Milksharing Monday!

Happy Monday of World Milksharing Week!


This week is going to be all about the amazing stories of milksharing that we've witnessed and heard about through the different Human Milk 4 Human Babies communities over the past year.   I've written several blogs about babies in need of breastmilk since starting Informed Parenting.


One of my favorite stories is about little Anaya in BC Canada, because her's is one that shows the power of community- even when it's not local.  In the past year Anaya's mom Camara has received breastmilk donations from all over North America to feed her beautiful yet fragile daughter. http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.com/2010/10/breastmilk-for-anaya-in-nelson-bc.html
http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-on-anaya-we-still-need.html


Another one of my favorite stories is about baby Jayden. 

JAYDEN AT 10 WEEKS.  BLIND AND DEAF.Jayden was born cocaine and alcohol addicted, with congenital syphilis, at 31 weeks gestation. She had no skin on the palms of her hands or feet and had to have skin grafts. They could find no formula that Jayden could tolerate well, but settled on the one that she had the "least severe reaction to."
 When she was about eight weeks old, she was assigned a foster parent, who came to do kangaroo care with her for eight days before she took her home.  Jayden was completely blind and profoundly deaf, and would need to be accustomed to "mom's" smell and touch before they sent her home. When she went home, she was the most critical discharge they have ever had from that NICU, which routinely sees the sickest of babies.  Basically, with tears in their eyes, the nurses sent Jayden home to die. Jayden was insulin dependant (with critically unstable blood sugars, typically either below 60 or above 400), on oxygen 24 hours a day, and set off her apnea monitor 6-10 times a day. In order to set off a monitor, she would have to not breathe for many seconds at a time. She had gained and lost the same three ounces since birth, and was no more than four and a half pounds. Her foster mother asked over and over again of anybody who had authority why this baby couldn't be on breastmilk, shouldn't this baby be on breast milk, what did she have to do to get this baby on breastmilk? Over and over, she was basically told that this was a medicaid baby and that the state wouldn't PAY for banked milk (which costs a minimum of 4 dollars an ounce, and has been pasteurized) for a MEDICAID baby. Finally, one day, when Jayden was literally activly dying, an infectious disease doctor looked at her foster mom (who is a friend of mine because of foster work and doula work) and said, "I won't tell you NOT to give her breastmilk. We know that it would give her the best chance!" So, we got her some frozen breastmilk.

 With her first bottle of human milk, Jayden's blood sugar regulated.  She is typically somewhere around 120 now. Within the first three weeks, she regained her sight and hearing. Her new pediatrician says that when somebody is actively dying their brain will shut off all non-essential functions--and hearing and sight are non-essential functions. The first week on breastmilk she started to only set off her apnea monitor during the night's deepest sleep...and only then typically once a night. Within three weeks, they took it off of her completely, because she just didn't set it off any more. The first week she gained and KEPT ON four ounces. The next week three. The next week SEVEN.  At this point, the new pediatrician put her arms around the Foster Mom's shoulders and said, "If you hadn't given that baby human milk when you did, she would be dead today.  You are a hero."  Eight weeks later she had gained nearly four pounds. When she was nearly nine and a half months old she was eleven and a half pounds! We now have full cooperation with her new pediatrician and the state to give her donated human milk, no questions asked.
 With her first bottle of human milk, Jayden's blood sugar regulated.  She is typically somewhere around 120 now. Within the first three weeks, she regained her sight and hearing. Her new pediatrician says that when somebody is actively dying their brain will shut off all non-essential functions--and hearing and sight are non-essential functions. The first week on breastmilk she started to only set off her apnea monitor during the night's deepest sleep...and only then typically once a night. Within three weeks, they took it off of her completely, because she just didn't set it off any more. The first week she gained and KEPT ON four ounces. The next week three. The next week SEVEN.  At this point, the new pediatrician put her arms around the Foster Mom's shoulders and said, "If you hadn't given that baby human milk when you did, she would be dead today.  You are a hero."  Eight weeks later she had gained nearly four pounds. When she was nearly nine and a half months old she was eleven and a half pounds! We now have full cooperation with her new pediatrician and the state to give her donated human milk, no questions asked.

I also love the story of a good friend of mine Lynn, and her son Liam, Who struggled with supply issues.  Lynn documented the changes in her little man,  growing from a thin little waif to a chubby rollypolly happy baby after being fed breastmilk that had been donated by some wonderful women.


Liam- two hours before being admitted to CHOP....

"Our pediatrician was uncomfortable with the EBM at first. She warned me about viruses and diseases and I told her I was more comfortable with the EBM then the Formula. I also told her we screened our donors. She asked me a few questions and smiled. She wanted to make sure we were being smart. And I would like to hope that todays mothers ARE being smart.
In June my son weighed 8 lbs.In September 14 lbsIn October 17 lbsAnd now (Dec 2010) weighs almost 20 lbs"

Liam's pic taken two weeks ago!

Breastmilk: It does a body good. Any body!

This week a blog, called "Don't have a cow, man." took the "lactivist" world by storm when a family announced that the husband was drinking his wifes breastmilk....ONLY breastmilk, no solid food, no other drinks.


Katie, who is a doula, childbirth educator, and lactation educator is one of those amazing women with the ability to pump large quantities of breastmilk.  Because of pumping for her preterm baby, born 9 months ago, she has amassed thousands of ounces of liquid gold in her freezer. When commentors asked why she had kept the milk and hadn't donated it Katie replied:

"About milk banks, they do not want the milk because it is too old, I took Motrin after giving birth, I took Tylenol a few times for headaches, and because I took nutritional supplements. Sick babies on other medications use the donor milk and they are concerned about drug interactions or side effects.
Why don't we pay to ship the milk to another mom? We can not afford to spend the hundreds of dollars that it would cost to ship just a portion of the breast milk. Shipping will be very expensive because it needs to be kept frozen. We are like many other families and are just trying to get by."

So when the family planned a long move and realized the magnitude of trying to move all this milk to another State, her husband Curtis decided to drink the milk himself.

"My wife has hundreds of bottles of frozen breast milk in the freezer that our baby will never have a chance to drink before they get too old. Since breast milk is healthy and we have plenty of it, why not just drink it all myself? In fact, why not drink only breast milk and see how long I can happily make it with no other food?
And yes, I know how weird this may sound, it is kind of weird to me as well but why not? I mean cow milk was made for baby cows, why not drink human breast milk that was made for baby humans?  
The rules:Nothing to eat or drink except breast milk.Blog daily about how I am feeling and how it is going.See how many days I can make it without other food."

