What formula is NOT.

I just discovered this blog tonight and immediately had to share it with all of you.  This article is brilliantly well written, it outlines everything in a way that is non-confrontational, and most importantly does not gloss over the facts. I have a sick baby tonight so don't have time to really get into my thoughts here, but rest assured I'll be looking forward to reading more from "The Babe and the Breast" blog!

What Formula Is Not 

Ah, the hot button issue. There has been a large kerfuffle of attention lately over the start-up of a new milk-sharing network on Facebook called Eats On Feets (http://www.eatsonfeets.org). The brainchild of Arizona midwife Shell Walker and fierce Montreal lactivist Emma Kwasnica, Eats On Feets is a network run by merit of individual state, province, and country pages where moms or families who are having difficulty with milk supply can turn to other lactating mothers for donated milk to supplement or feed their children. Moms with oversupply provide the milk, and Eats on Feets provides the space. It is a good setup, with Eats On Feets administrators and creators putting emphasis on the need for informed choice. The FAQ on their page is thorough and provides information on flash-pasteurization, disease transmission, and obtaining medical history from potential donors. Soon after Eats On Feets emerged as a major player (and a major threat to the formula industry), many medical groups jumped to issue vehement statements to the media, with their focus being less about informed choice and more on fear-mongering. The response from Health Canada and the Canadian Paediatric Society has been extremely cautionary, focusing on the risks of breast-milk sharing and calling the practice "very dangerous". The Calgary Herald.   Health Canada states that “unprocessed human milk should not be shared.” (see Health Canada’s statement HERE)





Considering the rapid rise of popularity for informed milk sharing, it should come as no surprise that this month Health Canada chose to revise and rewrite its existing infant feeding recommendations. What is shocking however, if that the new recommendations state that “Commercial infant formulas are the only acceptable alternative to breastmilk” (See full draft statement HERE). There is no mention of donor breastmilk, either through a milk bank or via less formal channels. In fact, not only is the option of donor breast milk completely ignored, but the make-up and risks of formula feeding are also completely absent. Instead a huge portion of the document focuses on what formula is, what it contains, what types are available, and how it should be prepared.





WHAT???





Not only are the risks of formula feeding skated over, but Health Canada spends more time discussing the benefits of bovine-based formula over soy-based formula than it does on the Ten Steps from the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, an Initiative that is essential to boost and maintain breastfeeding rates in maternity wards.





Come on Health Canada! Doctors receive little to no breastfeeding training during their time in med school. If you are lucky like me, you find a doctor who did his residency in a breastfeeding clinic (and still needs some of the finer points explained to him). Doctors and nurses in Canada turn to Health Canada for their information on infant nutrition, and aside from people in my lucky situation, most doctors still believe that formula is an equal alternative to mommy milk, and shoddy documents like this do nothing to inform them of risks and facts about formula, which can then be passed to new moms. So, in light of this ridiculous oversight of real formula facts, and the (very mild) explanation of what formula is, I will give you an exposition on what formula is NOT. Much of the credit for this list goes to several lovely ladies from the facebook page, “Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding Is Not Obscene!” (namely, Elizabeth Anthes, Stephanie Knapp Muir, Jo Slamen, Emma Locker, Karen Coffman, Murielle Bourbao, Jennifer Dunston Lane, Kasey-Louise Traynor, Nicky Lawrence, Cheryl Giovenco, Barbara Rail, Lucy Fensom, and the lovely Alison Kennedy. Thanks ladies!)



1. Formula is not sterile.



Ever heard E. Sakazakii? It’s a pathogen commonly found in infant formula that can cause major illness for the baby if formula is not prepared properly. It is essential that all bottles, nipples, and equipment be sterilized before every feed, and that boiling water is used to make the infant formula. It’s not enough that the water be “sterile”, like the companies who make those huge containers of sterile water would lead you to believe. The water needs to be hot enough at the time you prepare the bottle to kill off potential pathogens like E. Sakazakii. This leads us to point two.



2. Formula is not convenient



For those of us breastfeeding moms who have supplemented or used formula at any point, we fully understand the truth of this statement. It is a million times easier to NOT have to get up, walk to the kitchen, boil the water (to kill the E. Sakazakii), prepare the formula, and then rush back to the baby, while all the while he is shrieking at the top of his lungs to be fed. Nor is it easier to haul all the paraphernalia associated with formula-feeding. The bottles, the sterilizer, the container of powder (oh damn, it spilled AGAIN), not to mention where oh where in this stupid mall can I find a place to boil my water? Oh shoot, we’ve been here for 7 hours, and the pre-mixed formula I made is only good for 30 minutes at room temperature! I forgot my miniature cooler! (http://www.nestle.ca/en/FAQ/baby_nutrition_faqs.htm) It is so much easier, once the initial bumps of learning are past, to just roll over, pop out a breast, and go back to sleep, or to find a seat (or stand, if you are talented), lift your shirt slightly, and latch baby.

