"Spending the day next to a victim of circumcision"

I cannot imagine being next to this poor innocent child all day and NOT giving in to the urge to yell at his parents.  The very thought of a perfect new born baby having his genitals cut is horrifying, but this story brought me to tears for that unknown little boy.  Any parent considering circumcising their son(s) needs to read stories like these to make them aware of the fact that there is NOTHING good or normal about male circumcision.

Spending the day next to a victim of circumcision

Yesterday we spent the day at hospital as my son had to have a suspicious lump removed from his shin. We're awaiting the results and he's a tough little person who is coping well- he barely seems to notice the fact that he even had surgery. He is almost 4 years old and is way too active to let something like 15 stitches slow him down!

We arrived at the hospital at 7am. Just waiting for his surgery was traumatic enough to have to deal with, but our day got worse when I casually asked the parents in the bed next to us what their son was here for.
Dad: "Oh, it's a circumcision thing."
Myself: "Pardon?"
Dad: "He's having surgery on his circumcision."
Myself: "Sorry? He's being circumcised?"
Dad: "Oh, no, they are fixing the first one."
Myself: "Done recently?"
Dad: "No, he had it done as a newborn."
Myself: "Oh, that's horrific...."

I had to grit my teeth and turn my head and try not to say something which would only inflame what was already a bad situation with a room full of starving children who weren't even allowed water as they were all awaiting surgery.

Not only had this poor little boy already been mutilated, but they had mutilated him so that he needed surgery to correct the first mutilation. Two unnecessary surgeries and the poor little boy was 18 months old.

Although I was anxious about my own son's necessary surgery, I found it hard not to think about the poor little boy in the bed next to us. How did he feel when he was first done? How much pain had he been in since then because of the first unnecessary surgery? How much pain would he be in after this one?...

...Then they wheeled the little boy in. He was screaming and sobbing, clawing his way out of the metal crib to cling to his parents. They held him and rocked him and he screamed. They sang him songs and walked him around and he screamed. Nurses came in and pulled the curtain around the bed, talking to the parents and checking his nappy for blood. The little boy continued to scream. They gave him morphine and he went from screaming to sobbing, curled into a little ball as his parents rocked him, shushed him, patted him, rubbed him. For half an hour I sat next to the curtain pulled around his crib and I had to try not to cry for this poor little boy. His heart started to beat too fast and more morphine was administered. They laid him on the crib and he whimpered in his sleep, his body curled into the foetal position....

...We had to wait 3 more hours before we could take our son home. The entire time we were there post-surgery, the little boy next to us whimpered and cried in his sleep, his heart rate checked constantly. He would rouse and flail about, crying and raggedly choking on his own sobs. He pulled out the canula in his arm, spilling blood on the floor between our beds. I felt incredibly sick and incredibly sorry for this small person who had to be there because of a mistake.

When we left, they were still there, waiting for their son to be well enough to take home. Children who had been operated after my son was being discharged and this tiny little boy was still whimpering in his sleep, full of painkillers to numb a pain he never had to experience...

 

HERE to read the entire article on Earthy Motherhood

Baby Milk Action News Update

Email update : 16 July 2010

• New t-shirts for summer
• Nestlé responds to email campaign
• United Reformed Church Assembly backs the Nestlé boycott

New t-shirts for summer

Our popular breastfeeding fridge magnet t-shirt is now available in apricot. And our baby at the breast t-shirt is now available in Kiwi. Fruity!

View and order at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/tshirts.html

Nestlé responds to email campaign

Have you emailed Nestlé about its latest baby milk marketing strategy? Nestlé is claiming its breastmilk substitutes 'protect' babies and are 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'.
Let us know if you have had a response from Nestlé. At the moment it is refusing to stop pushing its baby milk in this way and is ignoring the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly.
As we say, Nestlé puts its own profits before infant health and the rights of mothers. We need to increase the pressure.
For our analysis of Nestlé's response and a suggested reply see:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemjul10

United Reformed Church Assembly backs the Nestlé boycott

The United Reformed Church Assembly restated its support for the Nestlé boycott on 4 July.
Many thanks to everyone who supported the boycott. We look forward to continuing to work with URC in encouraging Nestlé to make the changes set out in our four-point plan for ending the boycott.
For our press release see:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/
pressrelease04jul10

Breastfeeding: guilt, statistics, support, and making a choice

... OK I know that many of you are going to shake your heads and say "Here she goes again..." but I have to pull out my soap box and rant on this topic some more.


