Disney and Similac join forces to ruin breastfeeding.

Yep, Disney has joined forces with Similac, to put together pediatric kits to be sent out to OB/GYN offices across america.  These kits will of course contain samples of infant formula and baby bottles and coupons and some sort of Disney promotional paraphernalia.  Over 2 million of these kits are heading out to mothers leaving the hospital with their new babies.

When I read this article I just about had a conniption.  I"m not a Disney fan at the best of times, but now that they've joined forces with Similac, I've just discovered a new company to boycott!!!




..... Similac's latest conniving plan to interfere with breastfeeding mothers.  I'm so mad.

I strongly suggest that we start a writing campaign to Disney.  Unfortunately, after 30 minutes of searching, this is the ONLY way I've been able to discover to contact them in any way: https://register.go.com/disney/corporate/corporatecitizenship/index


In their 2010 Corporate Citizenship Report, on the topic of "Human Rights" Disney says:

In implementing our human rights commitments, we will focus on the following four areas.

• Policy Statement:
 Our policy statement is a first step in articulating our commitment. Our priority over the next year is to communicate this policy more widely within the Company and further engage our employees in upholding and implementing it.

• Assessment:
 We are enhancing our assessment of potential human rights impacts in targeted areas including our workplace practices, labor conditions in the supply chains making Disney-branded products and our role in promoting the well-being of children. Over the next year, we will refine our assessment process to ensure we are continuing to focus on the areas of greatest importance to our business.

• Implementation:
 We seek to identify ways in which we can adopt best practices and new approaches that enable us to enhance human rights considerations.

• Reporting:
 We will continue to share our progress in our biennial citizenship report.

I think that we can agree that jumping into bed with Similac pretty much goes

 against their "role in promoting the well-being of children".

I think that "Jenn's World" gives a great run down of all that's wrong with this whole mess. 

Disney and Similac Team Up to Undermine Breastfeeding for Moms

Reading this, I am absolutely horrified.  First of all, the so called “Pediatric Kits” are nothing more than items designed to undermine breastfeeding.  These kits are given out with coupons and formula and bottles so that mothers have them within ready access.  If something is difficult with breastfeeding and the mom does not have the help they need to breastfeed, these “kits” come in handy.   The middle of the night desperation is exactly what the formula companies are banking on.
The partnership idea is particularly gross to me because these companies add something else to the kit – something that is appealing to an even wider group. Breastfeeding mothers who would otherwise refuse the kit, may take it because of cereal, clothing, or Disney coupons or samples (things that have nothing to do with breastfeeding).  Once that kit is in the house, the undermining of breastfeeding happens.
Finally, it is clear that this is all revenue driven because the release discusses the money that they are making!  These kits are not about helping out new moms, they are about selling a product.  The only way to sell formula is if people are not breastfeeding.  A way to stop people from breastfeeding is to market formula in sneaky and underhanded ways like giving out “pediatric kits” in hospitals full of formula and coupons to Disney.

 HERE to read the entire article

Occupation in Canada: Stand Up.

With Occupy Wall Street well into it's third week, and Occupy Canada gearing up, I know that many of you in Canada might not think that "Occupying" Canada is important.  Many here in Canada might think that since our government has policies in place to (hopefully) insure that our banks and money machines don't fall apart like has/is happening in the US that there is no reason to protest,  that the protests planned in Canada's major cities are just an excuse to go out on the streets and wave signs and beat drums.  Talking about  the "Occupations" are not the usual topics that I tend to focus on, but I'd like to take a moment to explain WHY you should be standing up and telling the government that we're pissed off.

As a mom of 5, a breastfeeding and natural child birth advocate, and someone who spends hours a day researching subjects to do with health and family, I can tell you that we have a LOT to protest about. With two little sick boys today, I won't be able to get into huge details with lots of links, but I'd like to give you some basic thoughts to mull over and perhaps research for yourself.

I'm not an economist or a political science graduate, so I'm not going to get into those deep dark details of money and inflation.  I want to point out  those things that directly effect me and my family, and perhaps effect your family as well. I want to talk about what pisses me off and what's wrong with our current system.

Mega corporations are running our government.