To read the entire article click HERE
 

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.

INFACT Canada- Online Petition to Health Canada

Attention Canadians! Please take a moment and read and sign the petition to Health Canada linked below!!  This is very important as Health Canada has not given enough time to the public to respond to the changes they are making to the draft nutritional guidelines for children from birth to six months.  The public needs a chance to review these changes and make their voices heard by Health Canada!!

Sign the online petition to Health Canada to broaden consultation on infant nutrition recommendations

As of course you know, Health Canada has opened up its draft nutritional guidelines for children from birth to six months in an online consultation. The period of time for response is very short, Feb 3 is the deadline. There are no cross-country consultations or opportunities for input beyond this online consultation.
A letter has been drafted asking Health Canada to extend the deadline for the online consultation and to implement cross-country consultation meetings as they have done recently for revisions to Canada's Food Guide and Canada's Physical Activity Guideline.
Please consider signing this letter personally or on behalf of your organization.

Sign the petiton letter online now at:
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/42101.html.

Thanks,

Jodine Chase

Help INFACT Canada to promote, protect and support breastfeeding.

INFACT Canada- Health Canada revises their recommendations for feeding Infants

Attn: Canadian Parents- please take the time to read this message from INFACT Canada and respond to Health Canada's request for submissions and comments about their revision of Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants: Recommendations from birth to six months.  It is vitally important that parents exercise their Right to tell the government that we have expectations that they must live up to.  Please Read and share this widely!

Health Canada revision of Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants: Recommendations from birth to six months

Health Canada is planning the revision of Canada’s infant and young child feeding policy statement: Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants.

The first draft revision makes recommendations for infants from birth to six months.
It is critical that Canada’s revision reflect the evidence based, optimal feeding practices as recommend by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the WHO/UNICEF Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding.
INFACT Canada urges all those working with infants and young children to respond to the on-line request for comment. The time line to respond is very short: January 6 to February 3, 2011.
INFACT Canada has prepared general comment on the overall draft revision and also specific comment to the proposed principles and the recommendations.
You may wish to use the INFACT Canada comment or add to it, or prepare your own comment. Any way, we urge you to submit your comment to ensure that optimal infant feeding recommendations are protected. “As a global public health recommendation, infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life to achieve optimal, growth, development and health. Thereafter, to meet their evolving nutritional requirements, infants should receive nutritionally adequate and safe complementary foods while breastfeeding continues up to two years or beyond.” (WHO/UNICEF Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, 2003)
The proposed draft revisions and comment form can be accessed at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/consult/infant-nourrisson/index-eng.php.

INFACT Canada’s General Comments on the Proposed Draft

January 2011

Prepared by Elisabeth Sterken, BSc,MSc,Dt

1. Conflict of Interest declarations provided by the Expert Advisory Group

   INFACT Canada’s position is that those with conflicts of interest should not be working on infant and young child public nutrition policies and should not be participating in this process.
   The list of the members of the Infant Feeding Expert Advisory Group can be seen at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/infant-nourisson/eag-gce-inf-nour-membership-membres-eng.php.
   
   James Friel: Serves on the advisory boards of Heinz and Danone (Both Heinz and Danone are manufacturers of complementary food products and infant formulas and are in serious violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and relevant resolutions of the World Health Assembly).
   Sheila Innis: Researcher in infant feeding and infant formulas. Receives research funding from infant formula manufacturers Mead Johnson, Abbott Laboratories and the from Martek Biosciences the maker of fungi and algae sourced fatty acids, DHA and ARA. (All three industries are in serious violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and relevant resolutions of the WHA).
   Daniel Roth: Is a researcher in vitamin D and has received a travel grant to attend the International Congress of Nutrition from the Organizing Committee sponsored by Coca Cola.
   The remaining five members of the Advisory Group have no competing interests.
   

2. Breastfeeding is the normative way to feed infants

   Industrially manufactured infant formulas differ very significantly in nutritional and chemical content as well as the means of feeding. The lumping these two into one document creates a flawed impression that breastfeeding and formula feeding are similar and interchangeable.
   INFACT Canada recommends that Canada’s Nutrition for Health Term Infants should make recommendations about the biologically normal way to feed infants.
   The feeding of other manufactured “milks” should be dealt with as an intervention and the conditions for the use of these products should be addressed either in an appendix or in a separate document on the use of artificial feeding methods and products. Full information about the risks of the use of these products and the feeding methods needs to be stated. Parents should be fully informed when making infant feeding decisions.
   