Two recent articles in the Globe & Mail talk about breastfeeding in Canada (although this articles could seriously be about about the US or England just as easily).  One is the usual media propaganda about how mothers are made to feel guilty for not breastfeeding their babies, and the other one is about Canada's abysmal breastfeeding statistics.


Lets talk about the ridiculousness of the first article:
What’s wrong with feeding your baby formula?

Laura Leyshon for The Globe and Mail

Women who feed their babies formula face guilt – not to mention the unkindness of strangers.

*Before I even start reading the article my hackles are immediately up. Why is there this instance that there are finger pointers hiding around every corner and why are Breastfeeding advocates the usual suspects?!

    From the day he was born, Alison Evans breastfed her son Christopher with the understanding that breast milk is the most nourishing, natural and healthy thing a mother can feed her baby. So when, at four weeks old, he suddenly began rejecting her milk and stopped gaining weight, Ms. Evans was distraught and uncertain about turning to infant formula.

    “I’d had this ... idea [breastfeeding]’s what I’m supposed to do,”

 ...Followed by the comment that her son's health immediately improved on a formula diet.

 This is the story that we hear constantly.  Parents-to-be take a class in childbirth, read books about all the important things you're suppose to know about babies, they give birth to these wonderfully beautiful beings and are sent on their way home to enjoy their new family life...

Mothers know they're suppose to breastfeed their babies.  They know it's the healthiest choice and will give their babies the best start in life- offering them some of their mothers immunities and some vital protection from diseases, lessening their risks of diabetes, certain cancers, obesedy, and maybe even increase their IQ by a few points along the way.  As an added bonus, mom's are offered some protection from breast & ovarian cancer, post partum depression and might even loose that baby wieght a bit faster!!  And it's FREE!!  Over all it's a "win-win" situation, right? 

But what happens when that mother gets home? She probably tired, maybe sore from the birth, perhaps dealing with unexpected trauma from the birth of her baby: inductions, forcept/vacuum assisted birth, episiotomy, Caesarean section..(all of which are known to have a negative effect on breastfeeding)..?  Is the baby sleepy because of medical interventions used during his birth?  "How is he feeding?  Does he have a good latch?" are the questions a new mum might hear, but how the hell is a new mom suppose to know?!   One book said that breastfeeding is hard and it can hurt, another book said that breastfeeding is natural and only hurts if there is a problem with the baby's latch.  One book says to nurse the baby for 10 minutes on each side every 2 hours, one book says to nurse the baby on demand when ever they want to eat.  One web site says that this is the best nursing position, one site says that that position will cause blocked ducts and will cause problems because you can't see the baby's latch. One nurse in the hospital told her to use this method to get the baby to latch, but the night time nurse told her that it was wrong and she should use this method instead.  This is what we call a recipe for failure- before this baby is even a week old, he's already on the road to bottles of formula because his exhausted stressed out mother is unsure of anything to do with breastfeeding.  She can't get any support to make breastfeeding work for her or give her the confidence to persevere and keep nursing regardless of any issues that might arise. The emotionally wrung out mother goes to the doctor with her crying baby and begs for help and advice.  The doctor is affraid to cause her guilt about breastfeeding, or has no interest/education in lactation management, so instead of sending her to the right people to get proper support and advice, he pats her on the back and tells her it's ok, some women/babies just can't breastfeed and that formula feeding would be so much easier because then her husband/mother/sister could feed the baby and let her sleep.  He gives her a perscription for some sleeping/anti depressants/anti anxiety pills and sends her on her way with a gift pack of formula samples and a book of coupons for free baby bottles and matching diaper bag.