I have read their blog, and several other blogs that have commented on it this week, and of course the commentary moves from  "yuck dude!" to  "that milk should be going to babies in need" , but in my mind few have really talked about the issue that stood out for me: The obvious health benefits that Curtis has gained from this "experiment".  Curtis has a history of stomach and digestive problems- from reflux, to vomiting and problems with bowel movements (due to hernia surgery scaring)

Here's the thing:  While Health Canada and all the pediatric societies chant the same Om of "Breast is best", we are still a culture that sees formula feeding as normal.  We hear about the health benefits of breastmilk, yet rarely does the media really report on the reality of the risks of formula. We know that breastmilk is better for babies tummies, yet hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other health care providers still turn to formula as the answer to most breastfeeding problems, without really giving a serious thought to the effects of formula on immature stomachs.

Now suddenly, we have a grown man, with a history of all sorts of stomach ailments, drinking human breastmilk- ONLY human breastmilk.  Three days in and his belly problems are gone. No more reflux, no more vomiting, no more bowel movement problems- not even diarrhea that several people said he'd have.  Here's a grown human, with the ability to speak and reason, telling us how much better his digestive system is feeling.....

....Imagine the difference on a small infant? Incapable of speaking and explaining how their tummy hurts.

I, like many others have said, would love to see this breastmilk going to a baby in need.  I've even messaged Curtis and his wife to ask where they are located to see if I can't guide them find a recipient through Human Milk 4 Human Babies in their area. But even if a family in need isn't found that can afford the shipping and packaging of the milk, I still think that this experiment that they have done has opened doors to other people- to seriously think about the validity of the tremendous health benefits of species specific breastmilk in the area of healing.  Not just in the case of cancer, like the amazing story of Howard Cohen , who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1999 and has used only breastmilk as his cancer treatment and kept his cancer in remission for 10 years!! , but the healing it can do to the digestive system- especially the digestive systems of fragile infants.  More so, it might make more people aware of the importance that human breastmilk plays on the health of humans of all ages, and give further insight into the dangers of commercial infant formulas.  Parents are constantly inundated with formula ads that grandly announce "Closest formula to breastmilk!".... but when it comes to the health of our babies, is "closest" really good enough?  

Mother-to-mother human-milk sharing: what’s not to like?

This is a fantastic guest post from, James Akre. I'm hoping to have lots more of his amazing words to post here in the future!!! 

In May last year I was privileged to deliver the GOLD10 inaugural presentation, which was called: What is the problem with breastfeeding? I concluded with ten proposals for immediate action, for example the need to stop referring to breastfeeding as ‘best feeding’ and define it rather as ‘normal feeding’; and to cease talking about ‘the benefits of breastfeeding’ and focus instead on ‘the risks of not breastfeeding’.

My next-to-last proposal was in two parts: evaluating ‘the amount and value of human milk produced and consumed worldwide’, and ensuring that ‘human-milk banks become a routine component of healthcare infrastructure everywhere’.

The model I had in mind was the classic community blood bank. In a bit more than a century since such banks began functioning, they have become as ordinary as they are indispensable.

I don’t know how you see it, but from both a practical and historical perspective, what began to surface only six months ago – Internet-based, non-commercial, mother-to-mother human-milk sharing – strikes me as being a bit like the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 or the Arab Awakening of 2011.

If you think I’m being melodramatic, consider the totally unforeseen consequences of the act of one mother, in October 2010, searching on line for breast milk for her child. Here we are, six months later, with a vast and still-growing milk-sharing system in place in some 50 countries on all continents.

Despite its popularity – indeed, owing to its popularity – this contemporary variation on a practice that is as old as our species has become the focus of stern criticism and woeful warning from public health authorities, notably Health Canada, the French agency Afssaps, and the United States Food and Drug Administration. What is going on here? This is how I would describe the current state of play.

On the one hand, media reports suggest a convergence of well-informed and highly motivated women extending their control over the availability and use of human milk. Caregivers of babies who need breast milk are connecting with mothers who are able to donate breast milk using two Facebook-based networks, Eats On Feets and Human Milk 4 Human Babies.

These networks provide a platform for women to share their milk in a safe, ethical manner. This is done in the belief that they are capable of making informed choices, free of coercion; taking into account information on the benefits and risks; and reducing exposure to pathogens, including by pasteurisation. The overriding operative principle is that all who are involved in milk-sharing take full responsibility for their individual course of action and its outcome.

On the other hand, the formal position staked out by some public health authorities and health professionals can be summarised in three short words: Just say no! Why this dogmatic view?

Well, for starters, it’s the easiest way to reduce to zero milk-sharing’s inherent health risks. But this approach fails to take account of the inherent health risks of a child not receiving breast milk, which appear to have got entirely lost in the shuffle. It is rather a question of relative risk and how to manage it and minimise potential harm.

Despite the mass of scientific and epidemiological evidence to the contrary, in far too many environments breast milk and breastfeeding continue to be seriously undervalued, even as the nutritional merits and supposed safety of infant formula are greatly exaggerated. In these circumstances, infant formula is perceived as the ‘obvious’ alternative to a mother’s milk. But as we observe the rapid, and geographically and culturally diverse, expansion of mother-to-mother human-milk sharing, it is clear that growing numbers of mothers are radically dissenting from this unphysiological status quo.

In demonstrating their heightened awareness about how their babies should be nourished, these mothers are also giving eloquent expression to the World Health Organization’s infant-feeding recommendation, with its explicit nutritional hierarchy, that has been in place since 1986: milk at the mother’s breast; expressed milk from a baby’s own mother; milk from another healthy mother; banked human milk; and, lastly, infant formula. This is just one of the reasons why I always define formula not as the best alternative to a mother’s milk but as the least-bad alternative.

It’s hardly surprising that some in the public health and medical establishment regard this Internet-based milk-sharing model as a challenge, even a threat. It certainly has the right ingredients: a system that operates outside its influence, that can’t be regulated, and where mothers alone exercise control. But rather than resisting and dismissing it out of hand, the constructive approach would be to engage in ways that help make it as safe as possible.

Before closing I would like to return briefly to what I said, during GOLD10 and a few minutes ago, about ensuring that ‘human-milk banks become a routine component of healthcare infrastructure everywhere’. In the light of the mother-to-mother milk-sharing model described above, I want to assure you that I am no less enthusiastic about this proposal today than I was a year ago. If anything, I think it has become still clearer to me why it is so important.

