Search This Blog

Showing posts with label dangers of infant formual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dangers of infant formual. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

IBFAN: The Business of Malnutrition


The Business of malnutrition: breaking down trade rules to profit from the poor

Guidelines for a new range of products for babies ‘at risk’ of malnutrition was the topic at the annual meeting of Codex, the UN body that sets food standards. In the press release below, learn about how the mass marketing of these products may create the scary new ‘business of malnutrition’ where the developed world makes big profits from the malnutrition and poverty of the developing world.

Press Release

The Business of malnutrition: 
breaking down trade rules to profit from the poor

Codex Nutrition Committee: Bad Soden, Frankfurt, Germany
12-18th November 2011
Health campaigners, led by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and representatives from a dozen developing countries attended the Nutrition Meeting of Codex, the UN body that sets international food standards These attendees achieved partial success in the Codex Guidelines by calling for strict controls on the marketing of a loose range of processed fortified products for babies that were never clearly defined. The objective was to provide nutrients which are “either lacking or are present in insufficient quantities,” with the clear aim of targeting all those ‘at risk’ of malnutrition.
The countries, Brazil, Nigeria, Chile, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Gambia, Togo, Cameroon, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, South Africa and Bolivia, fearing that uncontrolled marketing would undermine breastfeeding, increase family poverty and create dependence on products that are expensive and often unnecessary, called for several key World Health Assembly Resolutions to be mentioned in the guidelines. The United States and the European Union initially opposed this move saying that because the Resolutions stand on their own there was no need to refer to them. Australia and Botswana suggested that paragraphs from the relevant WHA texts could be referenced and, after the World Health Organisation (WHO) explained the importance of the Resolutions, the EU and the US agreed to a compromise.
Experts from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), led by Elisabeth Sterken of INFACT Canada, suggest that as the EU and US economic crisis continues, the new ‘business of malnutrition’ – which has the potential for multi-billion dollar profits from exports to the developing world and is portrayed as a win-win solution for the economy and development – could lead to a marketing bonanza that, instead of improving infant and young child health, could harm it and drain family budgets.
. . . .
Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America
esterken@infactcanada.ca

Friday, September 16, 2011

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!!

Thursday, September 15, 2011

More Babbling about the Babble Debacle

Yesterdays article "Breasts, Babble, Boycotts and Bashing: Baffled?" was a long one, and after many hours of reading, researching and writing I finished it up.... even though I hadn't really said all that I wanted to say on the topic.  I woke up this morning, toying with the idea of writing a second article to further expand on my  thoughts..... but not today.

Then I fired up my computer this morning and the first thing I read on my Facebook feed was this post by Emma Kwasnica:


"‎Jamie called the Similac hotline just to see, folks. Nice "support" she got from them. :/
"So, just now out of curiosity, I looked up the "Similac Feeding Hotline" number, and gave them a faux compliant. I said my 8 month old (true) isn't seeming satisfied after nursing (false). Their immediate solution? "Why don't I take your address and we can overnight you some samples, and then we can put in an order to ship direct to you? Then its just as convenient, you won't even need to leave the house!" When I said that I wanted to continue breastfeeding, they said (direct quote here): "Your baby has all the benefits breastfeeding offers. After 6 months, breastfeeding and feeding quality formula are exactly the same."

 WTF!?!?!

This, my friends, is why I am so outraged at Babble and their never ending infant formula ads that are all over their website.  As I said yesterday, Babble owners Alisa and Rufus might want to claim that the Similac ads on their breastfeeding and infant feeding sections are allowing women to make a choice on how they will feed their infant, but I will point out that making a choice based on an ad by a company is NOT making an Informed Choice.  And saying that women can make a choice based on receiving so called "breastfeeding advice" from a company that makes money off of women that don't breastfeed...... well that just plain stupid.

As Jamie learned this morning, Similac's  so called "breastfeeding experts" have no interest in helping women breastfeed.  Why would they?  They are being paid out of the money that Similac makes from selling families infant formula.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in Never Never Land and sniffing too much pixie dust.

THIS is WRONG!!! 
THIS does NOT help women breastfeed.
THIS is one reason that North America's breastfeeding rates are so pathetic.