Then the Media make s a big production about how women are MADE to feel guilty about not breastfeeding.

Guilt?!  The last thing this mother should feel is guilt!!!!

This woman should be rip roaring mad!!  She should be stomping her feet and demanding WHY she didn't have the support and information she needed to do something that women have been doing for a millennia!! She has nothing to feel guilty for- she was failed by every single person and place she went to to look for information and support and advice! 

A good friend of mine once told me something very important:  "No one can make you feel guilty.  Guilt is an emotion that is caused by internal struggles"  Don't believe me?  How about this:

 guilt

Pronunciation: \ˈgilt\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, delinquency, guilt, from Old English gylt delinquency

Date: before 12th century

1 : the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty; broadly : guilty conduct
2 a : the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously b : feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : self-reproach
3 : a feeling of culpability for offenses

It's also been my experience that it's the mothers who've had to struggle under severe pressure and unbelievable situations that feel this "breastfeeding guilt" the most.  I have a friend who has gone through one of the worst nightmares a parent can possibly live through. Her son was born just weeks before her older child had to have cancer surgery.  This mum had to travel 3 hours every day to be with her child at Sick Kids Hospital... with a newborn.  Then during the ensuing weeks, she had to leave the baby with her husband to care for her child during chemo.... and the outcome was that her little baby became use to the bottles and refused to nurse any more.  So she pumped, and pumped.... but when her supply dried up she turned to formula.  This mum feels "guilty".  Its makes me want to cry.  Here is a woman who has been through so much and done so much for her children, and SHE feels guilty about not breastfeeding longer.  This Mum should be MAD.  What support did she get to continue to breastfeed?  None. Yet she feels the guilt that the media says she must feel. ....and that makes ME mad!!

And it's the inflammatory articles like this one in The Globe & Mail that really make me angry, because they feed the flames of the breastfeeding  vs formula feeding debate:  "What's wrong with feeding your baby formula?" goes on to say:

"While research clearly shows the benefits of breastfeeding, the intense demands breastfeeding places on a mother are not captured by the medical studies. The messages mothers receive about breast milk versus formula are “phenomenally black and white and unequivocal,” she says.

Breastfeeding lobby groups have become increasingly influential on social policy, and they have put the onus on individuals to “choose health” or else risk becoming a social burden, Dr. Lee says.

“The moral dimension, I think, comes in with babies where people say, ‘Well, actually it isn’t just your choice, Mum. What’s at issue is another person – a particularly vulnerable person – so actually it’s not right to say, ‘Well I just don’t want to do this.’...

The bottle-feeding taboo is especially strong when it comes to women who choose not to breastfeed for non-medical reasons. Recently, an article by Kathryn Blundell, the deputy editor of Britain’s Mother & Baby Magazine, caused a stir because she said breastfeeding was “creepy,” she wanted her “body back,” and her “fun bags” were part of her sexuality. The piece sparked criticism from online commenters who called her “selfish,” “self-centred” and “vain.”

Sparked criticism?!  Oh please, if the shoe fits....

When it comes to parenting debates, formula vs breastfeeding is the pinacle fight.  This article is yet again tryign to play the guilt card for formula feeding mothers. But you have to ask the question WHY the debate exists to begin with?  I think that Dr. Jack Newman's thoughts on Breastfeeding and guilt hit the mark, a bullseye that the media  seem to miss entirely:


Breastfeeding and Guilt    
Written by Dr Jack Newman , MD FRCPC
 

One of the most powerful arguments many health professionals, government agencies and formula company manufacturers make for not promoting and supporting breastfeeding is that we should "not make the mother feel guilty for not breastfeeding". Even some strong breastfeeding advocates are disarmed by this "not making mothers feel guilty" ploy.