It is at best naïve and uninformed, and at worst intellectually dishonest and culpable, to discourage mother-to-mother milk sharing while instructing mothers to stick with traditional human-milk banks, which follow a careful protocol designed to protect babies. Reality contradicts this dismissive injunction. According to reports, on a good day milk banks manage to cover no more than half the actual demand. Thus, they wisely husband available milk for the most vulnerable babies, especially the very sick and premature. But at US$3-5 a fluid ounce or about 30 ml, even if milk were available, few parents could afford such luxury.

Some observers appear to be anxious that mother-to-mother milk sharing threatens the few under-supplied banks. I don’t have the evidence to demonstrate it, but I am inclined to believe that expanding direct human-milk sharing might well spur human-milk banking by increasing awareness of the significance and availability of women’s milk, persuading more mothers to donate, and thereby increasing the number of banks and available milk volume.

Thus, I see mother-to-mother milk sharing as complementary to donor milk banking and not its competitor. Let us resolve to do everything we possibly can to ensure that this is always the case.

  * * *

1 Commentary prepared by James Akre, Geneva Switzerland, and delivered on line during GOLD11 (Global Online Lactation Discussion) on 13 May 2011 http://www.goldconf.com/hottopics-speakers.html.

Risks VS Risks- Lets Be Perfectly Clear

Today the CMAJ- the Canadian Medical Association Journal- released an article about breastmilk banks and milk sharing entitled  "Milk Sharing: Boon or Biohazard".... Biohazard?  Are they really calling breastmilk a biohazard?  Apparently they are.

Milk sharing: boon or biohazard?

More than two decades after fears of HIV transmission forced the closure of all but one of Canada’s 23 milk banks, regulators, medical professionals and mothers remain divided on the safety of sharing breast milk.
Increased public pressure, regulatory oversight and evidence of the efficacy of modern screening and pasteurization processes are speeding efforts across the country to reopen milk banks to serve hospitalized babies — paradoxically at the same time health officials are warning mothers against the dangers of informally sharing their breast milk.
Confounding the debate is the Janus-like nature of the milk itself. Today, breast milk’s nutritional merits as a food are difficult to separate from its “ick” factor as a body fluid capable of transmitting disease, says Dr. Sharon Unger, a neonatologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, and professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto.
Up until the AIDS crisis hit Canada in the 1980s, human breast milk was more valued for its antibiotic properties than feared for its infectious potential, says Maureen Fjeld, a Calgary-based lactation consultant who witnessed the rise and fall of Alberta’s milk banks.
While health officials offered many justifications for the closures — among them, that women had access to electric breast pumps and therefore didn’t need the banks — “the reality was they were scared of infecting someone as the blood banks had done,” says Fjeld.
The BC Women’s Milk Bank in Vancouver, British Columbia, was the sole survivor of the closures, and today carefully rations its supply to only the most vulnerable hospitalized babies. Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, ships donor milk from the United States to feed its sick and premature babies. Other hospitals and mothers have no choice but to rely on formula when natural sources of breast milk run dry.

 Yes, Dr. Sharon Unger is speaking up again.  Apparently the fact that Eats on Feets very own Emma Kwasnica has verbally bested her in her own area of expertise in front thousands of people on CBC Radio show The Current has not diminished her lust for punishment, nor her insatiable appetite for spreading false truths and making up pretend facts on a whim.  Unger is back with more of her ridiculous diatribe that, along with Health Canada's own brand of chauvinist misogyny, suggests that women are fools, incapable of monitoring their own health or making informed choices.

Let me take you on a tour of this article- I'll probably break off now and then to rant a bit, I hope you don't mind.

After giving  the history of the closures of the Canadian Milk Banks in the 80's the article goes on to wax eloquently about the newly published idea that Canada needs Milk Banks- yes applause applause... of course the fact that the provincial breastfeeding associations, INFACT canada, Dr. Jack Newman, and every group that is focused on breastfeeding, and the general public has been screaming for years that we need Breastmilk banks is never mentioned.  Unger then goes on to graciously tell the reader about the wonders of Milk Banks- about the fact that “Association banks dispense more than one and a half billion ounces of human milk every year and they’ve never had a case of disease transmission,” says Unger.....  of course then she drops the hidden bomb:

“All our ducks are in a line, as far as safety goes. The next thing I think governments are looking for is the long-term health outcomes and cost savings of reopening the banks.”

Because formula companies provide their products to hospitals for free, public funding for milk banks requires proof that there are health benefits and costs efficiencies to be achieved from using donor milk, says Unger.
To that end, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have funded a team of Toronto neonatal experts to conduct a five-year study of the health and financial impacts of donor milk compared to preterm infant formula as a substitute for mother’s own milk for very low birth weight infants. Initial findings are expected within two years, says Unger.

Did you spot it?  The hidden agenda?  The feet dragging excuse to burn more of the taxpayers money? So because they're getting formula for free, they feel the need to "PROVE" that Breastmilk is better and worth the "COST" of creating breastmilk Banks?!? So they are taking 5 years,(meaning another two years from now) to study something, (and spending probably millions of dollars on)  that has already been PROVEN a hundred times over and over!!!! Thank you Canadian Government for wasting the our money. No doubt they could of funded the opening of at least one breastmilk bank with the money they spent on a useless study that's already been done by WHO, UNICEF and several major medical associations.  Not only that, but they are putting the health of fragile infants in jeopardy while they twiddle their thumbs (while no doubt looking for a way to make a profit off the generous donations of mothers who just want to help babies)( I'm just sayin', if the shoe fits...?)

That’s too long for mothers who are worried about health risks associated with recent recalls of infant formula. Many now turn to their peers for milk when their own supplies run low — a practice regulators and health professionals such as Unger call “dangerous.”
Informal breast milk exchanges have exploded online, linking women from around the world. One such group, called Eats on Feets,(YAY EOF!)  has become the world’s largest human milk sharing network, with some 87 regional chapters in 18 countries. Each chapter connects hundreds of mothers through the social networking site Facebook.
Led by Montreal, Quebec-based mother and breastfeeding advocate Emma Kwasnica, it claims to serve women that milk banks “won’t touch” because their babies are too healthy.
“Whether it’s for cultural reasons and they just don’t understand how to breastfeed, because so few of us do anymore, or it’s a physical condition or stress that’s preventing them from bringing in a full supply, these women have no other option,” Kwasnica says. “At first, people are grossed out, but turning to other women is not so hard to understand. After all, we’ve been wet nursing since the beginning of time.”