  

Big Pharma: We are constantly bombarded with the government pushing the agenda of the mega corporations and we are faced with policies and regulations that have been set up to herd the public to do what the Mega Corps want.  Examples?  How about Big Pharma?  You all know that I'm not a supporter of the vaccine schedule that Health Canada is pushing.  But have you thought about the influence that Big Pharma has on our government- at all levels from municipal to federal?  Have you thought about how their money and power is used to bend the government to push their agenda?  Let alone the fact that  Big Pharma has convinced Canada to add more and more vaccines to the "schedule" (the number of vaccines  scheduled has doubled since 1980), lets talk about the massive waste of money of the H1N1 vaccine.  Through the machinations of the major power players of the pharmaceutical world, the Canadian Government spent $1.5 Billion on Vaccines between Oct and Nov of 2009 alone! ... and near half of those doses sit expiring in storage. Oh and that doesn't include the money spent on the Tamiflu medication that (doesn't work) was stockpiled by the government. The taxpayers paid for those vaccines. Vaccines that were suppose to save us from a "Pandemic" that never happened and was a nothing more than a money grab for Big Pharma from  countries all over the world.
...sorry, I'm ranting.  The topic of Vaccines does that to me.

Lets talk about how the government lets Big Pharma get away with charging unbelievable amounts of money for life saving drugs.  5 years ago I had some serious migraine headaches and my doctor gave me a sample pill to take- she saved these samples for patients like myself who don't have drug coverage/insurance- because these pills were $75 EACH!!  Even if these tiny pills were made with pure gold, they couldn't possibly be worth that much money!  Cancer drugs, heart medications, drugs for debilitating diseases..... family loose their homes to save the lives of their loved ones.  Yes, In Canada.

How about the pressure of Big Pharma to get the government to ban health foods and alternative medicines? They don't want you to know about simple cures that they can't make money on, and our government follows along in their agenda by creating laws that make health foods and alternative medicines difficult if not impossible to buy/market/use.

Infant Formula companies: Canada signed the World Health Organizations International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes  when it was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981.  Since then the Canadian government has done absolutely NOTHING to promote the Code, or to protect the Code through the creations of laws.  Infant Formula companies, like Nestle, give millions of dollars to our government, major health agencies and hospitals, and they use the power of their money to influence government policies. Earlier this year I organized a working group that wrote a detailed response to Health Canada's call for submissions on their Draft Document "Infant Nutrition- birth to 6 months".  One of our biggest concerns, echoed by INFACT Canada, was that three of the members of the Committee in charge of writing and editing this draft doc were in the pay of infant formula companies!!!  When Infant formula companies are allowed to do whatever they want, the health of our youngest citizens are in jeopardy.

Mega corporations are raking in the money hand over fist, and paying their upper management and CEOs ludicrous amounts of money..... that we pay for.  Take a look at what the Ontario Hydro companies are paying and then ask yourselves why your electric bill so high.  Take a look at what your banking executives salaries are and ask your self why you still have to pay fees every month for the banks to use YOUR money to make money.

Our provincial health care coverage is being chipped away every year.  The cost of living is going up almost as fast as the cost of gold, yet our salaries pretty much stay the same.  Our farmers are going out of business, yet the cost of flour has doubled in the last 3 years.  The price of buying a house anywhere near a major population centre has increased to the point that only the rich can afford to even think about buying a house.  The cost of rent has risen to reflect these costs and many families can barely afford to put a roof over the heads of their children.  The price of gasoline continually jumps higher and higher making it harder and harder to afford to drive to work from outlying regions (but you can't afford to move any closer to work because the prices are too high).  Food costs are soaring.  Energy costs are soaring..... everything is soaring except the money in your wallet...... and taxes just keep going up and up.

Canada has the largest freshwater stores in the world, produces the most wheat, has more oil that Saudi Arabia, more arable land per capita than any other country. We have natural gas coming out the wazoo, every precious mineral known to man, the best fresh produce and livestock in the world.....

  

....Yet we are in debt up to our eyebrows, and one in 6 children in our great nation lives in poverty.

Now I don't know  how you feel, but in my opinion this is WRONG.  I don't know about you, but I'm planning on standing up to my government and telling them that I don't believe in them anymore, I don't want them any more, and things HAVE to change. 