It is, in fact, nothing more than a ploy. It is an argument that deflects attention from the lack of knowledge and understanding of too many health professionals about breastfeeding. This allows them not to feel guilty for their ignorance of how to help women overcome difficulties with breastfeeding, which could have been overcome and usually could have been prevented in the first place if mothers were not so undermined in their attempts to breastfeed. This argument also seems to allow formula companies and health professionals to pass out formula company literature and free samples of formula to pregnant women and new mothers without pangs of guilt, despite the fact that it has been well demonstrated that this literature and the free samples decrease the rate and duration of breastfeeding.

Let's look at real life. If a pregnant woman went to her physician and admitted she smoked a pack of cigarettes, is there not a strong chance that she would leave the office feeling guilty for endangering her developing baby? If she admitted to drinking a couple of beers every so often, is there not a strong chance that she would leave the office feeling guilty? If a mother admitted to sleeping in the same bed with her baby, would most physicians not make her feel guilty for this even though it is, in fact, the best thing for her and the baby? If she went to the office with her one week old baby and told the physician that she was feeding her baby homogenized milk, what would be the reaction of her physician? Most would practically collapse and have a fit. And they would have no problem at all making that mother feel guilty for feeding her baby cow's milk, and then pressuring her to feed the baby formula. (Not pressuring her to breastfeed, it should be noted, because "you wouldn't want to make a woman feel guilty for not breastfeeding".)

Why such indulgence for formula? The reason of course, is that the formula companies have succeeded so brilliantly with their advertising to convince most of the world that formula feeding is just about as good as breastfeeding, and therefore there is no need to make such a big deal about women not breastfeeding. As a vice-president of Nestle here in Toronto was quoted as saying "Obviously, advertising works". It is also a balm for the consciences of many health professionals who, themselves, did not breastfeed, or their wives did not breastfeed. "I will not make women feel guilty for not breastfeeding, because I don't want to feel guilty for my child not being breastfed"....

So how should we approach support for breastfeeding? All pregnant women and their families need to know the risks of artificial feeding. All should be encouraged to breastfeed, and all should get the best support available for starting breastfeeding once the baby is born. Because all the good intentions in the world will not help a mother who has developed terribly sore nipples because of the baby's poor latch at the breast. Or a mother who has been told, almost always inappropriately, that she must stop breastfeeding because of some medication or illness in her or her baby. Or a mother whose supply has not built up properly because she was given wrong information. Make no mistake about it—health professionals' advice is often the single most significant reason for mothers' failing at breastfeeding! Not the only one, and other factors are important, but health professionals often have influence and authority far beyond their knowledge and experience....

Finally, who does feel guilty about breastfeeding? Not the women who make an informed choice to bottle feed. It is the woman who wanted to breastfeed, who tried, but was unable to breastfeed who feels guilty. In order to prevent women feeling guilty about not breastfeeding what is required is not avoiding promotion of breastfeeding, but promotion of breastfeeding coupled with good, knowledgeable and skillful support. This is not happening in most North American or European societies."

HERE to read the entire article on Natural Mothering

And again I say:  Guilt is internal.  If a mother feels guilty for a decision she's made, then she needs to evaluate her guilt, find the cause of it, scrutinize the situations that lead to that decision and look at it honestly.  Then either change the decision if possible, or make the changes necessary to make the best of the situation that she's choosen.  But don't blame the Breastfeeding advocates or the medical recommendations that babies should be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months and for breastfeeding to continue for two years and beyond. Giveing out facts and good advice are NOT a ploy to make mothers feel guilty and miserable.

If you failed at breastfeeding and you want to point a finger at someone, then point the finger at a target that deserves your anger and frustration: The government that refuses to adequately fund breastfeeding support services and education, and the media who creates a circus by pitting mothers against mothers and allowing authors to muddy the waters by writing articles entitled "What's wrong with feeding your baby formula?"

The Globe and Mail printed another article that at least touches on the real problems that face mothers.

Why aren’t more women breastfeeding?

 Health experts are increasingly concerned about the lack of increase in breastfeeding rates in Canada, which they say is tied to a lack of support for mothers from the medical community and the influence of formula manufacturers.

