile too!
Friday, December 26, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008 virtual event
BY WILL OREMUS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Facebook is accustomed to parents complaining about racy photographs posted on its site, but now some mothers are seething over revealing pictures it refuses to allow on its pages.
A group called the Mothers International Lactation Campaign, or MILC, is planning a “nurse-in” outside the social network’s Palo Alto offices to protest its removal of user-posted images that show women breastfeeding their babies. The demonstration, planned for Dec. 27, will also have a virtual component, as thousands of people across the Web make nursing photos their main profile picture.
The protesters say breastfeeding is not obscene, and Facebook’s removal of their pictures sends the wrong message to mothers everywhere.
A Facebook spokesman on Tuesday clarified that the site does allow breastfeeding photos as long as they don’t show a fully exposed breast.
MILC organizer Heather Farley of Provo, Utah, said she was surprised last month when Face-book took down two photos of her nursing her 6month-old daughter, one of which was her profile picture.“Where I live, I can breast-feed in public or private, and there are laws that say it’s not obscene or lewd or indecent,” said Farley, 23. “If I can do it in public, why can’t I do it on Facebook?”
Censoring such images, she said, reinforces stigmas that discourage mothers from a healthy, natural practice. Angry at the site, but not wanting to lose her online friend network by unsubscribing, she took action by joining like-minded mothers in a Facebook based petition called “Hey, Facebook, breast-feeding is not obscene!”As of Tuesday, the group had more than 53,000 members.
Farley isn’t sure how many will turn out for the nurse-in, planned for 11 a.m. on Dec. 27 at 156 UniversityAve., but she’s hoping for at least 20. She said more than 2,000 have already signed up for the virtual protest.
Facebook had no comment on the planned demonstration.
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Facebook is accustomed to parents complaining about racy photographs posted on its site, but now some mothers are seething over revealing pictures it refuses to allow on its pages.
A group called the Mothers International Lactation Campaign, or MILC, is planning a “nurse-in” outside the social network’s Palo Alto offices to protest its removal of user-posted images that show women breastfeeding their babies. The demonstration, planned for Dec. 27, will also have a virtual component, as thousands of people across the Web make nursing photos their main profile picture.
The protesters say breastfeeding is not obscene, and Facebook’s removal of their pictures sends the wrong message to mothers everywhere.
A Facebook spokesman on Tuesday clarified that the site does allow breastfeeding photos as long as they don’t show a fully exposed breast.
MILC organizer Heather Farley of Provo, Utah, said she was surprised last month when Face-book took down two photos of her nursing her 6month-old daughter, one of which was her profile picture.“Where I live, I can breast-feed in public or private, and there are laws that say it’s not obscene or lewd or indecent,” said Farley, 23. “If I can do it in public, why can’t I do it on Facebook?”
Censoring such images, she said, reinforces stigmas that discourage mothers from a healthy, natural practice. Angry at the site, but not wanting to lose her online friend network by unsubscribing, she took action by joining like-minded mothers in a Facebook based petition called “Hey, Facebook, breast-feeding is not obscene!”As of Tuesday, the group had more than 53,000 members.
Farley isn’t sure how many will turn out for the nurse-in, planned for 11 a.m. on Dec. 27 at 156 UniversityAve., but she’s hoping for at least 20. She said more than 2,000 have already signed up for the virtual protest.
Facebook had no comment on the planned demonstration.
Monday, October 27, 2008
How Breastfeeding Transfers Immunity to Babies
How Breastfeeding Transfers Immunity To Babies
ScienceDaily
(Oct. 27, 2008) — A BYU-Harvard- Stanford research team hasidentified a molecule that is key to mothers’ ability to pass along immunityto intestinal infections to their babies through breast milk. The study highlights an amazing change that takes place in a mother’s bodywhen she begins producing breast milk.
For years before her pregnancy, cells that produce antibodies against intestinal infections travel around hercirculatory system as if it were a highway and regularly take an “off-ramp”to her intestine. There they stand ready to defend against infections such as cholera or rotavirus. But once she begins lactating, some of these same antibody-producing cells suddenly begin taking a different “off-ramp,” so to speak, that leads to the mammary glands.
That way, when her baby nurses, the antibodies go straight to his intestine and offer protection while he builds up his own immunity. This is why previous studies have shown that formula-fed infants have twice the incidence of diarrheal illness as breast-fed infants. Until now, scientists did not know how the mother’s body signaled the antibody-producing cells to take the different off-ramp. The new study identifies the molecule that gives them the green light.
“Everybody hears that breastfeeding is good for the baby,” said Eric Wilson, the Brigham Young University microbiologist who is the lead author on thestudy. “But why is it good? One of the reasons is that mothers’ milk carries protective antibodies which shield the newborn from infection, and this study demonstrates the molecular mechanisms used by the mother’s body to get these antibody-producing cells where they need to be.”