"How the Breastfeeding Industry is destroying Breastfeeding"

I love reading an article that opens my eyes to something I've missed.   As a mom of 5 who's been breastfeeding (this round) for almost 9 years solidly, I've always been a huge advocate of  "less is more". I refuse to have a crib (ok, I lie, I did have one once.....it was very handy for storing all the clean bedding and receiving blankets!), never had a change table, usually use my stroller for carrying school bags and groceries, and preferred manual expressing over using a breast pump..... I guess I've been out of the loop on all of this. I've noticed all the ads but never really thought of it this way. Well done.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2011How the Breastfeeding Industry is destroying Breastfeeding.
I've spend 10 years (!!) as a loud, active protector of breastfeeding. I've worked within the breastfeeding community, as an LC, been the first person to connect babywearing & breastfeeding as public health issues, a writer & so much more. I've attended countless conferences, tradeshows, speakers' events & taught at just as many. I've been observing an unnerving trend and a concept that James Akre introduced to me over 4 years ago has crystalised of late. 
A very large, capital I Industry has built up around "breastfeeding". What started as a small group of committed, WHO Code supporting companies has morphed into thousands of companies marketing "feeding products". Previously Code compliant companies have shifted their focus to "Feeding", offering little or no breastfeeding imagery, or products directly known to interfere with the success of breastfeeding. By creating an industry around the ostensible support of nursing mothers, companies have changed the culture around breastfeeding. The average new mother today is inundated with blog posts, ads, product samples and more more for things like breastfeeding cookies, bracelets, apps, creams, teas, menu plans, covers, hot/cold packs and so much more. 
It's an individual's choice to purchase & use what they'd like, make no mistake. The sum total of the entire industry and it's rapid growth over the past few years has accelerated to give the impression to today's first time mother that breastfeeding is expensive, time consuming, requires a lot of paraphernalia & often doesn't work the way they'd planned. It's important to know that the vast majority of these products simply didn't exist even a few years ago. It's also important to note the changes:
-Lansinoh, a beloved product for nursing mothers long endorsed by La Leche League, now sells bottles & other "feeding accessories" in violation of the WHO Code. 
-Boppy, one of the first commercial brands of nursing pillow, have rebranded as feeding pillows. There is currently not a single image of breastfeeding on their site or in their marketing.
-Medela, once a Code compliant supplier of pumps & accessories, is now marketing bottles & low quality pumps to mothers.
-Generically, many larger brands of nursing covers (a non-existent product category until about 10 years ago), have shifted their marketing from being a breastfeeding aid (which isdebatable) to providing a cover while pumping, bottlefeeding, or simply holding a sleeping baby. The imagery infrequently shows women actually nursing anymore.

HERE to read the entire article on Fierce Mamas

Follow the money trail!

So the Drama is never ending it would seem.  More Guilt.  More Shame.  More horrible "lactivists" emotionally emasculating mom's because of their choices for infant feeding.  This seriously is getting ridiculous.


Last night the Toronto Globe & Mail Newspaper publish a blog article by Tralee Pearce entitled "Why do "Lactivists" want to ban baby formula advertising?".  It would seem to be a valid question.  Why DO breastfeeding advocates want infant formula advertising banned?  And if the article was really serious about discussing this topic, I would whole heartedly join in the conversation and gladly discuss the WHO Code and the ramifications of formula advertising on breastfeeding rates and longevity....


But that's not what the article is about at all.  No, this article is yet another attempt to play the "oh woe is me" card using the media to incite yet another mothering riot, pitting the breastfeeders against the formula feeders, and vice-versa.  


The article starts off by quoting Babble blogger Catherine Connors about the recent Babble debacle:

“The message at the core of the ‘ban all formula advertising’ platform is simple: formula is bad. You should not use it. You should not even think about using it. You should not look at words or images that in any way suggest that you are not a terrible mother if you choose it. Giving your baby formula is akin to sticking a cigarette in her mouth. If you use formula, you are a bad, bad mother.Influential Canadian blogger Catherine Connors characterized the anti-advertising stance this way:
“This is nonsense. This is pernicious nonsense that is harmful to mothers, inasmuch as it undermines mothers’ powers of self-determination and calls into question their ability to make the best choices for themselves. It is harmful, because it shames mothers.”

