Plagiarism & Misquotation in the Media

When I woke up this morning to read INFACT Canada's latest news letter I knew this was something that needed to be shared.  
Earlier this week Canadian news paper The Globe & Mail printed an article "The Tyranny of Mothers Milk" by Margaret Wente that made Lactivists and Breastfeeding Advocates literally see red.  In the article Wente rants about the fact that in Canada, public-health officials have mounted an "aggressive campaign" to boost the rate of breastfeeding, and that new mothers are "bombarded" with the message that breast milk is crucial for their baby’s health. She alleges  that women who were unable to breastfeed were made to feel "that failing to nurse their babies was tantamount to child abuse".  A few weeks earlier Dr. Brian Goldman, who hosts a CBC radio show called White Coat, Black Art.  tackled the subject of mothers who had trouble nursing. Wente goes on to say:

Dr. Goldman wants the bullying to stop. It’s unfair to moms who can’t breastfeed – and also potentially harmful to their babies. Some heretics go further. They argue that the benefits of mother’s milk have been vastly overblown.
“The evidence to date suggests it probably doesn’t make much difference if you breastfeed,” says Joan Wolf, the author of a daring book called Is Breast Best? Ms. Wolf, an American academic, has examined the medical literature in detail. The science clearly shows that breastfeeding provides babies with some protection against gastrointestinal infections. Beyond that, the evidence for the sweeping claims made by the advocates for breast milk just doesn’t exist. And women like Teena Campbell have been sold the biggest mommy-guilt trip of all time.
Ms. Wolf is not alone in saying that moms are being misled. One of the world’s most authoritative sources of breastfeeding research is Michael Kramer, professor of pediatrics at McGill University. “The public health breastfeeding promotion information is way out of date,” he says. The trouble is that the breastfeeding lobby is at war with the formula milk industry, and neither side is being very scientific. “When it becomes a crusade, people are not very rational.” 

I'll comment on Joan Wolfs anti-breastfeeding statements in the article in a moment, but first I want to focus on the information that INFACT had to say about Wentes dishonest and deliberately misleading quotes that she includes in her article to try to support her notions that breastfeeding bullies are trying to spin a web of guilt onto mothers.

Margaret Wente, plagiarism and misquotation?

by Carol Wainio

May 24, 2011

As already discussed here, in “The Tyranny of mother’s milk,” not only does Margaret Wente sprinkle her text with un-attributed quotes, the apparent borrowing extends to surrounding material; one paragraph contains significant overlap with the words of another journalist who she does not credit. Of Wente’s sixty-four word paragraph, only a third is actual quotation comment from McGill’s Dr. Michael Kramer in a 2009 Times article. Turns out this is problematical in more ways than one. But first, to recap that bit:
Wente: One of the world’s most authoritative sources of breastfeeding research is Michael Kramer, professor of pediatrics at McGill University. “The public health breastfeeding promotion information is way out of date,” he says. The trouble is that the breastfeeding lobby is at war with the formula milk industry, and neither side is being very scientific. “When it becomes a crusade, people are not very rational.”
Rumbelow: one of the world’s most authoritative sources of breastfeeding research: Michael Kramer, professor of paediatrics at McGill University, Montreal.“The public health breastfeeding promotion information is way out of date,” Kramer says. The trouble is, he said, that the breastfeeding lobby is at war with the formula milk industry, and “neither side is being very scientific ... when it becomes a crusade, people are not very rational.”Look at those passages closely; Wente slides the quotation marks over, shortening the quote and therebypresenting as her own prose what in Rumbelow’s article were words (in quotation marks) by Dr. Michael Kramer a kind of double failure to attribute.But there are other problems with Wente’s use of this material:Rumbelow’s is a 2009 first person opinion (not a report) about the British National Health Service’s breastfeeding pamphlet, which (her article says) she received “last year”. It appears that Dr. Kramer of McGill was asked to comment on a British NHS pamphlet from 2008 (Rumbelow writes: “with my NHS leaflet in hand, I put its list of health benefits to Kramer”). But Wente, in omitting this context and inserting the material in an article about breastfeeding here, leads readers to believe the Montreal doctor views Canada’s 2011 “public health breastfeeding promotion information” as “out of date”.Worse, a quick search turns up the following article in the British Independent, in which Dr. Kramer repudiates the “misquotation” by Rumbelow. Wente, as a well paid columnist on the same side of the Atlantic as Kramer, might have taken the trouble to contact him, rather than use old quotes in an opinion about the British NHS which he had since disavowed.Here’s an article about the Kramer misquotation in The Independent:‘Journalists certainly have the right to express their own opinions, but not to misquote experts they choose to interview in order to support those opinions. That sort of sensationalist journalist would not surprise me from the tabloids, but I had expected better from The Atlantic and The Times,’ Kramer said last night.The Times quoted Kramer, who is based at McGill University, Montreal, as saying there was ‘very little evidence’ breastfeeding reduces the risk of a range of diseases from leukaemia to heart disease. Yet, what he actually said was: ‘The existing evidence suggests that breastfeeding may protect against the risk of leukaemia, lymphoma, inflammatory bowel disease, type 1 diabetes, heart disease and blood pressure.’ All he did concede was that we need ‘more and better studies to pursue these links’, a common cry from academics lacking in funding.***Dr. Kramer’s published views include the following, which appeared in the Globe and Mail:‘Our study provides the strongest evidence to date that prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding makes kids smarter,’ said lead investigator Michael Kramer, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at McGill.So aside from Wente’s failure to attribute, there are factual problems resulting from her methods. It’s alarming to think of how such practices might be used to provide inaccurate information.Wente’s overlaps with Rumbelow go beyond the borrowed misquotes of Dr. Kramer. But even if it were limited to quotes themselves, experts view such practices as plagiarism......