Thursday, December 9, 2010

Infant Formula: It's not "Good Enough"

Before the  formula lynch mob hangs me for the following comment, I just want to say something:  This is not about guilt.  This is not about trying to make mothers who've used formula feel guilty.  If you want to debate the "Guilt Issue" go read my article "Breastfeeding: guilt, statistics, support, and making a choice"   and then we'll talk.  This is not about feeling guilty for using infant formula. This is about not having to "choose" to use infant formula. This is about actually having a choice and making the best choice for your baby and your family.

When breastfeeding is difficult, or when it goes terribly wrong, it can be absolutely devastating for mother and baby.  Mothers who have done their research and made the choice to exclusively breastfeed their babies already know that "breast is best", they know that breastfeeding is NORMAL.  More importantly they know about the risks associated with feeding your baby infant formulas. So when nature throws moms a curve and forces them to have to rely on something other than their own breasts to nourish their child, it can be completely overwhelming.

The first thing moms need to do is to get professional help.  See a certified  Lactation Consultant/IBCLC to try to work through the problem:  Is it a poor latch?  Why is baby's latch not good enough?  Is baby tongue tied?  Does mother simply need help with positioning?  For most situations if you fix the latch you fix the supply problems.

But what if the problem isn't so easily fixed?  What if the problem is one that is unfixable?  What then?  Babies need to be fed and when the mother is not able to produce enough milk to exclusively breastfeed, then they have to turn to another source of nutrition. Up until the last 60 or 70 years, the natural thing to do would be to use donor milk or a wet nurse- whether it was your sister, cousin, aunt, mother, friend or another local mother who was already breastfeeding her own baby.  Mother to Mother milk sharing and tribal nursing was so common that is was the accepted method of feeding babies who needed milk.

Now of course we are living in the era of commercially prepared infant formulas.  "Wet nursing" is a word that's fallen out of fashion and tribal nursing, if done at all, is done behind closed doors.  Now if a mother is unable to produce enough breastmilk the medical machine automatically hands her a can of formula and sends her on her way. WHY? Why formula instead of donated breastmilk?  Because infant formula is a huge industry and pays out millions of dollars in advertising and promotions, sponsors medical associations and medical schools, buys doctors fancy briefcases and sports cars, sends hospital executives on Caribbean cruises and gives maternity wards thousands of cans of their product to use and give away.  Money talks, and "Breastmilk" doesn't have any executives to pay off government officials to use their products.

Up until the 1980's there were breastmilk banks scattered all over North America to facilitate the feeding of preterm and fragile infants in hospital NICUs.  Then came the AIDs scare and the vast majority of milk banks closed their doors- leaving just 10 banks in the US and one lonely milk bank in Canada. I plan on doing some investigating into the closure of these milk banks because I'm a firm believer that money talks and if doors were closed, then someone somewhere told them to close and paid for them to stay that way. There is only one industry that stood to gain anything from the closure of breastmilk banks.  Call me a conspiracy theorist, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm going to call it a duck.

Recently the Canadian (and US) governments have been talking about the need for Breastmilk Banks, about how vitally necessary breastmilk is to our most fragile citizens.  Dr. Sharon Unger was quoted in The Toronto Star in November as saying:
“We’ve long, long, long wanted a milk bank in Ontario,” says Dr. Sharon Unger, a Mount Sinai neonatologist.
“Our hope is that we would supply milk to all of Ontario, so we’d have depot sites or collection sites throughout the province and we’d be a central processing plant,” says Unger, who is medical director of Toronto’s Milk Bank Initiative.
The group is currently in negotiations with the provincial health ministry to fund the project. Unger says a final price tag has not been determined, but that it would be a multi-million-dollar venture.
“It does of course cost more to process human milk than cow’s milk,” she says.
...and as I said at the time:
Applause, yes applause.  It's a wonderful thing that the media has jumped on the band wagon and is making public announcements like this, I mean,  any publicity is good publicity KWIM? Horray for Breastmilk!
But I have to admit that it irks me.  Mothers and Doctors, like Dr. Jack Newman, have been crying out for Milk Banks for Years- YEARS!!!! Not only that, but Canada does have a Milk Bank in Vancouver BC... a milk bank that they have been trying to close down for years!!  I wrote an article on the topic just a couple of months ago: Canada Needs Milk Banks!!!
And I still agree, We NEED milk banks!!!  But you know what? If we wait around for the government to get off their bureaucratic asses to build even ONE milk bank.... I'll probably already be a grandmother!!!  And when we get milk banks, will they help the babies that are healthy but need milk?  Will they give milk to mothers with low supply?  Adoptive mothers?  Mothers with babies that have special needs like Anaya? NO, they won't.