 The harbingers of doom then go onto point out the terrible dangers that are imminently awaiting every mother that feeds her baby donated breastmilk:

The potential to thus expose children to viruses, bacteria and traces of prescription and nonprescription drugs has prompted Health Canada and the United States Food and Drug Administration to release warnings against both voluntary and paid exchanges (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2010/2010_202-eng.php and  www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/PediatricTherapeuticsResearch/ucm235203.htm). 

But lets talk about these potential risks.  The big viruses that seem to worry Health Canada are HIV, HTLV, Hepatitis B&C, and Syphilis.  First off Hep B&C do NOT pass through breastmilk and neither does Syphilis. and Flash Heating done at home  (As Emma Kwasnica goes on later in the article to discuss) on your own stove destroys both HIV & HTLV viruses.  So the risk is practically 0.  Ok how about bacteria?  Health Canada seems to think that women do not know how to pump or express their milk in a clean and safe manner.  HC warns against donated milk because bacteria that might get into milk that's pumped/expressed and then stored in a fridge or freezer. Yet thousands of women in our country pump and express milk for their own babies daily....why is this milk safe for their baby but not for someone elses baby?  If Health Canada is so worried about unsafe pumping then why are they not putting together information for the public about the safe methods of pumping/expressing and the storing of breastmilk? 

This next bit really gets me steamed:

Some mothers may not know they’ve picked up an infection post-screening, she (Unger) says. “What if a woman has a cold sore or herpes lesion on her breast? She may not be aware of it, but such a virus can be fatal to newborns. Why would you take that risk?” 

 Really?  REALLY?!  Does Unger think that women are so ridiculously stupid that they can't be responsible for their own health and making informed decisions based on their health?  What mother is going to give infected milk to a baby?  What mother is going to pump milk with an open infectious sore on her breast?!  Does Unger really have that low of an opinion of her own sex?  Apparently Unger and Health Canada believe that women don't give a shit about what they feed their babies and couldn't care a less about keeping them healthy.  Apparently the fact that women are choosing to feeding their babies donated breastmilk instead of infant formula BECAUSE they have informed themselves of the RISKS is beyond the comprehension of them both.

Yes, Risks.  Let's talk about the risks of feeding Infant formula.

Kwasnica counters that formula feeding may be just as risky, if not more so. “These babies are getting constipated and sick. They’re pooing out blood and not gaining weight. We know formula rips up the insides of their intestines and opens their guts up to pathogens. We know it’s been linked to diabetes, respiratory illness, gastrointestinal illness and heart disease, to name a few. We’ve got to talk about relative risk, and not consider it lightly, before freaking out about sharing breast milk.”
Health Canada has already weighed the relative risk, says Unger. “Sharing unprocessed breast milk is dangerous. There’s a reason infant mortality has dropped, and a lot of it has to do with current public health practices. I have faith in those practices, and for all formula may not be as good as mother’s own milk, it is safe.”

 “Sharing unprocessed breast milk is dangerous."- Really?  Prove it.  Show me a study that's been done that proves that unprocessed breastmilk is dangerous to babies- a study that has been done with babies that have been fed unprocessed human milk.


"There’s a reason infant mortality has dropped, and a lot of it has to do with current public health practices." Ummmm explain to me how the drop in infant mortality has anything to do with milk sharing?  Infant mortality has dropped due to better medicine and medical technology and better hygiene in hospitals and homes.

"...for all formula may not be as good as mother’s own milk, it is safe.”    REALLY? Would you care to put your money where your mouth is Unger? I'd like to see you prove that- Prove it. Show me the studies that PROVE that Formula is "Safe". Show me the studies that PROVE that Milk sharing carries more risk than formula. PROVE IT.... We want studies. We want facts. If you can't provide them then shut the hell up.

Health Canada needs to address the sharing of breastmilk with full disclosure and full transparency.  Health Canada needs to Ratify the World Health Organizations Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding- just as they say that they do on their Health Canada Web site.  The WHO hierarchy of infant feeding  states that commercial infant breastmilk substitutes are ranked fourth:


1-breastfeeding from the baby's mother,
2-breastmilk pumped by the mother and fed by cup,
3-Breastmilk from a wetnurse or milk bank
4-Infant Formula

Someone needs to tell HC that there is no difference between wet nursing and using unprocessed donated breastmilk.

 

I have been a part of Eats on Feets since the very beginning, and have worked to help mothers find breastmilk for their babies long before that.  I have witnessed dozens if not hundreds of milksharings happen online. I've read the stories of mothers who are desperately in need of human milk for their babies meet mothers who have milk to spare.  I've heard the amazing stories of babies who were once sickly little waifs who've blossomed into chubby cherubic jolly infants due to the fact that their mothers cared so much that they went and found someone to donate breastmilk to them.  I have seen friendships grow between strangers and watched bonds of sisterhood bloom between mothers who didn't know each other a mere few weeks before.  This isn't about women being uninformed.  This is about women doing what they need to do, with full disclosure and full awareness of the facts. This is about INFORMED Sharing.  This is about women taking responsibility for their families health, taking matters into their own hands and doing what needs to be done to keep their babies healthy and happy and chemical free. The way it should be.

The Paradigm shift is afoot!

This is an excellent article about the shift in thinking that is happening and needs to happen in the realm of feeding our babies.  It isn't enough to talk about "Breast is Best" with hollow slogans and parroted words that have been plagiarized by the infant formula companies. Women, babies and their families need to learn the truth: Breast is Normal.  Yet finding support to breastfeed is anything but.

So while most provinces provide seriously inadequate breastfeeding support, and even less funding for education and clinics, and the Government of Canada blathers on about the need to put milk banks in every province, it falls back onto the mothers to educate and support themselves and each other through this adventure in babyhood. And if that support includes sharing breastmilk with mothers that need it?  So Be It.

It's time for the paradigm shift.  It's time for breastfeeding to be normal and breast milk to be the norm, regardless of who's breastmilk it is.

A Paradigm Shift is Afoot: from "combination feeding" with formula to informed milk donation

There has been a rather seismic movement afoot (pun intended) in the online breastfeeding community, as it were, over the last few weeks. If you're not in the loop, the gist of the situation is that a breastfeeding advocate named Emma Kwasnica has galvanized a Facebook-centered milksharing network online: Eats on Feets. Such a thing isn't 100% new, as a site called MilkShare has been working at the same for a while now, and those in the know might be able to find donors on boards like Mothering.com (I've unloaded my freezer to several strangers on MDC myself). But this is taking flight like nothing has before, and I think it has everything to do with harnessing the power of Facebook and social networking in general, and how integral it has become to many of our lives.