HERE to read the entire article


Sensationalism sells news papers, and when you add to that a famous name like Joan Wolf you can almost guarantee to get peoples attention.  Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing except that Joan Wolf is a  radically anti-breastfeeding feminist with an agenda.  Ms Wolf has recently written a new book and is aggressively promoting it, using the media and sensationalistic statements to increase sales.  Wente quotes Joan Wolf to try to further support her claims that breastfeeding is not all it's cracked up to be:  “The evidence to date suggests it probably doesn’t make much difference if you breastfeed,”.... A completely unsubstantiated claim to say the least. 


A few months ago Breastfeeding Advocate Emma Kwasnica went head-to-head with Joan Wolf on this very subject on the Kim Fraser radio show on CJAD in Montreal.  While it was unfortunate that Wolf was given the lions share of air time, I was tickled pink when the first caller to address comments to Wolf was none other than our hero Dr. Jack Newman.  Jack debunked wolfs entire book with a few well educated and informed comments that made her look ridiculous, which put a huge smile on my face.  


While Wente and Wolf want to wish it wasn't true, every medical association in the world acknowledges that breastmilk is the healthiest food for babies. The effects of breastfeeding on babies lasts not only through infancy with fewer incidents of respiratory, ear and intestinal illnesses, but more and more studies are showing that these protective effects last into adulthood.  More importantly, studies clearly show that the risks of feeding infants commercial infant formulas radically increases their risks of many diseases that last a lifetime.  For more information about the risks of formula feeding please read INFACT Canada's handout "The 14 Risks of Formula Feeding"


Wente and Wolf can rant and rave about "breastfeeding guilt" and can point fingers at all those medical associations that are forcing mothers to breastfeed, and guilting them into doing something they don't wish to do. They can try to put the guilt of failed breastfeeders onto the shoulders of breastfeeding advocates who's prime goal is to educate and help mothers establish and maintain a great breastfeeding relationship with their children..... but it doesn't change the fact that breastfeeding is normal and that formula feeding is not only less healthy than breastmilk, but also carries risks that can last a life time.  If mothers feel guilty for not being able to breastfeed their babies, they should place the blame where it belongs:  on the shoulders of the medical professionals that are ill equipped, under educated, and misinformed about breastfeeding and therefore unable to fully support breastfeeding mothers to reach their breastfeeding goals. Many more mothers will  fail to nurse their babies as long as they originally planned, because they do not have the support and help they need.  Until Health Canada recognizes this and changes the system of non-support that is currently in place mothers will continue to feel the guilt of failure.  Put the blame where it belongs. 