3. The International Code and WHA

   Canada’s government through its delegations to the World Health Assembly have endorsed the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and all the relevant WHA resolutions on Infant and Young Child Nutrition. It is vital that Health Canada take responsibility and leadership in realizing the implementation of the WHO provisions they have endorsed.
   The International Code and WHA resolution measures are critical to protect the ability of mothers to fully breastfeed their children as recommended. The undermining interference on optimal breastfeeding practices resulting from the continued violations of the provisions of the International Code and resolutions, are extremely costly in personal loss, in health outcomes and in health costs. We all benefit when our children are breastfed.
   

For INFACT Canada’s detailed, formal comments on the proposed draft see: http://infactcanada.ca/nutrition-healthy-term-infants-new.html#comment.

For more information contact:

Elisabeth Sterken, MSc, Dt
Director INFACT Canada
esterken@infactcanada.ca
Telephone: 416 595-9819

Help INFACT Canada to promote, protect and support breastfeeding.

INFACT: WHO Breastfeeding Recommendations under attack

INFACT Canada Release: January 14, 2011

WHO breastfeeding recommendations under attack from industry-funded scientists.

Are the infant formula and baby foods industries attempting to undermine the World Health Organization and globally accepted recommendations that infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life?

The BBC, the Guardian and other media are carrying stories about a new review which is published in the British Medical Journal: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.c5955.
The authors, of the article entitled, Six months of exclusive breastfeeding: how good is the evidence?, led by Dr Mary Fewtrell, a consultant paediatrician at the UCL Institute of Child Health in London, have reviewed the evidence behind the current guidance and say the time is right to reappraise this recommendation.
Three of the four authors of this study, Mary Fewtrell, Alan Lucas and David Wilson, receive funding from the baby food industry.
Prof Lucas in particular plays a key role in advising the UK baby food industry, and has opposed the WHO recommendation for many years. In 2003 he went so far as to appear for the defence when one of the largest baby food companies, SMA Wyeth, which was successfully prosecuted for illegal advertising by the UK Trading Standards.
INFACT Canada is concerned that this review, of which three out of the four authors receive funding from the infant formula and baby foods industries, and the media coverage it is generating is being used by the infant formula and baby foods industries in their attempt to weaken national policies and legislation recommending exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life.
Exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life has been demonstrated to reduce respiratory and gastro infectious diseases, childhood obesity, optimize brain and neurological development, and reduce the risk of chronic diseases such diabetes, breast cancer and heart disease in later life.
In Canada, complementary foods are already labeled to imply that these foods be used before the age of six months. This is in contradiction to Health Canada’s infant feeding policy of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life.
In response to the article in the British Medical Journal, the World Health Organization’s Head of Nutrition, Francesco Branca stated:

“WHO’s global public health recommendation is for infants to be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health. Thereafter, infants should be given nutritious complementary foods and continue breastfeeding up to the age of 2 years or beyond.
WHO closely follows new research findings in this area and has a process for periodically re-examining recommendations. Systematic reviews accompanied by an assessment of the quality of evidence are used to review guidelines in a process that is designed to ensure that the recommendations are based on the best available evidence and free from conflicts of interest.
The paper in this week’s BMJ is not the result of a systematic review. The latest systematic review on this issue available in the Cochrane Library was published in 2009 (“Optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding (Review)”, Kramer MS, Kakuma R. The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4). It included studies in developed and developing countries and its findings are supportive of the current WHO recommendations.
It found that the results of two controlled trials and 18 other studies suggest that exclusive breastfeeding (which means that the infant should have only breast milk, and no other foods or liquids) for 6 months has several advantages over exclusive breastfeeding for 3-4 months followed by mixed breastfeeding. These advantages include a lower risk of gastrointestinal infection for the baby, more rapid maternal weight loss after birth, and delayed return of menstrual periods. No reduced risks of other infections or of allergic diseases have been demonstrated. No adverse effects on growth have been documented with exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, but a reduced level of iron has been observed in developing-country settings.