Other bloggers have done a great job detailing the phenomenon that is Eats on Feets, such as The Motherwear Breastfeeding Blog and One of Those Women. There's much to discuss, including the (over)reaction of the Canadian government - and I won't try to reinvent the wheel here; check out their posts! But this awesome recent development ties into something I've been struggling to write about recently anyway, which is the matter of supplementation, which, in our current Western society, is set by default to formula.

Some refer to the choice to supplement (often electively, but sometimes out of necessity) as "combination feeding" or "mix feeding". It sounds innocuous enough, right? I've heard it referred to as "the best of both worlds", and despite the crystal-clear recommendation from both the AAP and the WHO to breastfeed exclusively for a minimum* of six months, the number of women who breastfeed at all are combination feeders. By a huge majority....

Here's my loose hypothesis: the prevalence of combination feeding is yet another result of the well-intentioned but deeply flawed "Breast is Best!" message backfiring. How so? It's tricky, but think about statements like "Every little bit counts - it's liquid gold, after all!" and "Any breast milk is better than none!" Such sentiments abound. Are they true? Well . . . yes. But I think there's a perception out there that breast milk is so powerful that even one feeding a day is enough to confer its benefits. Breastmilk, an omnipotent panacea of mythical, even supernatural proportions - surely it will cut through all the well-documented risks of commercial, artificial infant milk. Right?

IS some breast milk better than none? Well, I'd be hard-pressed to say no. Yes, it is. But saying "yes" is so far from saying that some breastfeeding is even close to the same as exclusive breastfeeding. The immunological benefits of breastmilk are some of its most powerful, the introduction of formula actually negates these very benefits. Look at this recent study from BMJ, examining the protective effect of exclusive breastfeeding on infections in infancy. It concluded that "Partial breastfeeding was not related to protective effect."

And here's another piece on a larger study released earlier this year:

"Significantly, the study showed no health benefits for infants who received formula along with breast milk, even when partial breastfeeding extended a full six months . . . . None of the antibodies found in breast milk are able to be duplicated in manufactured formula, resulting in a significant lack of protection for formula-fed babies against infectious diseases. Formula is unable to match the complexity of breast milk, the consistency of which adapts over the first few months of a baby's life, changing to fit the baby's needs as he or she grows."

Allow me to repeat that - I apologize for belaboring the point, but I want to make sure it's not missed: "The study showed no health benefits for infants who received formula along with breast milk, even when partial breastfeeding extended a full six months."...

Where does this leave us? Despite the overbearing harpy cliche, I'm coming to feel that breastfeeding advocates, including lactivists and educators as well as some medical professionals, ARE extremely sensitive about pressuring new moms, and want so badly to be reassuring and accepting and above all, non-judgmental . . . so much so that they/we end up understating the risks of formula feeding. Do what you can. Of course some breast milk is better than none. It's okay. You do what you can.

It's a conundrum. We DO need to be supportive. We DO need to be inclusive. We DO need to be non-judgmental. But we also need to make sure that mothers have all the relevant information, all the facts, in order to make empowered choices. Choice, yes, but informed choice. We need to not undermine parents right out of the gate by telling them that (as I witnessed from a professional firsthand) The breastfeeding bag they give you at the hospital has a bottle of formula in it, and that's there to tell you that hey! it's okay to do both! You don't have to choose!

As anyone reading this blog is likely aware, in addition to the risks for the infant, supplementation not done carefully leads to diminishing supply, and if the mother is not aware of how this works, mom's assumption is that something is wrong with her, that she "just couldn't make enough milk", and the slippery slope to total cessation of nursing has already begun. There has to be a way of being compassionate and inclusive without saying things like, as I have also heard with my very own ears from a pro, "If you want to nurse for 6 weeks and then start using formula, that's okay! Whatever works for you! If you want your husband to give a bottle of formula overnight so you can sleep, that's okay! Whatever works for you!"

But there ARE cases, as we know, where supplementation IS necessary. There is no denying that. We want to reduce these cases, but there absolutely are times when it is needed, such as moms with hypoplasia/IGT, or with some BFAR moms, for instance. And here's where the paradigm shift comes in.

It's time that donor milk becomes a real possibility for mothers.

Despite formula companies spending millions to convince you that their product is the "next best thing" to human milk, the WHO designates formula as fourth best - dead last, in other words. The first choice is simply mother breastfeeding her own child, and then pumped milk from the same mother to her own child. Then, third best, is donor milk from another mother, not formula. Yet when supplementation proves to be necessary (either temporarily or long-term), the default in our society is to go directly to formula. Then begins a cycle of figuring out which formula is less difficult for the baby's system. Do we try the "gentle" variety? What if milk is the problem - do we do soy? If that's not working, on to the hydrolyzed and painfully expensive kinds. What if donor milk was a viable option? What if it wasn't just a vague possibility - difficult to pull off in the short term and even harder to do over any substantial length of time - what if donor milk was, instead, the default?

HERE to read the entire article on Doula-la-la

Baby in Worcester MA needs breastmilk donations

Peaceful Parenting writes about another baby in need of donated breastmilk!  Please share widely!!

Worcester, MA Baby in Need of Donor Milk

Baby Kareem is thriving by the power of mothers' milk

A two month old Worcester, Massachusetts baby is in need of some loving mothers to donate milk or serve as a wet nurse (nursing him when they are able). His momma, Kelley, is the founder of MilkShare - a location where parents can connect with one another to donate and receive human milk for their babies. Sometimes, however, even founders of monumentally helpful sites need a gracious hand of support as well.

Kelley writes, "I have a congenital anomaly called hypoplastic breasts that prevents me from making enough milk. I make a tiny bit - perhaps 10% - of my children's overall intake. And, to continue to produce, I feed exclusively with an SNS. I am currently tandem nursing my newborn and five year old (who was also donor milk fed via a Lact-aid and still refuses to quit even though I can nurse only on my right side)."

Kelley is a homebirth midwife, single mom, and lactivist who says she "prays that I can continue to receive enough milk for my youngest baby." She currently resides near the Worcester, MA area.