A Conflict of Interest

We are suppose to be able to trust our governments.  Trust the medical professionals that give us information and recommendations about our health and trust the major associations that advise the public and our governing bodies when they are making decisions and statements.  I know that the vast majority of the John and Jane Doe's are perfectly happy to blindly follow the professionals that supposedly have our best interests at heart, but there are still a few thinking humans out there and we are seriously concerned.  


When you read the fine print and do your homework it becomes blatantly clear that such faith in the assumed omnipotence of these professionals and their associations is questionable at best.  "Conflict of  Interest" is rife in our governments and professional associations.  So much so that the question becomes "Who do you trust?"


CBC and other news agencies have spent months tracking down the truth about Tamiflu, the Be-all, End-all for dealing with the H1N1 flu virus..... or so they tried to convince us. The Canadian government stockpiled nearly $180 MILLION dollars worth of anti-viral drugs (mostly Tamiflu), and now a good portion of it is about to expire. Yep, Millions of dollars are about to be thrown out.  Why do we have these stockpiles of drugs and are they even worth it is the question the CBC and other media reporters are asking.  Why? Because the truth is that there is a HUGE conflict of interest that is deeply rooted at the centre of all this.


The CBC reports:

A CBC documentary, which was broadcast on The National on Monday night, reports that certain other researchers in Canada, Italy, Britain and the U.S. are now challenging the claims by Roche that Tamiflu can significantly reduce complications or hospitalizations due to the flu.
The documentary also raises concerns about possible side effects surrounding the drug — strange behaviours and psychiatric delusions — that some countries, Japan in particular, have reported.
Using freedom of information requests, the investigation found hundreds of similar cases in Canada and the U.S., which were reported to health authorities but have not been made public.
It’s often difficult to establish a clear causal link between a drug and rare adverse reactions. Roche says its research suggests that these side effects result from the flu itself and high fevers, not the medication.
In the course of the CBC investigation, Zalac also reported that three of Canada's most prominent flu experts — Dr. Donald Low and Dr. Allison McGeer of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, and Dr. Fred Aoki of the University of Manitoba — had received research funding or acted as a consultant or speaker for Roche during the period when Tamiflu was being promoted....
...But these relationships were rarely reported in broader public forums, in the media or even when some of these individuals would appear in marketing videos or flu-warning commercials on television produced by Roche.

Conflict of Interest is a disease that riddles our entire government and the decision makers that we presume are looking out for the best interests of the people they are advising: Us. I have written several articles about the various xxxx that have been reported in the media, yet ignored by the public for the most part:

- "Conflict of Interest Much? Here a swine, there a swine"

-"WHO "Mr Swine Flu" investigated for gross Conflict of interest"

-"WHO warns of corruption in Pharmaceutical companies"

But Conflict of Interest isn't just about the flu, it happens in all aspects of the health industry!  WHO and UNICEF have both been targeted as having undisclosed conflicts of interest. As a matter of fact just recently  Ann Veneman, Unicef executive director from 2005 to 2010, joined forces with the evil Nestlé board of directors. This LINK  shows the implications of her shocking career move from an organisation that supports breastfeeding to one that undermines breastfeeding.

And then there is the recent call for submissions from the Health Canada Committee in charge of rewriting the guidelines "Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants: Birth to Six Months". Appalled by the fact that Health Canada left us with less than one month for the public and stakeholder groups to write their response to their draft document, we scrambled to gather our information and to petition HC for an extension of the deadline (which we did successfully).  While writing their response, Elizabeth Sterkin of INFACT Canada uncovered the committees dirty laundry: 3 of the members of the committee have ties to Infant formula and infant food companies.  Yet nowhere in their draft document or the information about the members of the committee does Health Canada reveal these conflicts of interest to the public or to stakeholder groups.  To not disclose this information when HC tries to make statements that if a mother is unable to breastfeed, commercial infant formula is her only option: ""Commercial infant formulas are the only acceptable alternative to breastmilk.".... hmmmmm.... no mention of donor milk or banked breastmilk.  Just formula.  Still think that conflicts of interest like this don't shape policies?

We need to stand up for our rights to have full disclosure and to have access to information to make informed choices that are not influenced by people that are motivated by financial gain.  We need to tell our governments that these conflicts of interest need to be fully disclosed to the public so that they KNOW where the information  is coming from and how commercialism and the mighty dollar might be twisting that information for their own gain.  