This is such a load of bull crap!!  At no point in time during the conversations between Emma and Babble owner Alisa was this discussed.  At no point did any "lactivist" make any references comparing formula to cigarettes.  At no point did breastfeeding advocates call mothers who formula feed bad mothers.  It never happened.  Apparently Catherine has a very active imagination.  Or could it be that she has an agenda that she is pushing?  hmmmmm..... Catherine works for Babble.com.  Babble takes money from infant formula manufacturers.  Infant formula manufacturers place ads all over Babble's site and together they promote the use of Similac's "breastfeeding experts", who really are just infant formula salespeople in disguise, as I pointed out yesterday. So Babble hires writers, like Catherine, to write articles for their site, and pays them from the money they receive from infant formula manufacturers, like Similac, who use their website as a platform to sell moms their formula.  Now their writers, like say.... Catherine for example, go to the main stream media, with a story of how "Lactivists" are torturing moms, making them feel guilty about using infant formula.... oh the SHAME of it all!....

Does anyone else see the hidden link here?

And just two days ago, on her own blog, Catherine talked about infant formula, and formula advertising/marketing:

I disagree with the hard line of many breastfeeding activists that any and all formula advertising is by definition – because it is the advertising of formula, full stop – bad. I disagree with the position that any and all advertising of formula is uniquely deceptive and sinister; I disagree with the claim that the very existence of formula advertising meaningfully undermines breastfeeding. Yes, I know that the World Health Organization recommends against the advertising of formula. But the WHO recommendations were developed primarily to address real problems with the marketing of formula to vulnerable communities – problems that are being widely addressed by most formula companies. Mothers in the North America are not, by and large, a vulnerable community. And the choice to formula feed, freely made, is not an terrible one, nor is any mom who cannot for any reason breastfeed and is therefore compelled to formula feed harming her child.

(Edited original article to add these two points)


Can Catherine tell me the difference between "vulnerable communities" and non-vulnerable communities?  What is she trying to say? That women/mothers in developing nations, like China and the Philippines, are not as smart as mothers in developed nations, like Canada and the US? That they are stupid and therefore require the World Health Organization to create a Code of conduct for formula manufacturers just to protect them?  But not to protect women and mothers in Canada and the States, because they're smarter than their poorer counterparts in Asia? 




You know what the difference is between the marketing strategy of infant formula companies in the Philippines vs America?  In the Philippines, the formula company pay medical professionals to go out into the community and tell new moms that infant formula is just as good as breastmilk. Then they give these new mothers just enough free formula to make sure that their breastmilk supply dries up, thus forcing them to BUY the company's formula to feed their baby. In North America the formula company pays someone pretend to be breastfeeding professionals, and they sit in front of computers talking to mothers in their virtual community. And they tell them that "Good quality infant formula is just as good as breastmilk" and they send the mother enough free formula to insure that they have the family hooked on the bottle, so that then the family is forced to buy their infant formula from the company.


And women from both the Philippines and North America fall for this marketing tactic. Every. Single.  Day.


...yes, formula companies are "addressing" the problems of infant formula marketing in NON-vulnerable communities by creating pretend "breastfeeding help lines" staffed by pretend "breastfeeding support" people. And that is supposedly ok.  And the breastfeeding advocates are apparently suppose to sit back and not comment on the conflict of interest.  And "Lactivists" are not allowed to point out that the horrific advice given by these fake breastfeeding support people (who are really formula salespeople in disguise) is.... HORRIFIC and WRONG on all levels, because if they do, then they are causing "SHAME" and "GUILT".  And Gods forbid that a breastfeeding mom happens to mention the risks of using infant formula to another, non-breastfeeding mom!!!!  THE ABSOLUTE HORROR!  


Why is it that the formula companies can promote their product all over the place, yet breastfeeding advocates can't promote their product?  Why is it that formula pushers continuously point out that so many women fail at breastfeeding and they Need to feed their babies formula?  Why don't they recommend that these women feed their babies species specific donated breastmilk? 


Yes, Why DON'T they recommend that women who cannot breastfeed use donor milk?  WHY?!


....Because formula companies don't make any money off breastmilk- whether it comes from a donor  or directly from the mother.