HERE to read the entire article on Peaceful Parenting

Urgent Need for Breastmilk in BC

I just got this message and I am hoping that some of my readers might be able to help this mother!! Please share this story around to your groups and chat sources if you think that you might know someone in the area that can help!!!

http://www.bclocalnews.com/kootenay_rockies/nelsonstar/news/103093564.html

A Procter woman is appealing for breast milk to help her infant daughter.
Anaya Cassin-Potts, who just turned one, was diagnosed this spring with infantile Krabbe leukodystrophy, a rare disease where myelin disappears from the brain cells.
“She’s lost her ability to develop,” says her mother Camara Cassin. “She can’t hold her head up anymore, can’t smile or eat, and has lost her eyesight.”
Anaya is also fed through a tube and is intolerant to formula.
“When she first got sick and couldn’t nurse anymore, I started pumping breast milk for her, but I’ve only ever been able to get 10 ounces a day, and she needs 30,” Cassin says.
Supplementing with formula only created excess mucus and made Anaya sick.
Cassin put out a mass e-mail seeking local moms to pump milk for her, which made a world of difference.
“Breast milk has been her saviour,” Cassin says. “It’s the one thing that’s really essential. Since she’s been on a breast-milk only diet, she’s started gaining weight, although she’s still very small, about the size of a four-month old.”
In the last few months, some of the major donors have moved, and Cassin urgently needs to find replacements.
“Even if people had some frozen breast milk they wanted to contribute, we can use that,” she says. “Fresh is preferable but frozen is still a godsend.”
Right now six women contribute one feed per day, but Anaya requires eight.
Breast milk also allows her to be put on medication to dry up secretions in her throat.
“It has a laxative effect and helps pass through her system,” Cassin says. “If she’s forced to consume formula, the medicine will interact and plug up her bowel.”
However, if she’s off the medication, they have to use a suction machine to remove mucus and phlegm from her throat.
“It’s a very loud machine that she really hates. It’s uncomfortable and makes her gag.”
Despite Anaya’s many challenges, her mother emphasizes “it’s not all bad. She has awareness of sound. She loves to go for walks and listen to the birds and flowing water. She also enjoys bath time and can still recognize the people in her life, like me and her sister Solara.
“She doesn’t move a whole lot and everything needs to be done for her, just like a newborn, but she’s not suffering every second. We have a full-time nurse who helps.”
The condition is usually fatal within two years, although some children have lived to six or seven with it.
“She’s still able to enjoy being alive,” Cassin says. “Every moment isn’t a struggle. She has a lot of good moments, she’s very loved and we’ll take good care of her.”

Women who might be able to provide breast milk can contact Cassin at 229-4034 or maraglow@gmail.com.

Other uses for Breastmilk

I found this list on the internet, but haven't been able to find out who the author is, so if you know, let me know so I can give credit where credit is due!!!  and if you have any other brilliant ideas for using breastmilk, please comment so that I can add them to the list!!

Other Uses for Breastmilk!!

• Acne Treatment and Facial Cleanser Wash face with a mild soap, rinse, and gently pat a breastmilk-saturated ball of cotton (not a synthetic material) over the entire face. This process is great for removing eye makeup as well.
• Burns and Sunburn Apply breastmilk gingerly to burns and they will dry up and look much better the next day. A burn treated with breastmilk and mashed-up blueberries will dry up within an hour, wrote one mom on a Midwifery Today online forum.1 Elena Michaels, PhD, CCH, LMFT, a traditional naturopath in Santa Clarita, California, told me that she often applied her breastmilk to her kids' sunburns. The soothing milk would stop the pain immediately," she said. "I believe the lauric acid found in breastmilk is antiviral, antibacterial, healing to tissue, and contains analgesic properties. Besides human breastmilk, virgin coconut oil is nature's most abundant source of lauric acid.
• Chapped Lips Dab a bit of milk onto dry lips, leaving them wet. Apply often, and lips should take only a day or two to heal.
• Cold Sores and Fever Blisters Place milk directly on a cold sore with a clean finger or cotton ball. This should speed the healing process and also help relieve some of the pain.
• Cuts, Scrapes, Scratches Clean wound first using breastmilk if you don't have soap and water. Drip milk onto the wound, then let it air-dry. You can also use a cotton ball or a 4-by-4-inch gauze pad soaked in breastmilk. If the cut is on a baby's lips or mouth area, allow him or her to nurse. An upset child will be calmed by the gentle, loving act of breastfeeding, and the milk will help heal the wound. I'll never forget when my 15-month-old daughter was bitten by her grandma's dog right on her face." says Nancy Levesque, a former La Leche League leader. "I immediately put her to my breast and nursed her as we were deciding what hospital to take her to. I'm so glad that I was able to comfort her during this traumatic time, and I believe the act of nursing did help to begin to heal her wound.
• Diaper Rash Gently pat baby's bottom with breastmilk, being especially generous when applying it to reddened or rash areas. Leave baby's diaper off for a few minutes and let the bottom air-dry.
• Ear Infections Place a few drops of breastmilk in the ear; follow with warm (not hot) olive oil and garlic, or bottled garlic mullein oil (sold at natural food stores).
• Red or Puffy Eyes Place two cotton balls saturated with breastmilk over closed eyes for a few minutes - works better than tea bags or cucumber slices!
• Insect Bites With a clean finger, dab breastmilk on the bite; this will help stop the itching.
• Skin Rash/Wounds Apply breastmilk on itchy spots - even chickenpox - for soothing relief. One woman claims that she used her breastmilk to clear up an elderly relative's leg ulcers. It's also possible that breastmilk helps heal skin wounds in nursing women themselves.
• Sore or Cracked Nipples Gently rub milk onto nipples or area of soreness and let air-dry. Another option is to bathe the sore nipple by dipping it into a clean, shallow dish of breastmilk.
• Sore Throats Baby can benefit by directly nursing.
• Warts Leave a breastmilk-saturated cotton ball on the wart for a few minutes twice a day. Continue for several days until the wart dries up.

Vitamin D: More information about Pregnancy & Breastfeeding

Hi Everyone!  This is a guest post article by the infamous Emma Kwasnica.  She wrote this as  "note" on Facebook a few months ago, but as we've been discussing Vitamin D earlier this week I asked her if I could repost her info here. I think that the info about the timing of the birth of babies is vitally important to note as so many babies are being cut from their mothers abdomen or chemically induced far too early, which has serious negative impacts on the baby's Vit D levels that they receive from their mother!

Take it away Emma!

New research regarding Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women and babies

 

News story here :
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-22-vitamind22_ST_N.htm

Vitamin D is really so crucial. And we're only just now coming to terms with HOW important it truly is --for both mum AND babe.