Accountability is not just an empty word.  It must be followed by action. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  * * *

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

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Milk Bank...

This is a wonderful article, written by an amazing woman whom I'm lucky to call "friend".

Enjoy!

A funny thing happened on the way to the milk bank...

By Jodine Chase

Six months ago today on October 27, 2010, a Facebook status update flashed across my computer screen, burning just a little brighter than most. I must see hundreds of Facebook status updates and Twitter messages and email subject lines over the course of a day.

This one, I remembered.

"Human milk sharing, woman-to-woman, goes global" was the title, from Emma Kwasnica's Informed Choice: Birth and Beyond Facebook group. I remember a mental "hmmm" as it slipped on past.

I remember thinking, "it's about time somebody took charge of this and put access to mother's milk in the hands of  the mothers!"

The notion of re-establishing the mother's milk bank in my city was starting to feel very remote after years of effort with little result. It's been 25 years since we had a milk bank here in Edmonton. This Facebook milk sharing page idea seemed so simple, so easy. Just let mothers connect with each other. Let them decide how to screen and whether or not to pasteurize. To heck with jumping through hoops and getting the doctors and the medical professionals on side - just let the moms do it.

Within hours I noticed it had increased from one message to a buzz on my Facebook - people were talking about this, sharing news of the birth of this global milk-sharing network.  Every few hours I'd see another message, status update, post talking about Emma's global milk sharing network idea. It was starting to have a "tipping point" feel about it.

A few days later I met a longtime breastfeeding advocate at a coffee shop - and there she was, talking about this milk sharing idea on Facebook. It had moved from Facebook to face-to-face. Within a few days a local community page was set up, the sure enough, there they were, all the usual suspects, people who have been passionate about the need for a milk bank here, active on the page, offering their time as admins. 

It's six months later. I've seen many matches happen. We've had people post about life and death, "I-have-no-milk-and-this-baby-won't-tolerate-anything-else" needs, and ordinary, "I-just-need-milk-for-a-few-days-until-I-get-over-the-flu-and-rebuild-my-supply" needs. Mothers of preemies with overflowing freezers have donated. Matches have been made where women ship milk via Greyhound and Purolator. We've also had women who have received milk from their next-door-neighbours. Literally, their next-door neighbours.

There's been local news coverage and global media attention. Our federal health department issued a precautionary statement. A paediatrician working to establish a milk bank in Toronto was called upon to explain this upstart global Facebook milk sharing phenomena at the US FDA's day-long milk bank meeting in Washington, D.C. 

Hollywood movie stars talked about donating extra milk stored in their freezers for babies in need, and stars with adopted babies like Neil Patrick Harris and Elton John talked about sourcing human milk on talk shows and in magazine interviews.

I'm not going to pretend it's mainstream. But in the last few months friends and acquaintances and relatives have come up to me in person, or engaged me in chat on FB and shared with me their own stories of wet-nursing, milk sharing, tribe nursing. Stories I'd never heard before. About the time they were sick and a neighbour brought over breastmilk. About the day they had to go to the hospital and a friend wet-nursed their baby. About their own freezer stashes and how they came forward to help women and babies in need. Women younger than me have spoken about doctors asking them to bring milk into hospitals for babies who aren't thriving. Women have said, matter-of-fact, "oh, my sister and I nursed each other's babies all the time.

These women are talking about it now because it feels safe  to talk about it. It doesn't feel icky or taboo anymore. It doesn't feel as if no-one else will understand - now when there's people talking about this global milk sharing network right on your Facebook. Your sister is doing it, your daughter is doing it, and you find out about it because she talks about it on Facebook. It MUST be "normal." That's the real power, I think, of this global milk sharing network on Facebook - the power to bring all these stories out of the closet.

Emma Kwasnica, six months ago today you put out your call. You asked mothers to organize themselves on Facebook to create a women-to-women milk sharing network. And they have. Today Human Milk 4 Human Babies is a global milk sharing network with almost 300 administrators, 125 community pages in almost 50 countries around the world.

There has been a seismic shift in attitudes about human milk and there is no going back from that. Authorities are concerned about safety and are scrambling for alternatives including improving access to human milk through "official channels."

Will there be more milk banks because of this global milk sharing movement?