Many mothers seek advice on breastfeeding from family doctors, but they often don’t have answers about techniques or other specific breastfeeding issues. “They don’t necessarily know how to counsel the mother on how to breastfeed,” said Catherine-Maude Pound, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Ottawa and consulting pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, who participated in a discussion of the challenges to Canada’s breastfeeding rates at a conference held by the Canadian Paediatric Society last month.
In Canada, about 90 per cent of new mothers start breastfeeding when their children are born – an excellent rate. . But by three months, only half of them are still exclusively breastfeeding, while about two-thirds combine breast and bottle feeding, according to a study of more than 6,400 Canadian mothers published in the journal Birth in June, 2009....
For the majority of women who do want to breastfeed, not finding support when they encounter problems - such failing to get the baby to latch on, or pain during nursing - can cause them to turn to formula. The situation needs to be addressed by policy-makers if anything is to change, experts say.

The key issue is that mothers often don’t receive sufficient guidance on proper methods of breastfeeding from the health-care system, said Jean Kouba, president of the Canadian Lactation Consultant Association. Although there are lactation consultants in Canada, there aren’t enough to meet the need, Ms. Kouba said.

That’s why Dr. Pound believes doctors should receive some formal training in breastfeeding techniques.

HERE to read the entire article

Hence the need for FUNDING. Funding for the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic & Institute (NBCI) so that they can keep their doors open to help mothers and babies reach their breastfeeding goals, and to educate the medical personell who are in contact with new mothers and babies and NEED to be able to offer REAL support based on scientific studies and facts, not on myths and personal opinions.   Until our government steps up and starts providing the funding and the backing to breastfeeding support, our babies will continue to end up on a bottle  of formula, and mothers will keep spiraling down in the abyss of guilt that is not their own.


Honestly?  I'm surprized that more women don't give up within the first week after their baby is born. I'm not saying that they should, but it certainly proves the point that women are strong and resilient and capable of overcoming ridiculous odds to beat the obsticles thrown at them. How else would we be capable of breastfeeding our babies at all when most of the support women find is hidden though piles of old wives tales and incorrect information.

I have one last thing to add (which will probably get me verbally flogged by the Kathryn Blundell's of the world)..... We don't choose to use a car seat.  We do it because it's the safest method of travelling in a car with our infants.  Breastfeeding IS Best.  Breastfeeding IS the Norm.  Everything else is inferior.If you can't breastfeed- TRULY can't. Then Don't feel guilty.  You can only do what you can do. Guilt is your internal monitoring system and only you can see inside and know the truth.

Vitamin D: More information about Pregnancy & Breastfeeding

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

Take it away Emma!

New research regarding Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women and babies

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE : May 1, 2010

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

Kellogg's Cereal Recalled!!!

Thought that some of you might like to hear about this.... before breakfast!

Kellogg's Cereal Recall: Health Risks from Packaging?

July 12, 2010. - A substance that leached out of cereal packaging and sickened consumers, spurring Kellogg's recall of 28 million boxes of Froot Loops, Apple Jacks and other popular children's cereals, has been identified as a petroleum-based compound that appears to be a breakdown product of chemicals used in the cereal box liners.
This compound, methylnaphthalene (methyl-NAP-tha-lene), has been the subject of major, on-going government and oil industry testing and information-gathering initiatives to identify potential safety issues and fill basic data gaps, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of the scientific literature. Kellogg's has not publicly identified the chemical but provided the information to EWG in response to our inquiries.
Two weeks ago (June 25, 2010), Kellogg's recalled 28 million boxes of Corn Pops, Honey Smacks, Froot Loops and Apple Jacks after customers complained of what the cereal maker called an "off-taste and smell" that caused "nausea and diarrhea" in some people.
In a posting on its website that day, Kellogg’s said "...do not eat any more of this product since it doesn't meet our quality standards" but added that the reactions were not caused by "any harmful material found in the food."
The company told The Wall Street Journal that the recall was prompted by complaints from 20 concerned customers, including five who became nauseous or vomited after smelling or eating the cereal (Brat and Becker 2010).
The Kellogg’s statement said testing found "slightly elevated levels" of a food packaging "substance" in the cereal box liners and that a subsequent health risk assessment showed that "sensitive" customers could expect reactions. The web posting did not identify the substance causing the problem, but it offered consumers a number to call if they had questions or if they "would like a replacement coupon."
An EWG researcher called Kellogg’s 1-800 number to learn more. Company representatives said initially that Kellogg’s did not yet know what chemical had caused the problems, but a company nurse called back the next day with an answer: Kellogg’s chemists had determined that the "off-taste and smell" was caused by methylnaphthalene, which had leached into the cereal from the package liner.
The Kellogg’s nurse, who did not give her name, also said that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies the chemical as "Generally Recognized As Safe," or GRAS. EWG, however, could not find the compound on FDA’s GRAS list online. (FDA 2010a).
Methylnaphthalene, which has two forms, is a component of crude oil and coal tar and may also be formed "as a pyrolytic byproduct from the combustion of tobacco, wood, petroleum-based fuels and coal" (EPA 2003). The petroleum-based compound is produced in enormous quantities in the United States, and health agencies know very little about its safety, EWG research shows....
...