Understanding the role of the molecule, called CCR10, also has implications for potential future efforts to help mothers better protect their infants. “This tells us that this molecule is extremely important, so if we want to design a vaccine for the mother so she could effectively pass protective antibodies to the child, it would be absolutely essential to induce high levels of CCR10,” said Wilson.
Speaking broadly about the long-term applications of this research, BYU undergraduate Elizabeth Nielsen Low, a co-author on the paper, said, “If we know how these cells migrate, we’ll be able to hit the right targets to ge tthem to go where we want them.” Daniel Campbell is a researcher at the Benroya Research Institute in Seattlea nonprofit organization that specializes in the immune system, and was not affiliated with this study. “The molecular basis for this redistribution [of the mother’s cells] has not been well characterized, but Dr. Wilson’s work has begun to crack that code and define the molecules responsible for this cellular redistribution and passive immunity,” Campbell said. “It is important work that fundamentallyenhances our understanding of how immunity is provided to the [baby] via themilk.
Dr. Wilson’s study will certainly form the basis for many other studies aimed at uncovering how the immune system is organized, particularlyat mucosal surfaces.” To conduct their research, the team used so-called “knock-out mice” that had been genetically engineered to lack the CCR10 molecule. Whereas normal lactating mice had hundreds of thousands of antibody-producing cells intheir mammary glands, the BYU team found that the knock-out mice had more than 70 times fewer such cells. Tests verified that the absence of CCR10 wasresponsible for the deficiency. Surprisingly, the research also showed that CCR10 does not play the same crucial role in signaling antibody-producing cells to migrate to the intestine. Another molecule is their “traffic light.”
The findings will be published in the Nov. 1 issue of the Journal of Immunology. The study was supported by Wilson’s grant from the National Institutes of Health, funding which continues for another 18 months and supports his and his students’ further investigation into the cells behind transfer of immunity in breast milk.
Wilson’s other students who are also co-authors on the paper are Yuetching Law, Kathryn Distelhorst and Erica D. Hill.
The Harvard Medical School co-authors are Olivier Morteau, Craig Gerard, Bao Lu, Sorina Ghiran and Miriam Rits.
The Stanford University School of Medicine co-authors are Raymond Kwan, Nicole H. Lazarus and Eugene C. Butcher.
ScienceDaily
(Oct. 27, 2008) — A BYU-Harvard- Stanford research team hasidentified a molecule that is key to mothers’ ability to pass along immunityto intestinal infections to their babies through breast milk. The study highlights an amazing change that takes place in a mother’s bodywhen she begins producing breast milk.
For years before her pregnancy, cells that produce antibodies against intestinal infections travel around hercirculatory system as if it were a highway and regularly take an “off-ramp”to her intestine. There they stand ready to defend against infections such as cholera or rotavirus. But once she begins lactating, some of these same antibody-producing cells suddenly begin taking a different “off-ramp,” so to speak, that leads to the mammary glands.
That way, when her baby nurses, the antibodies go straight to his intestine and offer protection while he builds up his own immunity. This is why previous studies have shown that formula-fed infants have twice the incidence of diarrheal illness as breast-fed infants. Until now, scientists did not know how the mother’s body signaled the antibody-producing cells to take the different off-ramp. The new study identifies the molecule that gives them the green light.
“Everybody hears that breastfeeding is good for the baby,” said Eric Wilson, the Brigham Young University microbiologist who is the lead author on thestudy. “But why is it good? One of the reasons is that mothers’ milk carries protective antibodies which shield the newborn from infection, and this study demonstrates the molecular mechanisms used by the mother’s body to get these antibody-producing cells where they need to be.”
Understanding the role of the molecule, called CCR10, also has implications for potential future efforts to help mothers better protect their infants. “This tells us that this molecule is extremely important, so if we want to design a vaccine for the mother so she could effectively pass protective antibodies to the child, it would be absolutely essential to induce high levels of CCR10,” said Wilson.
Speaking broadly about the long-term applications of this research, BYU undergraduate Elizabeth Nielsen Low, a co-author on the paper, said, “If we know how these cells migrate, we’ll be able to hit the right targets to ge tthem to go where we want them.” Daniel Campbell is a researcher at the Benroya Research Institute in Seattlea nonprofit organization that specializes in the immune system, and was not affiliated with this study. “The molecular basis for this redistribution [of the mother’s cells] has not been well characterized, but Dr. Wilson’s work has begun to crack that code and define the molecules responsible for this cellular redistribution and passive immunity,” Campbell said. “It is important work that fundamentallyenhances our understanding of how immunity is provided to the [baby] via themilk.