I hope so.

But with mothers sharing milk openly and freely, connecting via Facebook and using other social media tools, will milk banks even be needed? I almost hope...not.

Front page of the Toronto Star this morning, "Donor Breast Milk is Greatest Gift for Sick Babies" http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/babies/breastfeeding/article/896373--donor-breast-milk-is-greatest-gift-for-sick-babies

Tree Climbing & Puddle Jumping- every child's Right.

Do you remember your childhood? Do you remember climbing trees?  Skipping stones across the creek? Riding your bike over to your friends house?  Do you remember playing pirates in the back yard and having swashbuckling sword fights? Or building forts out of your blankets and the broom and a chair?  Do you remember that? 


I remember growing up on Cape Briton Island in Nova Scotia, being 5 years old and running around the neighborhood with a pack of other 4, 5, & 6 year olds. We built tree forts (albeit not very good ones), we played Peter Pan & Captain Hook and swung out of old Hangmans tree looking for pirates.  We ran through the fields behind our houses and ate wild blueberries and raspberries till we were stuffed.  We caught tad poles in jars down at the creek.  We ate lunch at whom ever's house we ended up at when we got hungry.


I loved my childhood!!!! 


Of course now younger parents are shocked.  "Your mother let a 5 year old run around by her self with out an adult there?!" .... Oh yes, she did!!!  


Now days we live in a society that seems to think that children are incapable of doing anything for or by themselves. Parents of my childrens friends talk about soccer on Mondays, swimming on Wednesdays, play dates on Fridays, library on Saturdays and Ballet on Sundays.  And when their children aren't involved in some organized educational or physical activity, they continue to hover:  "Don't touch that, it might be dirty!"  "Don't climb that tree! You'll fall down and break your arm",  "Don't jump in that puddle! You'll get mud on your (designer) jeans!"  These are the same parents that seem to never go anywhere without a bottle of hand sanitizer and a pack of wet wipes. For so long I have stared around me at all these hovering parents, wondering if there was something I was missing.  Was I a neglectful parent?


What happened to encouraging a childs imagination?  What happened to fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants fun?


I know it's been a long time since I've really written any new articles here on Informed Parenting- I"ve been pretty over whelmed with a thousand and one things this winter and my blog has sort of been gathering dust. Then this evening I read an article that demanded my response and I instantly began typing here to share my enthusiasm with all of you.


The article, entitled "The Over Parenting Crisis" is written by Attachment Parenting author Katie Allison Granju.  Katie opens the article by talking about steriotypical mothers of the 50's, the June Cleavers, in their pressed aprons and perfectly coiffed hair and their picture perfect homes with their perfect cassaroles, and questions if we've broken away from the "Homemaker" mold to become free women or if in fact we've taken on another set of shackles to bind us.  Todays Helicopter parents take parenting to the limit.


As I read the article I couldn't help cheering and reading excerpts out loud to my husband (who also grew up as a free spirit, climbing mountains behind his house when he was 8 and riding his bike two kilometers to school with his 6 year old brother in tow).  Finally!!!  Someone who understood! 

Last week, I was eating a meal with the parents of a lovely one-year-old child, their first. As the very cute baby played with her food, I noticed she was managing to get quite a bit of her mashed peas into her rosebud mouth with her small spoon."Wow, she's really getting the hang of that spoon," I commented with a smile.
"Yes," her mother replied, "I've been working really hard with her on it all week. It's kept me pretty busy."
Working really hard on teaching her to use a spoon? All week? Kept her pretty busy?
I shouldn't have been surprised. Hearing this intelligent, accomplished woman with a master's degree in biology tell me how consuming she's found teaching her toddler to use a spoon is just one more example of our current culture of hysterical parenting. I mean, really, when did parenting become this difficult? When did the admirable quality of involved parenting become this?While it's one thing to be pleased — even proud — over baby's ability to connect spoon with mouth, it's quite another for her mother to become that invested in it, logistically or emotionally.
Wait, wait, you may be asking. Aren't you that same Katie Allison Granju who wrote a parenting book telling people to give their children more attention? Well, yes, and no. I did write the book Attachment Parenting (for which Dr. William Sears wrote the introduction), and I do believe strongly that infants and very young children thrive best with a high-touch, responsive style of parenting, but I'm also that mom who encouraged her two-year-old to play in the mud — some of which he certainly ate — and her five-year-old to climb trees. Yes, my kids slept with me as infants — because I found we all got the most sleep that way — but the kids were enjoying sleepovers with family and friends by kindergarten.
These days, I let my youngest kid enjoy his growing collection of pocket knives, and I expect my children toIn the past decade and a half, the parenting zeitgeist has shifted . . . into overdrive. ride their scooters out of my eyesight in our urban neighborhood. And I frequently tell my children that since I already completed elementary school, and have no intention of repeating the work, they will need to do their homework without me hovering nearby.
I have often described my parenting philosophy as "benign neglect." Responsive parenting means just that: we respond to children's needs. It's not the same as over-parenting, in which we anticipate, preempt, or take control of our children's needs and developmental tasks.