It all comes back to the almighty dollar.  Would Babble make such a big issue about this if they weren't getting paid from a formula company?  Would writers, like Catherine Connor, make such a big stink about it all if they weren't getting paid by formula companies dirty money?  Would the major media outlets continuously flog this battle between breastfeeders and formula feeders if it didn't mean money in their pockets?


In their reality, money makes the world go round, not the truth.  The truth is easily verifiable. It takes a google search less than 2 seconds to pull up articles about the risks of formula feeding, about the multitude of studies done that have proven over and over again that formula is NOT a healthy substitute for human breastmilk, and that formula advertising directly negatively impacts breastfeeding.  Babble and Catherine and the media bulldogs can hide their heads in the sand (along with their ill gotten money), and pretend it's not true, but that doesn't change the facts.


I still haven't said all that I want to say on this topic, but my baby needs to nurse.


Tomorrows topic "GUILT & SHAME"

oh yes, I will go there!!

INFACT- WHO Code: Action Alert

Time to rally together again to stop another Infant Formula manufacturer from blatantly breaking the World Health Organizations International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes.  This time it's Mead Johnson who is trying to pretend that they are educating about infant health, when in fact it is just a marketing and sales ploy for their company.

Please take the time to write a letter or email to the powers that be at the Royal Victoria Hospital- tell them that we are watching them and that this can not and WILL NOT be allowed!! Take the time to do this because every single voice counts.  We have rallied together many times in the past and stopped this sort of sneaky marketing by Infant Formula companies before- the voices of the masses start with just one voice- YOURS.  It all starts with one, and every single voice makes a difference.

Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie:

Seminar Would Promote Infant Formula to Paediatrics Department Staff

In marketing, recruiting new customers is important. If you’re in the business of marketing infant formula one of the best ways to recruit new customers is a hospital paediatrics department: where new mothers come looking for guidance. And how could you influence the doctors and nurses, make them think that your product is scientifically advanced, that it’s getting closer to breastmilk, and that it’s OK. How about a one-hour infant formula infomercial masquerading as a scholarly seminar?

Well, that’s what infant formula maker Mead Johnson was thinking when they arranged for Dr. Marianna Mitchell to speak at the Barrie Royal Victoria Hospital paediatrics department.

Have a look at an excerpt from the seminar flyer:

Please join us as we welcome our speaker:

Dr. Marianna Mitchell, FAAP, FRCP(C), Lakeridge Health Corp., Oshawa site, Department of Paediatrics

The topic:

“Leading the Way: Bringing Infant Nutrition Closer to Breast Milk Function and Composition”

Objectives:

1. Explore the role of prebiotics in supporting GI health in infants
2. Examine advances in infant nutrition to more closely approximate the nutritional and functional properties of breast milk
3. Review the importance of DHA and ARA in cognitive and visual development and in immune health

View the entire flyer: Mead-Johnson-Royal-Victoria-Hospital.pdf

The words ‘infant formula,’ purposely do not appear, but in fact the seminar is all about infant formula. Prebiotics, ‘approximating breastmilk,’ DHA and ARA, with bogus unsubstantiated claims, are all infant formula marketing strategies. Throughout the flyer ‘infant nutrition,’ is simply a euphemism for ‘infant formula.’

This seminar is clearly a violation of section 6.2 of the World Health Organization International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and Resolution 63.23(4).

So, if Mead Johnson can make the doctors and nurses who work with new mothers think their formula is OK, or at least a viable alternative to breastfeeding, that thinking will affect the mother’s decision to breastfeed and her breastfeeding duration.

Help cancel this very blatant violation of the WHO Code and WHA Resolutons. Send a letter to Janice Skot, Executive Director, President and CEO of the Royal Victoria Hospital and ask her to cancel the Mead Johnson promotion of formula to pediatric staff. Let her know that you expect the Royal Victoria Hospital to abide by the World Health Organizations recommendations banning formula promotions in health care facilities and that she has a pubic mandate to protect the highest attainable standard of health for mothers and children in the facility she manages.

Ms. Janice Skot Executive Director, President and CEO North Simcoe Muskoka Royal Victoria Hospital

Mailing Address: Royal Victoria Hospital 201 Georgian Drive Barrie, ON L4M 6M2

Email: skotj@rvh.on.ca

Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America
esterken@infcatcanada.ca

INFACT Canada: Fed up with Formula Promotion

INFACT Canada sent out two updates this week- both about infant formula promotion.