So we return to the original topic:  What if the mother isn't able to exclusively breastfeed?  What if she has low supply? What if the problem isn't so easily fixed?  What if the problem is one that is unfixable?  What then? Up until recently your only choice would of been feeding your baby infant formula.  Not much of a choice is it?

Now  you can choose to feed your baby donated human milk.  Mothers have had enough of waiting for the bureaucrats and money grubbers to build milk banks.  Now mothers have taken back their autonomy and are supporting other women and families.  Milk Sharing is the wave of the future.  Milk sharing is making a difference and helping families and babies.  And Human Milk 4 Human Babies is leading the way!!!

Here is another amazing story of one mothers struggle to breastfeed her baby and how milk sharing made a huge difference in her life!!!




Ruby's  Story
By Kim Parent

"I can’t remember when I made the decision to breastfeed my daughter – I just know that not breastfeeding never occurred to me. There were many compelling reasons to nurse, including cost, health benefits, and convenience. My partner and I collected books about breastfeeding during pregnancy and we educated ourselves about the subject. I learned what myths and traps to look out for, and prepared myself to stand up against the well-meaning medical staff who might want to supplement my baby with formula. Fortunately I had a trouble-free birthing experience.

However, within the first week it became obvious that something wasn’t right. Ruby would not keep her latch for more than a minute or two. She would unlatch, crying and screaming, over and over again. After several tearful days, we called an IBCLC. She was finally able to tell me why my daughter was so upset: I have breast hypoplasia, also known as IGT (insufficient glandular tissue). Hypoplastic breasts never fully develop, and they lack an adequate amount of milk-producing mammary glands. I was heartbroken.

My lactation consultant wrote a plan of action that would hopefully allow me to increase my supply while supplementing my daughter. With great effort, I was able to approximately double my milk production, to a maximum of a few ounces per day - not nearly enough to meet Ruby’s needs. We were supplementing with approximately 20 ounces of formula per day. We were not prepared to accept that formula was “good enough”,  being fully aware of the risks associated with artificial feeding. We could see that her little body was having trouble digesting the formula. She was very constipated, and she would scream and cry for hours. We tried many different brands, but her symptoms were always the same. I turned to my lactation consultant for advice on donated breast milk.

In all of Canada, there is only one milk bank, located in Vancouver, BC. Currently they cannot keep up with the demands of their own NICU. Even if there was enough milk available, the cost can easily be prohibitive. At $1.25 per ounce (which is much less than the cost of banked milk in the U.S.), it would cost us at least $750 per month to feed Ruby exclusively breast milk.

For our family, the answer was informed, mother-to-mother milk donation, not unlike wet nursing. We found several online resources to facilitate this, including the Human Milk 4 Human Babies Global Network on Facebook. Thanks to fifteen generous women, my daughter has received thousands of ounces of breast milk. She has not had a drop of formula in over three months! She is a different baby now – no more colic, spitting up, or constipation. She is hitting all of her developmental milestones and is just a radiantly beautiful and happy little girl. I still grieve the exclusive breastfeeding relationship that I had planned to have with her. However, I finally feel confident that she is receiving the best nutrition that I can possibly provide for her. I am eternally grateful to the amazing families who have helped us and for the support I have received from those around me.



Ruby at 3 weeks old


Ruby at 3 weeks old - at this point she had been supplemented with formula for over 2 weeks








Ruby at 3 months
Ruby at 3 months old, exclusively breastfed!

















At 6 months old- exclusively breastfed!

A beautiful healthy Ruby at 6 months old!!