"Benign Neglect".... not only did she understand, she even had a name for my style of parenting!!!! 

Parents have a huge impact on how their children turn out, and that's precisely why we need to take a hard look at the obsessive, controlling, perfectionistic parenting culture we're living in. In fact, facilitating children's ability to function independently, to figure things out, and to grow into themselves without excessive interference is in itself an essential task of parenting.

Parents' increasing obsession with creating a totally germ-free environment for children offers an instructive example of the way over-parenting is counterproductive. Fifteen years ago, when I brought my first baby home from the hospital, his father and I were instructed to keep him away from obviously sick people during the newborn period. After that, our pediatrician told us that exposure during infancy and childhood to household and environmental germs was part of building a healthy immune system.

Fast forward to 2007, as parents now attempt to create an artificially germ-free childhood. Not only do they avoid exposing their kids to sick people, they surround their children with antibacterial soaps and washes. They buy toys and baby gear coated in space-age, microbe-resistant surfaces, and trips to the grocery store require a specially made "shopping cart cover" meant to prevent little Liam or Ava from encountering anyone else's bacteria.

But medical experts are pleading with parents to stop with the anti-germ hysteria because rather than preventing illness in children, it's actually causing it, encouraging the growth of treatment-resistant strains of bacteria, and preventing kids' exposure in the healthy doses required to grow a strong immune system.
Yep, that's right, it turns out that regular, old, everyday germs are good for kids. So is regular,

When parents micromanage children's lives, everyone loses.

HERE to read the entire article


Yes.  GERMS. and DIRT.


So please, the next time you feel the urge to tell your child "Don't do that, You'll break your leg!" .... sit back. Let them have fun.  Let them eat dirt and jump in puddles.  Yea, you'll have extra laundry to do, but does it really matter?  


As for me, well, this article kinda reaffirmed for me that I'm on the right path.  My 8 year old took her 6 and almost 4 year old siblings to the park today.  And yes I worried for a moment or two, but the look of pride on her face was enough for me to realize that I really don't need to be a hover craft.  At least not all the time.

AIM submission to Health Canada on Infant Nutrition

A group of mothers on Facebook have formed the Association of Informed Mothers - AIM. This group was initially created to write a submission to Health Canada in response to their draft document "Nutrition for Healty Term Infants: birth to 6 months". This document will replace the current Canadian Guidelines that are in place, and while they have made some excelent changes, some areas of the draft document were very poorly worded, or incorrect. The following is AIM's submission to Health Canada and we would like to invite everyone who agrees with our document to sign your name to the bottom of it as an interested member of the public. If you wish to have your name added to the submission please  go to the facebook note HERE  and comment with your name, city and province. this document will only be open for signatures till 9pm this evening. so please feel free to share it out on your groups etc to spread the word!

A huge thank you to all the moms who poured their heart and soul into this document!
Dani

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

The Association of Informed Mothers (hereafter called AIM) is a stakeholder group of mothers who support and advocate for mothers' rights to make fully informed choices for the health and well-being of both themselves and their families. To do this, mothers need access to information that is in the spirit of full disclosure and is provided free of influence by organizations, third parties, or persons that hold a conflict of interest. It is AIM's belief that Health Canada is responsible to provide information to the citizens of Canada that comply with these points.