Notes

When assessing the BMJ - Fewtrell data the following points should be borne in mind:

• this is not a report on new data - it is observational only.
• WHO’s policy arose from a review of 3,000 studies on infant feeding.
• Keeping recommendations under review and randomised controlled trials in progress is good practice; this paper is pre-empting the results of these.
• The study implies that delayed introduction of solid foods may be linked to increased obesity - this is total conflict with the studies which show that early introduction - particularly of sugary foods is an important factor behind the obesity epidemic. Breastfeeding may actually help in the development of taste receptors.
• The argument to introduce solids at 4 months to prevent coeliac disease and allergies was summarised by ESPGHAN in late 2009 and was considered by many to be flawed. see press release: http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press23dec09.html.
• the UK Scientific Committee on Nutrition (SACN) and the Committee on Toxicity (COT) are reviewing the evidence on solid foods and coeliac disease. The draft opinion is NOT FINAL BUT is on the SACN website with the Agenda papers for next week’s SACN meeting. See paper SMCN/11/01 downloadable from http://www.sacn.gov.uk/meetings/sub_groups/maternal_child_nutrition/19012011.html
• SACN use international growth charts to describe the optimal pattern of infant growth in the UK (UK-WHO charts). These are based on studies of babies in 7 countries around the world and no significant difference was found between their growth profiles. The proposal from the four scientists that babies are treated differently depending on where they live conflicts with the findings of this research. The mean age at introduction of solids to this cohort of breastfed infants in the WHO studies was 5.4 months (or “..about 6-months”).
• The UK policy is to introduce complementary foods at around 6-months and progress responsively, in line with individual babies’ progress and acceptance. Not all babies need solids at the same time: in every aspect of infant development there is a wide range of normal. Very importantly the introduction of the new policy in 2003 has been associated with a marked reduction in the numbers of mothers giving solids very early (i.e. before 4-months). Since it is widely accepted that very early introduction carries greater risk (particularly of coeliac disease), the UK policy could be considered from this perspective a success.
• The practice of ‘baby-led weaning’ is becoming more widespread, where babies are allowed to experiment with appropriately prepared family foods and decide for themselves when to eat. Experience in this area suggests that babies naturally start to ingest complementary foods at around 6 months of age, when various developmental factors (hand-eye coordination, mastication ability etc) come together. This may be an evolved natural behaviour that has been lost through the practice of spoon feeding prepared cereal paps. Further research is required in this area.
• Marianne Monie, Chair of the UK Breastfeeding Network, made an important point about the risk of swine flu: The evidence supports introducing food when a baby is developmentally ready at around 6 months. Introducing food or infant formula before that time increases the risk of infections. Questioning the wisdom of the six-month guideline at a time when babies are at risk of catching swine flu is unfortunate, because exclusive breastfeeding reduces the risk of secondary infections that can be serious enough to need hospital admission. Parents should not feel pressured into rushing their baby onto solid food. Waiting until around six months gives another two valuable months of additional protection against chest and stomach infection.”

For more information contact:
Elisabeth Sterken, MSc, RD
Director INFACT Canada
esterken@infactcanada.ca

"50 Reasons to leave it alone!"

Another excellent article about leaving our babies penises intact, or "Natural"!!!  All 50 reasons are important reminders that we as parents don't have the Right to modify our childrens bodies, that babies are born with a foreskin for a reason.  If a grown man decides to amputate his foreskin that is a choice he can make for himself. Although, unlike other forms of body modification, circumcision is permanent. Something that a good friend of mine discovered for himself....and now sincerely regrets.  I will be writing about my friend experience in the very near future, but for the moment just remember: Babies are born with 10 fingers, 10 toes, adorable chubby cheeks, cute little button noses...and little boys have perfect penises, so leave it ALONE.

50 Reasons to Leave It Alone

Your son's penis, that is.

DaVinci's "Vitruvian Man" - Did you ever notice that he has his whole penis?

I know, talking about baby penises seems like a strange choice for a blog post.  I used to think that penises came in two varieties, circumcised and uncircumcised....but education is a powerful thing.  Now, I know that they only come in one style - Natural - and we, as parents, choose to alter what God or Nature or Evolution or The Great Spaghetti Monster created.


Why am I calling "uncircumcised" penises "natural"?  Most of the "intactivist" culture uses the word "Intact", which is also accurate, but really, an uncircumcised penis is exactly that - natural.  

Just like women without breast implants have "natural" boobs, or a person has their "natural" nose before a nose job.   It's the way nature made it - therefore, a natural penis.  Does that mean a circumcised penis is unnatural?  Yes, it does.  

I do want to note that I'm not anti-circumcision.  If an adult man wants to modify his body, that is his choice and I support it - just as I would support a woman who wanted labiaplasty, or anyone who wanted to stretch their earlobes or tattoo their body.  I am opposed to the routine circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons.



So, here are 50 reasons to leave your son's penis alone and not let a doctor cut it up.


1.) It's his.

2.) I've never met a man who wanted "less" penis when he was old enough to care.  Men tend to like their penises just the way they are.