Are you fed up with formula promotions?

Let the Minister of Health know that you want Health Canada to support mothers to breastfeed without commercial intervention.

Let the Minister of Health know that formula promotions threaten mother and infant/child health.

Let the Minister know that you want all formula promotions to stop; that formula promotions mislead and falsely claim to have attributes similar to breastmilk; that formula promotions undermine breastfeeding and are purposely targeted at pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers.

Let the Minister of Health know that when Canada endorses the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and all the World Health Assembly resolutions on infant and young child nutrition, we expect these protective measures to be implemented in Canada. Canadian mothers, babies and families deserve supportive environments to enable all mothers to nourish their children optimally.

Let the Minister know that breastfeeding is normal and should be the fundamental principle for all policies relating to maternal and child health.

Let her know that Canada’s breastfeeding rates remain far from optimal; that the exclusive breastfeeding rate for the first six months is just over 16% (Canadian Perinatal Health Report, 2008). How is it that 84% of mothers fall short of Health Canada’s recommendations for infant feeding?

Let the Minister know that mother’s health and children’s growth, development and health are far more important that the profit interests of the infant formula companies. Formula industries should be held accountable, financially and morally, for the increased deaths, illness and chronic diseases linked to formula feeding.

Let the Minister know that the costs of the increased hospitalizations, the increased need for medical interventions, the increased costs of the cancers, diabetes, obesity, and the cardiovascular diseases are in the billions annually when children are not breastfed.

Let her know that you want her to STOP ALL FORMULA PROMOTIONS!

Write To:

Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health: Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca.

CC To:

• Your local Member of Parliament
• Leader of the opposition, Michael Ignatieff: Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca.
• Leader of the NDP, Jack Layton: Layton.J@parl.gc.ca.
• Leader of the BQ, Gilles Duceppe: Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca.
• Leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May: leader@greenparty.ca.

*     *     *     *    *   *    

EU opposes misleading and deceptive health claims for infant formula and baby foods

INFACT Canada congratulates our partner group the UK-based Baby Milk Action and is pleased to have been able to support its work to inform and lobby the European Parliamentarians to oppose the misleading claims made by the infant formula/baby food industries.

From Baby Milk Action
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16mar11

European Parliamentarians oppose bogus baby food health claim

March 16, 2011 - Brussels

Members of the European Parliament have moved to block a baby food company from using a health claim on labels of follow-on formula.

The European Parliament’s committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI) today voted to stop the claim that DHA, a long-chain fatty acid found in breastmilk, when added to follow-on formulas and baby foods improves babies’ vision. A Resolution will now go to the full Plenary in Strasbourg in April and if it is passed there, the claim will not be allowed in EU countries from 2012, or on exports from the EU. Baby Milk Action is lodging an official complaint about misinformation put out by the European Commission in trying to influence the votes of MEPs.

This is first time since the 2006 European Health and Nutrition Claims Regulations came into effect that MEPS have used their right to block a claim and the news was greeted with huge relief by thousands of health professionals and public health campaigners both in the EU and globally who have been fighting to protect parents rights to truly independent information about infant feeding.

Socialist MEP Glenis Willmott, Co-Chair of the Health Working Group, who led the MEPs veto said: “The European Parliament delegated the power to make decisions about infant feeding to the Commission and a specialist committee, which meets behind closed doors. However MEPs have an important role to play in scrutinising these decisions as this claim shows. Independent studies say there is no proven link between artificially added DHA and eyesight, and some studies have found possible negative effects of DHA supplementation. As the scientific evidence is still inconclusive, we cannot allow parents to be misled. Babies’ health is too important to be left in the hands of a multinational company’s marketing department.”

. . . .

Read the full article online at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16mar11

Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada
esterken@infactcanada.ca

Donor human milk: a human rights issue

This article is quite long but well worth the read as it brings together a lot of excellent information and points about the importance of Human milk for Human babies, and the responsibilities our governments should be taking to make sure that all babies receive breast milk.  But one of the absolute BEST parts of this article is the fact that it gives a WHO (world health organization) Hierarchy of Feeding Choices- that lists regular infant formula as FIFTH and LAST choice for infant feeding. 