AIM fully supports INFACT Canada's submission to Health Canada's Committee reviewing the guidelines for "Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants". AIM strongly believes that INFACT Canada's submission is of great value to the Health Canada Committee, as the information it provides is accurate, does not create a conflict of interest and is well researched. (A copy of INFACT Canada's submission is included at the end of this document).

AIM also fully supports UNICEF's submission to the Health Canada Committee. Health Canada has agreed to follow the World Health Organization's (WHO) infant feeding recommendations, and therefore any statement made by Health Canada should be aligned with UNICEF's submission (A copy of UNICEF's submission is included at the end of this document).

The following is a list of AIM's key concerns with Health Canada's draft document "Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants - birth to six months". AIM has specified a list of changes to be made to the document. These changes are required for the draft document, in order to provide the information parents need to make fully informed decisions for their family.


1. The language of the Health Canada draft document needs to be changed to reflect the normalcy of breastfeeding. Statements such as "the benefits of breastfeeding" should be changed to "risks of artificial feeding methods" or "the importance of breastfeeding". Breastfeeding is the biological norm for all human children, referring to its outcome as "benefits" implies it is outside and/or above the norm. For further information of the use of language and its effects on normalizing breastfeeding, please refer to the article "Watch your Language", written by Diane Weissinger, Journal of Human Lactation, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996.

2. It is legally and ethically advisable for Health Canada to omit statement #5: "Commercial infant formulas are the only acceptable alternative to breastmilk." from these guidelines. To make such statements is unethical, inadvisable, and untrue. The inclusion of statement 5 directly contradicts Health Canada's acknowledgement and public acceptance of the WHO Infant feeding guidelines, which state that "For those few health situations where infants cannot, or should not, be breastfed, the choice of the best alternative – expressed breast milk from an infant’s own mother, breast milk from a healthy wet-nurse or a human-milk bank, or a breast-milk substitute fed with a cup,which is a safer method than a feeding bottle and teat – depending on individual circumstances."apps.who.int/gb/archive/pdf_files/WHA55/ea5515.pdf

Statement #5 is also contrary to UNICEF's recommendations for infant feeding, and undermines the use of donated and banked breastmilk. 

Currently, several provinces are researching the creation of milk banks, and the Canadian Paediatric Society is calling for the development of milk banks across Canada. The use of donor milk, whether through formal or informal channels, is vitally important to the health of infants whose mothers are not able to exclusively breastfeed, and is fully supported by WHO. It is the recommendation of AIM that Health Canada develop guidelines to address the use of donor milk, outlining the risks and benefits of using donor milk vs infant formula, and provide the information necessary for parents to make fully informed decisions about feeding their infants.

3. Health Canada should remove all sections in the draft document that discuss the use of artificial breastmilk substitutes. Those sections addressing commercial infant formulas should be made into a separate document or included in an appendix on the use of artificial feeding methods and products. Full disclosure of information about the risks of using commercial infant formulas and safe feeding methods is imperative in order for parents to be fully informed when making infant feeding decisions. By placing nutritional information about infant formulas side by side with breastfeeding, Health Canada is creating the false impression that they are equal and interchangeable methods for feeding infants. This is untrue, misleading, and does not meet the principle of full disclosure, nor does it give parents the proper information upon which to base their decisions. 

4. We submit that Health Canada should make its stance clear by making an official statement affirming that Canada is both a signatory to, and is compliant with, the World Health Organization International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent resolutions. 

The Government of Canada is a signatory to the International Code for the Marketing of Artificial Breastmilk Substitutes and as such is required to pass legislation which provides for the enforcement of all provisions of the Code. Health Canada not only has a responsibility to remind all levels of government of this requirement, but also to ensure that all health care and related facilities within Canada are compliant with the Code. To ensure this compliance, Health Canada must immediately inform all physicians, nurses and health care facility administrators of the full range of provisions of the Code. Upon completion of dissemination of this information Health Canada must ensure that all professionals and facilities in Canada meet the requirements of the Code. INFACT can assist in this matter through the provision of information and resources.

On May 21st, 2011 it will be 30 years since Canada and 118 other countries signed the WHO Code, yet the Canadian government continues to refuse to pass legislation to protect and enforce the Code. 


5. The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) is integral to ensuring mothers and babies are provided with the minimal support and information needed to begin their breastfeeding relationship at birth. The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) should be fully endorsed by Health Canada. All Canadian hospitals should be informed of all BFHI recommendations and should be striving to attain BFHI status by a set date. BFHI should be recognized by Health Canada as the minimum requirement, not a luxury.