That said, the "study" regarding infant Vit D levels is no such thing ( http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-2571v1 ). It is a SURVEY that they did --no actual blood levels taken or analysed ! So, it's flawed, in that they're saying the babes don't get "enough" Vit D... wait for it... simply in relation to what the (new) recommendations are ! That's it, that's all ! They speak nothing about bioavailability of nutirients, etc. in breastmilk, nor how Vit D is absorbed (from formula, OR from breastmilk), nor do they address why breastmilk is naturally quite low in Vit D.

The blood testing study (maternal and newborn)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-2158v1
is more (scientifically) rigorous, though I have some questions about birth interventions there, too, namely the exact age of the so-called "healthy" baby at birth (maternal stores of Vit D are ONLY transferred to the fetus in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy, so, at +/- 38 weeks). This means that many of their so-called "healthy" infants --for example, born by elective cesarean surgery, often at 38 weeks... or whom are induced-- should, in fact, be considered "late preterm" babies, and being born even this "little bit" early, will absolutely affect their Vit D levels at birth. They are not "healthy".

The best thing a woman can do to ensure her baby --breastfed or otherwise-- has sufficient Vitamin D stores throughout his/her first 6 months or so of life, is to get out in the sun during her pregnancy (or orally supplement, if she, herself, is deficient; she should demand that her caregiver checks her blood calcidiol levels in pregnancy, as it's but a simple blood req. to add to the battery of blood testing she has done, anyway). The next best thing she can do is insist that she NOT be induced (or insist that a c-section is NOT scheduled) prior to -at least-- 40 weeks. Better still, allow labour to occur spontaneously, when her baby and her body are good and ready. This is because baby's stores are dependent on mother's stores, the transfer of which occurs only at about 38 weeks gestation. Premature babies, and babies who do not stay in the womb until around this time, do NOT get the transfer and will require supplementation (think: elective cesarean surgeries, where dates are so often "off", and baby is even *earlier* than expected, giving to all these late preterm babies --who are therefore Vit D-deficient from birth).

If you are pregnant (1st or 2nd trimester), and you have one or more of the following risk factors :

-your baby is due late winter/spring
-you are NOT fair-skinned, and have an olive or darker complexion
-you wear a head covering and/or have little skin exposed when you *are* outside
-you do not get outside much
-you use sunscreen
-you live in a large city
-you live above the 41st parallel

...consider telling your HCP to give you a blood req. for "maternal serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]" or your blood calcidiol levels, or the "25(OH)D" test for Vit D levels. If your levels are low, and getting out in the sun regularly is not an option for you, you ought to seriously consider supplementing orally with Vitamin D3.

It's also imperative to know that Vit D deficiency also affects muscle performance, and since the uterus is a muscle, this could put you at a greater risk for c-section...

We also really need to stop fearing the sun as much as we do, and get out there and expose ours and baby's skin for short periods, but EVERY day, if possible. Babies that are born in late Winter and early Spring are most at risk of being deficient from birth (as mum spent most of her pregnancy out of the sunlight, gestating baby through the dark months of -a northern hemisphere- winter), and another thing to realise is that putting baby in a sunny window will NOT do the trick; the window pane filters out precisely those rays that our bodies need to make Vit D.

Honestly, your breastfed baby outside for a bit, in just a diaper (no sunscreen), a few times a week throughout the summer months is amply sufficient (darker-skinned babies, obviously, requiring more time in the sun than lighter-skinned ones). This summertime exposure will also ensure your baby's stores throughout the following winter.

Last point that is important to note : yes, we evolved from equator-dwelling folk, but as we migrated away from the equator, we humans adapted, and our skin pigmentation changed --from darker, to lighter (lighter skin allowing for less sun exposure time required to produce the same amount of Vit D in the body). If you are pale, you are much less likely to be Vit D deficient, living in the Northern Hemisphere, as compared to darker-skinned people living in the same region. In other words, if you are dark-skinned, you should really consider supplementation, and if you are dark-skinned and *pregnant*, at least be sure to get your blood calcidiol levels measured by mid-pregnancy (so you have enough time to supplement if need be, before the maternal transfer of stores occurs), and so that your newborn baby will have a liver-full of Vitamin D, to last him or her for several months.

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

Just as a follow-up to the links and info I've posted, here is the official LLLI statement regarding Vit D and the breastfed baby. YES, breastmilk is complete, but our lifestyle has changed in such a way that we are now "sun-fearers", and not only do we lather on the sunscreen, we also spend far too much time indoors. We did not evolve as a species to spend so little time outside in the direct sunlight. As well, one's skin colouring IS of great importance, as is WHERE you live in the world. Babies born in late winter/early spring are also at more of a risk for Vit D deficiency. The key is to know and understand one's own risk factors, prevention, and to keep in mind that SUNLIGHT IS FREE !

Please read and pass along this info (note) to any/all breastfeeding mothers you know, as this is not just about rickets --Vit D deficiency, sadly, leads to a host of other problems and (autoimmune) diseases.

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

(October 16, 2008) Schaumburg, IL - La Leche League International
encourages all mothers to recognize the importance of vitamin D to the
health of their children. Recent research shows that due to current
lifestyles, breastfeeding mothers may not have enough vitamin D in
their own bodies to pass to their infants through breastmilk.

In October 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that
infants receive 400 IU a day of vitamin D, beginning in the first few
days of life. Children who do not receive enough vitamin D are at risk
for rickets and increased risk for infections, autoimmune diseases,
cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis.

Vitamin D is mainly acquired through exposure to sunlight and
secondarily through food. Research shows that the adoption of indoor
lifestyles and the use of sunscreen have seriously depleted vitamin D
in most women. The ability to acquire adequate amounts of vitamin D
through sunlight depends on skin color and geographic location.

Dark-skinned people can require up to six times the amount of sunlight
as light-skinned people. People living near the equator can obtain
vitamin D for 12 months of the year while those living in northern and
southern climates may only absorb vitamin D for six or fewer months of
the year.

For many years, La Leche League International has offered the
research-based recommendation that exclusively breastfed babies
received all the vitamin D necessary through mother’s milk. Health care
professionals now have a better understanding of the function of
vitamin D and the amounts required, and the newest research shows this
is only true when mothers themselves have enough vitamin D. Statistics
indicate that a large percentage of women do not have adequate amounts
of vitamin D in their bodies.

La Leche League International acknowledges that breastfeeding
mothers who have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their bodies can
successfully provide enough vitamin D to their children through
breastmilk. It is recommended that pregnant and nursing mothers obtain
adequate vitamin D or supplement as necessary. Health care providers
may recommend that women who are unsure of their vitamin D status
undergo a simple blood test before choosing not to supplement.