Global health policies that support the use of banked donor human milk: a human rights issue

Lois DW Arnold¹

¹National Commission on Donor Milk Banking, American Breastfeeding Institute, 327 Quaker Meeting House Road, East Sandwich, MA 02537, USA

Corresponding author.

Lois DW Arnold

Review

Donor milk banking thrives in countries such as Brazil, where there has been a concerted effort at the Health Ministry level to incorporate milk banks into health policy [1]. Its prime mover, Dr. Joao Aprigio Guerra de Almeida, has been honored with the prestigious WHO Sasekawa prize for making an important contribution to his country's overall health by establishing a network of donor human milk banks [2,3]. In countries where donor milk banking is protected, promoted, and supported as an extension of national breastfeeding policies, milk banking is considered a reasonable and effective part of health care delivery for infants and children.

Premature infants who are fed infant formula have a higher risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) than when they are fed human milk, either mother's own milk or banked donor milk [4-6]. In this regard, donor milk banking could be considered preventive "medicine" in the premature population; by reducing the incidence of NEC and optimizing central nervous system development, the premature infant has a better start in life than he would have if fed premature infant formula. The argument has been made [7] that these infants become more productive members of society as adults if their health and neurological potential are maximized through optimal nutrition and appropriate health care from the start. This argument is made despite a general lack of published research on the efficacy of banked human milk because in many parts of the world there is a general belief that human milk in any form is superior to manufactured infant formulas. This is contrary to the pervading philosophy among many health care providers, especially in the US, that infant formula and human milk are equivalent.

If donor milk banking has been incorporated into national public health policy and regulation, (such as France [8,9], Germany [10,11], and the Scandinavian countries [12]) and/or in other countries with socialized medicine, such as Canada and Great Britain, parents do not have to pay out of pocket to receive this service for their infants; it is provided as part of a national health insurance plan to any infant with a medical need. In countries such as the United States, where there is no federal public health policy supporting donor milk banking or regulation of its operations, growth of donor milk banking services has been severely hampered and the recipient population remains underserved.

This review examines the existing international policies from the United Nations, the World Health Organization and UNICEF into which donor milk banking may be specifically integrated. While these policies often do not refer directly to either donor milk banking or breastfeeding, many of them protect, promote and support optimal health. Where the support is indirect, through breastfeeding protection, promotion and support, it can be inferred that donor milk banking "fits" in these policy statements because the support is for a form of human milk delivery. These policies can therefore be interpreted as being supportive of the earliest measures to achieve optimal health, breastfeeding and its adjunct, donor milk banking. Any nation, whether signatory to these agreements or not, thus has a basis for arguing that policies already exist that protect and support donor milk banking and that these policies establish a standard for action. Even if a human rights convention is not ratified or enforced, a precedent has been set and the right remains for that country's citizens.

• Human rights conventions from the United Nations

On December 10, 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [13]. Article 25 states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care ...". Mothers and children are identified as being entitled to special care and assistance. All children should be provided with the same protection, meaning that sick or premature infants and children must be afforded the same opportunities for achieving good health as a healthy infant or child. While not specified, breastfeeding or the provision of human milk to an infant/child who is unable to nurse is of paramount importance. In the absence of their own mothers' milk, banked donor milk has a role to play in providing for health and well being of this special category of infants and children.

Human rights involve the relationship between a government and its individual citizens. While individuals clearly have some responsibility in terms of their behavior, governments must also take an active role to ensure that the weakest individuals are protected equally as much as the strongest. In developing its human rights conventions, the United Nations places responsibility on governments to protect the rights of its citizens. However, UN conventions do not have the force of law in any country. It is expected that the signatory nations will develop their own legislation to implement the conventions and provide protection of basic human rights in this way [14,15].

Bar-Yam [16,17] has reviewed the United Nations (UN) human rights conventions and placed breastfeeding and human milk in the conventions addressing children's rights, women's rights, and the right to health and health care. The UN conventions on children's rights clearly refer to all children and do not distinguish whether children are sick or well. What is inferred is that if a child is sick then the family and government have clear moral obligations to remedy the situation where possible to "provide the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health." [[18], Article 12]. Breastfeeding and human milk, including banked donor milk, take on even greater significance for premature and sick infants and children.