What Kellogg’s said in its public statement:

"These packages are being recalled because we identified a substance in the package liner that can produce an uncharacteristic waxy-like off-taste and smell. The off-tastes and smells are caused by a slightly elevated level of a substance commonly present at very low levels in the waxy resins used to make packaging materials that are approved by the FDA. These resins are also commonly used to coat foods such as cheese, raw fruits and vegetables such as cucumbers. We did not find any substances that are not commonly used in packaging materials." (Kellogg’s 2010)
"We completed a thorough health-risk assessment with external experts in medicine, toxicology, public health, chemistry, and food safety. The experts agree that some consumers are particularly sensitive to these uncharacteristic off-tastes and smells and may have temporary symptoms, like nausea and diarrhea, which should subside shortly. These symptoms are a result of the off-taste and odor in the food; they are not caused by any harmful material in the food.
You should not eat the recalled product because it does not meet quality standards. If you have concerns about your health, you should consult their health care provider." (Kellogg’s 2010)

What is known about methylnaphthalene toxicity?

The little data publicly available on the toxicity of methylnaphthalene was summarized in a 2005 government review (ATSDR 2005) and in a few subsequent studies published in the peer-reviewed literature.
The chemical is known to be commonly detected in air pollutants from cigarette smoke, diesel and gasoline engine exhaust, wood smoke, tar and asphalt (ATSDR 2005).
Animal studies show that methylnaphthalene causes lung damage when exposure occurs via inhalation, ingestion and skin contact. Mice given feed containing 0.075 percent or 0.15 percent of 1- or 2-methylnaphthalene for 81 weeks had lung damage known as "pulmonary alveolar proteinosis," marked by abnormal lipids, proteins and fluid in the lung (ATSDR 2005, citing Murata 1993, 1997). Applying a mixture of 1- and 2-methylnaphthalene to the skin resulted in similar lung injury to mice (Murata 1992). In people, this lung disease is unusual and is typically caused by inhaling particulates (Lin 2009). Other types of acute lung damage have been reported, including to the epithelial and Clara cells and to the nasal epithelium (Lin 2009)
In 2005, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry concluded: "The available data on the methylnaphthalenes appear inadequate to determine their carcinogenicity potential in humans" (ATSDR 2005).
The FDA and EPA have not set safe exposure levels. ATSDR has set minimal risk levels of 0.04 and 0.07 milligram per kilogram bodyweight per day (mg/kg-d) for long-term exposure to 1- and 2-methylnaphthalene, respectively (ATSDR 2005). ATSDR also concluded that consumers are likely not exposed to methylnaphthalene via food, a statement that warrants reexamination given the chemical’s detection in Kellogg’s food packaging (ATSDR 2005).
Methylnapthalene contamination in cereal raises safety questions. The chemical is structurally similar to naphthalene, which was the primary component in mothballs until those products were reformulated due to toxicity concerns. Naphthalene and methylnapthalene share the same toxicity to lung cells. Naphthalene is also toxic to red blood cells, causing anemia, fatigue, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea (ATSDR 2005). The methylated form of the mothball chemical has not been fully assessed for toxicity to blood cells, a critical data gap when it comes to evaluating the potential effects of food contamination. The National Library of Medicine’s Hazardous Substances Data Bank lists these symptoms as a concern for workers exposed to methylnapthalene (NLM 2010).
The San Antonio Budget Grocery Examiner reported that consumers affected by the contaminated cereal typically experienced nausea and/or vomiting within 15 minutes of ingesting the cereal (King 2010). Kellogg’s attributed these effects to some individuals’ increased susceptibility to the chemical’s smell and odor (Kellogg’s 2010).
Both the company and the FDA have an obligation to follow up. It is vital that we know how the chemical made its way into the cereal boxes and what is known about the safety of this compound for children in particular, since the recalled cereals are especially popular among them.