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Replacing the Mother: Dangers of DHA & ARA in Formula

Yesterday I was commenting on a Facebook group about the dangers of DHA & ARA additives in Infant formula. Last night as I wandered through the grocery store I stopped in the infant formula aisle and curiosity go the better of me:  I HAD to look! WOW! Do you know I couldn't find a single infant formula that did NOT contain added DHA & ARA?!?  I know that some parents might be fooled by the marketing ploy of the infant formula manufacturers with their fancy health claims "closer than ever to breastmilk"  because DHA & ARA are naturally occurring in human breastmilk.  The marketing is sneaky and underhanded and designed for one purpose only:  To sell more formula.

Even the FDA refuses to say that DHA & ARA oils added to infant formula been proven to be safe.
"The FDA did not affirm the safety of Martek’s DHASCO and ARASCO for use in infant formula. Among its reasons: stud-ies showing adverse events including diarrhea in infants."

The quote below is from an extensive pdf document put out by the Cornucopia Institute.  It gives extensive information about the so-called DHA and ARA that is being added to infant formulas-which at the time including organic formulas- and discusses the process that is used to create these chemicals, the marketing effect on the general public, the illegal aspects of the usage of these chemicals in organic products, the studies that disprove the formula companies claims and show the dangers of these additives.  Recently the USDA has banned the use of these chemical oils DHA & ARA in organic labled products.

If you know anyone using infant formulas to feed or supplement their babies, please be sure to pass this information to them. Print off a copy of the pdf document and take it in to your doctor, your midwife, your local hospital, and public health offices: Every parent needs to be aware of the dangers of these chemicals and medical personnel that parents might turn to for information on supplementing and formula feeding need to be fully informed to be able to give their advice. 

Replacing Mother — Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory
Novel Oils in Infant Formula and Organic Foods:
Safe and Valuable Functional Food or Risky Marketing Gimmick?

Babies who are fed infant formula with Martek’s DHASCO and ARASCO are consuming novel foods, never before incorporated into the human diet, which are extracted with the use of the toxic chemical hexane. DHASCO and ARASCO are derived from fermented algae and fungus.
While allowed on the market, the FDA has not approved or affirmed the safety of DHASCO and ARASCO that are added to infant formula. Scientists and pediatricians question the adequacy of the premarket testing that was performed on DHASCO and ARASCO for infant formula, and the National Academies of Sciences has published these concerns.
While infant formula manufacturers claim that DHASCO and ARASCO are “proven to aid in brain and eye development,”171 scientists do not agree—DHA and ARA in a mother’s breast milk may benefit brain and eye development, but studies on adding DHASCO and ARASCO to formula show inconsistent and inconclusive results.
To extract DHASCO and ARASCO, Martek uses hexane, a toxic chemical by-product of gasoline refining that is classified by the EPA as a toxic pollutant.172 Martek also claims that it has developed an extraction process that does not use hexane but has been unwilling to say anything more on the subject. Trace amounts of hexane have been detected in some foods where it has been used as a processing agent. Adequate testing has not taken place to determine whether this is a risk to infants, children, or adults.
The National Organic Program regulations prohibit ingredients that are extracted with organic solvents such as hexane, nor do the regulations allow the inclusion of “by-products of microorganisms” in organic foods. The Cornucopia Institute has filed a complaint with the USDA, alleging that the addition of Martek’s DHASCO and ARASCO to organic foods is a violation of the national organic standards.
Most importantly, this report provides an alternative source of information regarding DHASCO and ARASCO in infant formula for parents, children’s caretakers, and medical professionals. Infant formula manufacturers have consistently given only one side of this story; claims that DHASCO and ARASCO make formula “closer than ever to breast milk” and have been “proven to aid in brain and eye development” abound, while making no mention of safety concerns regarding the oils themselves and the possible processing contaminants. Moreover, members of the scientific community doubt the benefits to infant development of adding DHASCO and ARASCO to infant formula. Parents and caretakers who are either considering switching to infant formula or are already feeding their infants formula can use this report to make more informed health and nutritional decisions on behalf of their babies.

 Click HERE to read the entire report by the Cornucopia Institute