Dr. Wilson’s study will certainly form the basis for many other studies aimed at uncovering how the immune system is organized, particularlyat mucosal surfaces.” To conduct their research, the team used so-called “knock-out mice” that had been genetically engineered to lack the CCR10 molecule. Whereas normal lactating mice had hundreds of thousands of antibody-producing cells intheir mammary glands, the BYU team found that the knock-out mice had more than 70 times fewer such cells. Tests verified that the absence of CCR10 wasresponsible for the deficiency. Surprisingly, the research also showed that CCR10 does not play the same crucial role in signaling antibody-producing cells to migrate to the intestine. Another molecule is their “traffic light.”
The findings will be published in the Nov. 1 issue of the Journal of Immunology. The study was supported by Wilson’s grant from the National Institutes of Health, funding which continues for another 18 months and supports his and his students’ further investigation into the cells behind transfer of immunity in breast milk.
Wilson’s other students who are also co-authors on the paper are Yuetching Law, Kathryn Distelhorst and Erica D. Hill.
The Harvard Medical School co-authors are Olivier Morteau, Craig Gerard, Bao Lu, Sorina Ghiran and Miriam Rits.
The Stanford University School of Medicine co-authors are Raymond Kwan, Nicole H. Lazarus and Eugene C. Butcher.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
2008 Breastfeeding Challenge, Edmonton Journal article
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=d29ab790-87a0-478b-9da0-b8815ba66f24
Breastfeeding mothers converge on WEM
Jennifer Yang, Journal Staff WriterPublished: 1:21 pm
EDMONTON - This Saturday at exactly 11 a.m., 27 mothers gathered at West Edmonton Mall and slipped out their breasts to feed their babies.
The women and their 30 babies and toddlers (some mothers fed two at a time) for the Quintessence Breastfeeding Challenge 2008, a global event designed to raise public awareness of breastfeeding.
The competition has mothers feeding their babies simultaneously, either in public places or at private events. In the end, participants tally their totals to determine which city had the most babies "latched on" at 11 a.m. local time.
In Edmonton, this year's challenge was sponsored by a local group called the Breastfeeding and Lactation Information and Support Source, or BLISS.
"It's kind of hard to even make breastfeeding 'normal' in a society that sees breasts as sexual," said Karen Speed, the founder of BLISS. "Breasts are made for breastfeeding ... it's the perfect food for babies and no formula will be ever, ever made that's as good for babies."
Participating mom Lee-Ann Grenier arrived for the challenge with her two children, 22-month-old Danica and her five-year-old son Zale.
She said a woman once kicked her out of a swimming pool for breastfeeding, calling it "indecent."
"I felt really stigmatized," she said. "I didn't feel like I was feeding my baby, I felt like I was doing something slutty."
For Grenier, this is exactly the attitude she wants to dismantle by participating in the challenge. She thinks people have become overly focused on breasts as sexual objects as opposed to a healthy and natural source of food for babies.
"I feel it's really important to support breastfeeding and its visibility in our community," she said. "It's the one way that I know I'm meeting my children's needs for security as well as for food."
jyang@thejournal.canwest.com
© Edmonton Journal 2008
Breastfeeding mothers converge on WEM
Jennifer Yang, Journal Staff WriterPublished: 1:21 pm
EDMONTON - This Saturday at exactly 11 a.m., 27 mothers gathered at West Edmonton Mall and slipped out their breasts to feed their babies.
The women and their 30 babies and toddlers (some mothers fed two at a time) for the Quintessence Breastfeeding Challenge 2008, a global event designed to raise public awareness of breastfeeding.
The competition has mothers feeding their babies simultaneously, either in public places or at private events. In the end, participants tally their totals to determine which city had the most babies "latched on" at 11 a.m. local time.
In Edmonton, this year's challenge was sponsored by a local group called the Breastfeeding and Lactation Information and Support Source, or BLISS.
"It's kind of hard to even make breastfeeding 'normal' in a society that sees breasts as sexual," said Karen Speed, the founder of BLISS. "Breasts are made for breastfeeding ... it's the perfect food for babies and no formula will be ever, ever made that's as good for babies."
Participating mom Lee-Ann Grenier arrived for the challenge with her two children, 22-month-old Danica and her five-year-old son Zale.
She said a woman once kicked her out of a swimming pool for breastfeeding, calling it "indecent."
"I felt really stigmatized," she said. "I didn't feel like I was feeding my baby, I felt like I was doing something slutty."
For Grenier, this is exactly the attitude she wants to dismantle by participating in the challenge. She thinks people have become overly focused on breasts as sexual objects as opposed to a healthy and natural source of food for babies.
"I feel it's really important to support breastfeeding and its visibility in our community," she said. "It's the one way that I know I'm meeting my children's needs for security as well as for food."
jyang@thejournal.canwest.com
© Edmonton Journal 2008
Angelina Jolie breastfeeds on W magazine cover
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/10/people.angelina.jolie.ap/index.html
NEW YORK (AP) -- We've already seen the baby pictures -- now see the photo of Angelina Jolie apparently breastfeeding on the cover of W magazine.