Gaps in the food safety program

Most importantly, this episode casts further doubt upon the ability of the FDA to evaluate and assure the safety of food packaging. Methylnapthalene gives off a strong taste and odor at quite low levels. People can discern its presence at concentrations as low as 7.5 to 10 parts per billion in air and water. In the case of Kellogg’s cereals, it affected the smell and taste of the products. Thousands of other food additives, however, would not be so obvious to consumers.
Food packaging is already under scrutiny because of recent concerns over the synthetic estrogen bisphenol A (BPA) leaching from the coatings on metal food cans and jar lids into baby food, formula and other canned foods. The FDA admits that the current regulatory structure "limits [its] the oversight and flexibility" in responding to the issue of BPA in food packaging (FDA 2010c). The agency does not know how many foods contain trace levels of BPA, nor can it determine who is using petroleum waxes in packaging. It would take a lengthy rulemaking process for the Agency to request the relevant use and safety data. As a result, FDA is seeking new authority to evaluate and assure the safety of BPA in food packaging.
The discovery of contaminated cereal packaging raises serious questions about FDA’s authority to investigate and regulate all chemicals that make their way from cardboard boxes, plastic bags, metal cans and coated papers into our breakfasts and our bodies.....

HERE To read the entire article

More Nestle lies and political double talk

In  June 2010, Baby Milk Action director Mike Bradey called for the public to contact/email Nestle:  "Nestle is promoting its baby milk with the claim it 'protects' babies and that it is, 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'."  I wrote an email to Nestle with regards to their extremely misleading advertising campaign, and HEY!  they finally responded to it!

Dear Mrs Arnold,

There is no question about breast-milk being the best start a baby can have in life. To emphasise this, the following statement, "Important notice: Breast-milk is best for babies. Before you decide to use an infant formula consult your doctor or clinic for advice", appears on all our infant formula products. However, for infants who, for whatever reason, cannot be breastfed, it is critically important that a safe, high-quality alternative be made available.

Nestlé makes significant investments in R&D and technology to continuously deliver innovative products with scientifically proven nutritional benefits. We continue to make scientific and technical advances in the area of nutrition and we make sure that our infant formula products are “best in class” to meet as far as possible the nutritional requirements of non-breastfed babies.

The functional benefits that are encapsulated in the “Protect” logo are scientifically substantiated – the result of many years of intensive research on how best to improve the formula composition to stimulate the infant’s immune system. The logo helps distinguish this particular formula from other less advanced products but does not claim in any manner that infant formula is superior or equal to breast-milk.

Infant formula products are reviewed, registered and/or regulated by governments to ensure that consumers have technically precise and accurate information. In all countries where the “Protect” logo is used, it is consistent with the local legislative and regulatory framework.

For your information, the World Health Assembly does not formulate marketing standards – rather it makes health policy recommendations to Member States. It is up to each Member State to determine how it implements these policy recommendations in their own country, according to their development goals and their social and legislative framework.

We hope to have answered your concerns. Do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.