Does "breastfeeding" mean merely consuming human milk or really being fed at the breast? If the baby/mother has the right to feed at the breast, then it is the mother's moral obligation to do so. She needs to take advantage of her right and utilize it. This requires government protection at the national level (e.g., legislation to protect families from formula company marketing tactics or legislation that protects the breastfeeding relationship for working mothers), promotion (e.g., national campaigns to inform the public of the benefits of breastfeeding/hazards of infant formula), and support (e.g., funding of mother-to-mother and peer counselor programs, doulas, and voluntary or professional breastfeeding counselors/consultants that instill self confidence in breastfeeding mothers and provide information, recommendations, and assistance when problems arise). If the mother is unable to feed at the breast, then it is the government that is morally obligated to provide another source of breastfeeding or human milk (e.g., a wet nurse or cooperating mother, where culturally acceptable, or milk from a donor milk bank). If the right is interpreted as the baby's right to be fed human milk, then the moral obligation falls on the mother to provide it. In the absence of the mother's breastfeeding or providing her own expressed milk, it falls to the government to provide human milk in some other way, such as through a milk bank [16].

In 1967, the UN adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [18]. Article 12 states that all individuals have the right to the "highest attainable standard of physical and mental health." Countries need to take steps to lower infant mortality and ensure the healthy development of the child [[17], p. 32]. Breastfeeding and human milk fit into this convention well. There is a definitive relationship of infant formula feeding with an increase in infant mortality rates and poorer infant and child health outcomes [19,20]. Banked donor milk has been used to reduce morbidity and infant mortality. Donor milk feedings reduce the number of days of hospitalization required by the presence of NEC. (According to Bisquera et al, [21] a resolved case of NEC extends the hospital stay by approximately two weeks.) Additionally, if fewer cases of NEC result, then fewer surgeries are required to remove necrotic portions of the gut and fewer individuals therefore have surgically-induced short bowel syndrome and life-long malabsorption problems [22].

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women was adopted in 1981. This convention recognizes that certain groups require special protection. According to Article 5b, "...the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases." [23]. Family education becomes an important factor so that adult family members understand the importance of motherhood and that mothers raise future members of the society and culture. Pregnant women and mothers should, therefore, be afforded special protection so that they might care for their children in an optimal way. If the interests of the child have top priority, providing them optimal nutrition when they most need it should also be a priority. Breastfeeding and banked donor milk fit here as needing special protection.

Several articles in the Declaration and Convention on the Rights of the Child [24] also apply to donor milk banking. Article 3 reiterates that the best interests of the child are primary. This belief has previously been expressed in the earlier declarations relating to children's rights as well as other UN conventions [12,18,25]. Article 18 specifies that governments should provide assistance to families through institutional and legislative support. [[17], pp. 37–38]. In relation to breastfeeding and the use of human milk this means that a country has a responsibility for protecting breastfeeding through legislation, including legislation to restrict marketing practices of infant formula companies. If other forms of infant nutrition are needed, the manufacture of these foods should be regulated for safety and adequacy. In terms of donor milk banking, this means that governments need to ensure that human milk alternatives to infant formula are provided and that there exists quality control and governmental or other legislative oversight to ensure that human milk obtained from other mothers can be fed safely to an unrelated infant/child.

Breastfeeding is addressed directly in the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Article 24. The article begins by saying that "States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to the facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health." [24]. Because donor milk is primarily used as therapeutic nutrition for infants whose health requires improvement, donor milk banks become facilities that are an integral part of the process of treatment and rehabilitation. Governments therefore need to actively become involved in the creation of these facilities and/or their operation. Various ways that governments can do this are to: make national policy statements about the importance of donor milk banking; provide seed money or continuous funding for the establishment and operation of donor milk banks; provide regulatory and research support as well as expert consultation on standards of operation; and implement the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes [26] so that donor milk can compete fairly with commercially available manufactured breast milk substitutes.

Article 24 continues by stating that breastfeeding is an activity for the whole society (Section 2e). Mothers are not mandated to breastfeed, but governments are mandated to educate all mothers and parents so that they can make informed choices. [[17], pp 39–40] By extension, this means that parents should also be educated about the uses of banked donor milk and its benefits, so that they know about this option and can request it if necessary.

HERE to read the entire article