On the cover of the new W, Angelina Jolie is apparently shown breastfeeding one of the couple's newborn twins.
Jolie appears on the cover of the W's November issue in a sleeveless top, which has been opened to reveal part of her left breast and a tiny hand ostensibly belonging to one of her twins, Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline, who were born in July.
The black-and-white photo shows Jolie smiling, her long brown hair cascading over her shoulder. The cover headline promises exclusive "private photos" of the 33-year-old actress by her partner Brad Pitt.
Jolie last caused a stir when she wore a white nursing bra underneath her tank top on the cover of People magazine after she and Pitt welcomed daughter Shiloh, now 2 years old.
Another breast-feeding cover that got people talking was in the summer of 2006, when Babytalk magazine published a photo of a baby and part of a woman's breast in profile. The magazine conducted a poll of more than 4,000 readers; a quarter of responses were negative, finding the photo inappropriate.
La Leche League International, the world's oldest breast-feeding support organization, applauds Jolie's apparent decision to be photographed nursing.
"Breast-feeding in public reveals a whole lot less than what has been revealed on the red carpet. ... I think we do need more role models like Angelina Jolie willing to be photographed and say, 'Hey look, it can be done, it oughta be done,' " said La Leche spokeswoman Jane Crouse.
Besides Shiloh and the twins, Pitt and Jolie also are parents to three adopted children: Maddox, 7, from Cambodia; Pax, 4, from Vietnam; Zahara, 3, from Ethiopia.
Exclusive photos of the Jolie-Pitt clan have fetched millions of dollars. Last summer, People magazine and the British tabloid Hello! paid $14 million in a joint deal to publish the first shots of the family with newborn Knox and Vivienne. Jolie and Pitt allowed such access in exchange for a donation to charity.
Jolie, who won a supporting actress Academy Award for 1999's "Girl, Interrupted," has drawn Oscar buzz for Clint Eastwood's missing-child drama "Changeling," slated for release October 24.
Pitt portrays a fitness club dimwit in Joel and Ethan Coen's recent comedy "Burn After Reading," co-starring George Clooney, John Malkovich and Frances McDormand.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More:
http://ibtimes.com/articles/20081009/photo-magazine-cover-shows-angelina-jolie-breastfeeding.htm
NEW YORK (AP) -- We've already seen the baby pictures -- now see the photo of Angelina Jolie apparently breastfeeding on the cover of W magazine.
On the cover of the new W, Angelina Jolie is apparently shown breastfeeding one of the couple's newborn twins.
Jolie appears on the cover of the W's November issue in a sleeveless top, which has been opened to reveal part of her left breast and a tiny hand ostensibly belonging to one of her twins, Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline, who were born in July.
The black-and-white photo shows Jolie smiling, her long brown hair cascading over her shoulder. The cover headline promises exclusive "private photos" of the 33-year-old actress by her partner Brad Pitt.
Jolie last caused a stir when she wore a white nursing bra underneath her tank top on the cover of People magazine after she and Pitt welcomed daughter Shiloh, now 2 years old.
Another breast-feeding cover that got people talking was in the summer of 2006, when Babytalk magazine published a photo of a baby and part of a woman's breast in profile. The magazine conducted a poll of more than 4,000 readers; a quarter of responses were negative, finding the photo inappropriate.
La Leche League International, the world's oldest breast-feeding support organization, applauds Jolie's apparent decision to be photographed nursing.
"Breast-feeding in public reveals a whole lot less than what has been revealed on the red carpet. ... I think we do need more role models like Angelina Jolie willing to be photographed and say, 'Hey look, it can be done, it oughta be done,' " said La Leche spokeswoman Jane Crouse.
Besides Shiloh and the twins, Pitt and Jolie also are parents to three adopted children: Maddox, 7, from Cambodia; Pax, 4, from Vietnam; Zahara, 3, from Ethiopia.
Exclusive photos of the Jolie-Pitt clan have fetched millions of dollars. Last summer, People magazine and the British tabloid Hello! paid $14 million in a joint deal to publish the first shots of the family with newborn Knox and Vivienne. Jolie and Pitt allowed such access in exchange for a donation to charity.
Jolie, who won a supporting actress Academy Award for 1999's "Girl, Interrupted," has drawn Oscar buzz for Clint Eastwood's missing-child drama "Changeling," slated for release October 24.
Pitt portrays a fitness club dimwit in Joel and Ethan Coen's recent comedy "Burn After Reading," co-starring George Clooney, John Malkovich and Frances McDormand.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More:
http://ibtimes.com/articles/20081009/photo-magazine-cover-shows-angelina-jolie-breastfeeding.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