3.) You can change your mind.  It's not possible to "un-circumcise", although there are men who have chosen to restore their foreskin later in life.  If you're not sure, don't decide at all.   It's a non-decision.  :)

4.) There is no medical reason to do it routinely.

5.) Circumcision isn't the majority for newborns anymore.  According to the New York Times, the infant circumcision rate is down to 32%.  That means 68% of your son's locker room will likely have natural penises.  If you circumcise, he will probably ask you why he's different from his buddies.

6.) Natural penises are easier to take care of during the diaper-changing years.  Just wipe it like a finger.  No retracting, no mess or fuss.  Compare that to having to care for an open wound in a diaper.

7.) You wouldn't cut your baby girl's genitals.  In fact, it's illegal - even a "nick" is illegal.  Male circumcision is a lot more involved than a nick!

8.) Many doctors and nurses refuse to perform the procedure because it violates the Hippocratic Oath - First, Do No Harm.

9.) It hurts.  A lot.  Really.  Don't believe me?  Watch a video.  With the sound up, please.  If you can't watch the whole thing, can you really ask your newborn to go through it?

10.) Babies can't be properly anesthetized.  An older child or adult would be given anesthesia and strong pain medication after any kind of operation, especially one on their genitals.  Babies can't have proper pain medication.

11.) Did you know?  Infant circumcision rates are less than 10% in the following counties: England, France, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Canada, Mexico, all of South and Central America, Japan, China, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Greece, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Australia and more.

Infant circumcision rates are higher than 10% in the following countries: USA, Israel, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon,  Yemen, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Republic of Congo, Eritrea, and Kenya. 

12.) Men with natural penises are less likely to experience Erectile Dysfunction as they age.  Translation - your son will be less likely to need Viagra when he's 55.

13.) Female sexual partners of men with natural penises are more likely to achieve orgasm during sexual intercourse.  They are also less likely to need lubricant.

14.) There are over 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin.  That's more than in the female clitoris.

15.) The foreskin protects the head of the penis.


16.) The foreskin provides lubrication during sexual intercourse.  Men with natural penises are less likely to use lubrication during sex or masturbation (hey, THAT's why my brothers were always stealing my conditioner!)

17.) No major medical organization on earth recommends routine circumcision of infants.

18.) It's easy to clean when he's older.  Shower.   Besides, by the time his foreskin is retractable, (average age, 10.4 years old), you will no longer be cleaning his penis.  I hope.

19.) Circumcision does not prevent AIDS, or any other STD. Condoms do.  Having sex with one, monogamous partner and avoiding IV drug use prevents AIDS.  Why would you assume your baby's going to be a man-whore anyway?

20.) We don't chop off ears to prevent ear infections.  We don't remove baby toenails to prevent fungal infections.  We don't cut off legs anymore when a wound becomes infected.  In the very unlikely event your son does develop an infection, we have antibiotics. 

To read the entire article and remaining 30 Reasons to leave it alone, click HERE

Poem: "He and She"

I discovered this lovely poem on The Complete Mother and had to share it here:

HE and SHE
By Mandy Howard

He laid quietly, softly breathing, warm and safe.

He lay close enough to her to feel the warmth of her breath.

With his eyes closed he thought of her, and tried to understand her. She was like the whole world.

When he came from the darkness she was the only one he knew.

He recognized her smell, and her voice, and even the way she moved, he was safe with her. She was always nearby, all he ever had to do was call, and she would come, she would hold him close, and kiss him she would make the world feel right.

She rarely went away, for very long, and always came back, so glad to see him.

He lay there quietly and she was so close just the way he liked it. She began to roll away, he called for her, and she smiled.

She rolled back and kissed his forehead softly, "I'll be right back," she promised.

He laid and watched for her return, after a moment he got frightened and almost called for her. Then she returned, and leaned over him, She again kissed his forehead, and smiling she whispered, "It's ok baby boy, Mommy is
here, and she loves you"

He wanted to answer, to tell her his feeling, but he couldn't make himself
understood. He softly curled the corners of his lips and smiled as he struggled for the words. He wanted to make them as sweet and soft as her words, but all that came out was a tiny noise that meant nothing. He wanted to cry out; no matter how he tried he couldn't tell her his feelings.

How would she ever know how he loved her, he tried once more in vain to make the words come out. It was only then that he noticed her smile, at each soft noise he failed to make into a word and each tiny smile he gave her she smiled.

His heart grew warm, and he slowly drifted off to sleep knowing that she
knew what he meant.

For more wonderful poems of birth and parenting visit the Complete Mother HERE