6. The Health Canada draft document should focus on the need for better breastfeeding and lactation education for all medical professionals (doctors, nurses, midwives etc.), and any personnel that come into regular contact with new mothers (social workers, etc). Health Canada should also advise provincial and territorial health policy makers that breastfeeding support and education at these levels are seriously lacking, and that this lack of education negatively impacts the ability of medical professionals to support mother and baby dyads. Health professionals who are unable to provide educated lactation support should be advised that mothers must be referred to professionals that are fully trained, rather than giving misleading and/or inaccurate advice that is detrimental to breastfeeding success.

7. The statement made in the draft document: "4. In Canada, all infants need supplemental vitamin D. " is incorrect and misleading. Health Canada cannot accurately state that ALL infants need to be supplemented with Vitamin D. Instead, AIM recommends that Health Canada set up prenatal maternal testing for Vitamin D levels. If mothers are shown to be deficient in Vitamin D, prenatal supplementation has been shown to optimize vitamin D levels in infants. Canadian mothers are at higher risk of being Vitamin D deficient due to northern latitude and long winters with little sun exposure. Therefore, it is the recommendation of AIM that Canadian mothers be advised by Health Canada to take a Vitamin D supplement along with folic acid to ensure infant health after birth.

8. AIM does not agree with the current American Academy of Paediatrics recommendation that breastfed infants should be supplemented with iron. Breastmilk has been proven to contain adequate iron to support infant health, except in cases of severe maternal anemia. It is AIM's recommendation that Health Canada encourage prenatal testing to address maternal anemia before birth. 

9. The statement by Health Canada in section 2.7: "The impact of cesarean birth on breastfeeding appears to have changed over time. In most cases today, cesarean birth does not impede breastfeeding" is incorrect and needs to be removed. There is no evidence to support this statement, and strong evidence to contradict it. Health Canada needs to set up separate guidelines that examine and make recommendations about medical interventions during pregnancy and childbirth such as chemical inductions, the routine use of IVs, epidurals, invasive testing and pain medications during labour, the use of surgical interventions, such as forceps/vacuum extractions and cesarean sections, and early cord clamping and their effect on maternal and fetal outcomes, with special attention given to breastfeeding initiation and longevity . Perinatal practices are one of the most powerful indicators of long term breastfeeding success and are therefore vitally important considerations.

10. In section 9 the Draft Document states that "9. At six months, infants need complementary foods along with continued breastfeeding to meet their nutrient needs". This statement gives the impression that breastmilk is no longer adequate after 6 months and that it suddenly loses it's ability to nourish an infant at this time. This is inaccurate. It should also be noted that not all infants are ready for or require complementary foods at a set age, i.e. 6 months. A statement that "Infants should not be given complementary foods before 6 months, but after that time introduction solids may begin" would be preferable.

It is the opinion of AIM that the committee responsible for these guidelines is lacking oversight by the public and should include members that are involved in stakeholder groups or members of the general public who are interested in the outcomes of the draft document and Health Canada's new guidelines. 

Currently breastfeeding initiation rates in Canada are excellent. However, by 3-6 months the percentage of mothers exclusively breastfeeding their babies drops radically. This extreme drop in breastfeeding rates directly affects the health and wellbeing of mother-baby dyads and is an accurate indicator of the lack of information and lactation support currently available to families across Canada. It should be noted that the recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding to six months is often undermined or outright ignored by health care professionals who encourage or recommend or demand supplementation with infant formula before the baby has even been released from hospital. Evidence-based information and education provided to parents and health-care professionals is integral to the increase of long-term breastfeeding rates in Canada. As members of AIM, and as mothers, we have a vested interest in increasing breastfeeding information and education available to healthcare providers and families across Canada. We therefore respectfully request that Health Canada review our submission and make the changes necessary to bring Canada in line with the World Health Organization, and to maintain its place as a key player in the forefront of worldwide health.

We thank you for the opportunity to provide our recommendations. We would like to be included as a stakeholder in any future consultation on these or similar guidelines. 

Association of Informed Mothers

Danielle Arnold
Brantford ON