Parents or health care providers who want more information on
rickets, vitamin D in human milk, or other information on breastfeeding
issues may call La Leche League International at (847) 519-7730 or
visit our Web site at www.llli.org.

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

UPDATE : May 1, 2010

More recent research confirms crucial importance of adequate levels of Vitamin D in pregnant women:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/30/vitamin.d.pregnancy/index.html?hpt=T2

"Substance in Breastmilk kills Cancer"

WOW!!!  And you thought it was just good to feed to your baby?!

Substance in Breast Milk Kills Cancer Cells, Study Suggests

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

---

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

Discovered by chance

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

Studying the integration of the substance

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

 HERE to read the original article

Does Haiti Need Our Milk?

Kathy Abbott of "The Curious Lactivist" has vocalized a question that I know many many of us are asking ourselves today. Does Haiti Need our Breastmilk or not?!?


Several news articles have been released stating that Infant Formula is NOT to be sent to Haiti, that the WHO, Unicef and Save the Children are saying that these Haitian babies are in need of breastmilk. After these announcements lactating mothers and milk banks over North America immediately scrambled and came together- pulling in a 1000 oz of fully screened donated breastmilk within 24 hours!! They not only gathered the donated milk, but within 48 hours the frozen liquid gold was on board the USS Comfort- a US ship in Haiti acting as a neonatal unit to many of Haiti's premature and seriously injured and ill babies.....

And yet this shipment was met with snide remarks: “I’m 100 percent sure we didn’t ask for that.” Said Lt. David Shark from the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. He told the press that the idea of distributing human milk was an “unfeasible and unsafe intervention”.

The problem according to Lt. Shark was the “huge logical constraints”. Specifically he pointed out that there was a “lack of cold chain supply, and no clear guidance on ethical issues, breast milk screening, and continuity of supply.” Even Dr. Nune Mangasaryan senior advisor on infant nutrition for UNICEF agreed. “At this point it’s not the recommended way of assisting Haiti. … the systems needed to transport [breast milk] and to deliver it in the country, are not ready at this point. You have to have quite a significant number of freezers, you have to have electricity, and you have to be able to transport it from one part of the country to another. [With the current level of devastation] at this point, donating breast milk isn’t preferable.”

But I have to wonder, if the same helicopter had arrived with a donation of human blood, would the response had been the same? Blood donations also have to be screened, and protected by a “cold chain”. Would lack of freezers, electricity, and transport issues been enough reason for them to turn away two coolers of donated blood? Of course not, there is no viable substitute for human blood. But we live in a culture where infant formula is considered a “safe” alternative to breast milk.

How sad that even the good Dr. Mangasaryan from UNICEF considers infant formula preferable to donated milk. “ At this point what we recommend for them is ready-to-use infant formula, that’s already in a liquid form, meaning no risk of contamination by mixing powdered formula with water, for example. It’s already ready-to-use, and there are certain numbers already available in the country.” It is safe, and it is already available. Why use the real thing when we have a more convenient alternative?

EXACTLY!!!!! So they would rather feed these traumatized, sick and injured babies "Ready to use formula" ..... might I point out to the fine Dr. Mangasaryan that even if the formula is premixed and ready to use.... what are they suppose to do with the bottles after they've been used? How are they to sterilize them? The reason they are using "ready to use" formula is because they cant' guarantee clean water to mix powdered formula- they still need clean water to sterilize a bottle and nipple to get it ready for the next batch of formula for the next baby.

In the mean time, frozen breastmilk is sitting in a freezer on the USS Comfort feeding NO babies while the so called professionals debate ethics about donated breastmilk...... and babies starve across the country. It boggles the mind.

....Apparently we learned absolutely nothing from Katrina.


HERE to read The Curious Lactivists entire article

Society and the Sexualized Breast

The original author of this article/blog/post is unknown- to whomever you are, out there in the world of cyber space... a HUGE thank you!!! And if you ARE the author, let us know who you are so that we can give credit where credit is due!!!




Society is so sexualized that they have forgotten what God created
our breasts for in the first place. They throw hissy fits over
breastfeeding in public and expect us to feed our babies in dirty,
stinky bathrooms. So I ask you to judge for yourself, which breasts are
truly offensive here? And I understand some of you won't think ANY of
them are offensive. But I am making a point by showing how ridiculous
it is that society looks upon scantily clad women in sexy ads as ok,
even GREAT, but providing important nourishment and nutrients to your
child in public by breastfeeding is offensive, distasteful, disgusting,
whatever. Give me your feedback. :)


Wait... well, this is a bad example. Let's try again...

Hmmm... just a minute. Surely i can find better ones than these...

Eh... still not racy enough. I'll check one more time.

That's better. LOOK AT THAT! I see about an inch of boob! Totally disgusting.

Ugh! Look at that indecency!! She must be from some third-world country to be exposed like that!!

Now that's just... There's no words to describe how inappropriate that is. Something needs to be done!!



Now
this takes the cake!! How dare they actually put such a disgusting
image on the cover of a magazine where teenage boys might see it. This
simply must be disposed of ASAP via a shredder, before teenage boys
learn what boobs are really for!!


This just makes me want to vomit!

...but why stop at breastfeeding women? There are boobs
everywhere. Beware! If you thought the above photos were offensive, you
WILL DEFINITELY be offended by the photos below.




Not this one though. This was in plain view on newsstands and in mailboxes in 19 countries worldwide!

Not this one either. This one actually won an award!

Oh, and i guess this ones fine too, since everyone knows you can't sell jeans without someone being topless.

or beer, for that matter!

or sunglasses...

or CDs...

...you
know what? Maybe I'm crazy, but i think that someone mixed up some
photos here. The first batch are offensive, but the second batch are
just fine and dandy???

people who live in glass bras:


shouldn't throw stones:








Which message is healthier?

Breastfeeding which is medically approved to give HUMANS the best start in life. . . or


Images that promote STD's, unattainable beauty standards, sexual promiscuity, plastic surgery, and just plain TRUE indecency?

Which would you rather your daughter live up to?

Ifyou think women have the right to breastfeed their children no matter
where they are, please re-post this. The least you can do is help some
children get the best nutrition they can get. Breastfed babies have
lower instances of obesity, asthma, allergies, certain childhood
diseases, learning disabilities, and other health problems. For each
woman who feels like she shouldn't be breastfeeding right where she is,
there is an innocent baby who is losing out. Don't be responsible for
any child's health problems. support breastfed babies and their right
to eat in public like the rest of us.