Gayle Crozier-Willi
Public Affairs
Nestlé SA

As I am in Canada, I immediately contacted INFACT Canada  and forwarded them a copy of the email.  Elizabeth Sterken immediately replied that, Yep, it was the usual Nestle cut & paste letter of B*llsh*t.  So Here is my response I'm sending back to Nestle lackey Gayle Crozier-Willi

Dear Ms Crozier-Willi,

Thank you for your response to my email.  However your cut & paste reply does not answer the questions nor shed any truth on the subject.

The WHO Code in no uncertain terms states that regardless of national legislation, manufacturers and distributors of artificial feeding product are responsible to adhere to the provisions of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (which you ALL signed). In country after country nestle violates the Code and puts infants at risk for increased illness and death. The WHO notes that over 1 million infants die every year because of insufficient breastfeeding, hence the urgency as again this year by the World Health Assembly for increased implementation to the International Code and this was especially directed at the industry.

WHA resolution May 2010:

Infant and young child nutrition

The resolution urges governments and the baby foods industries to strengthen their efforts to implement the Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding, The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative and the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. Including :

- to strengthen and expedite the sustainable implementation of the Global Strategy for infant and young child feeding including emphasis on giving effect to the aim and principles of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, and the implementation of the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative;
- to develop and/or strengthen legislative, regulatory and/or other effective measures to control the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in order to give effect to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and relevant resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly;
-to end inappropriate promotion of food for infants and young children and to ensure that nutrition and health claims shall not be permitted for foods for infants and young children, except where specifically provided for, in relevant Codex Alimentarius standards or national legislation;


Nestle's nutrition and health claims are not scientifically substantiated as you claim. If you go to the Cochrane Reviews on the addition of fatty acids (DHA and ARA) to infant formula the meta analysis notes that there is no evidence for the claims and that further research is needed.

As well the WHO does in no way recommend that infant formula be the next best to mothers milk when unavailable. The WHO recommends expressed milk, donor milk and wetnursing as preferable before infant formula.

If Nestle wants to be truthful, then it should admit to violating the Code and make compensation to the death and illness this has caused to millions of mothers and babies.  It is about time that Nestle  policed itself with some ethical actions, instead of promoting a product that has caused irreparable damage to societies around the world with their unethical marketing claims and promotions.

Ahhhhh... the joys of dealing with Nestle.  If you were involved with the June Baby Milk Action contact Nestle Movement, have you received a response from Nestle?  And if you did, did you respond to it and tell them to stop their lies?

Pregnancy, Breastfeeding and Vitamin D

A new study from Britain calls for stronger Vitamin D supplements for women who are pregnant.  This is not the first study of it's kind, yet it always seems to hit the media like it's some sort of new fad.  In our age of people hiding from sun exposure, vitamin D deficiency is a common side effect. Women living in Northern climes where sun exposure may require battling with raging winter winds and snow squalls for several months a year, or having a job that keeps you indoors for a vast portion of your day may leave you with less than optimum levels of Vitamin D and therefore during pregnancy  they may be unable to pass along enough Vit D to their babies.

Pregnant women advised to take vitamin D

By Shane Starling, 05-Jul-2010

British researchers have concluded pregnant women should be advised to take vitamin D after determining there is a “strong case” to back the vitamin’s benefits.

The researchers from the University College London Institute of Child Health wrote in the British Journal of Nutrition that supplementation of vitamin D will benefit pregnant women and reduce the risk of diseases such as infantile hypocalcaemia and rickets.
They said the UK was the only country in 31 that did not officially recommend vitamin D use women of reproductive age, even though the Department of Health advises pregnant women to take 10 micrograms per day....
"The incidence of vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women in Britain is unacceptably high, especially during winter and spring,” said Dr Elina Hypponen, one of the report authors.

"This is compounded by a lack of exposure to sunlight and the limitations of an average diet to meet the optimal need. In the most severe cases, maternal vitamin D deficiency can be life threatening to a newborn.”
"We believe that the routine provision of a daily supplement throughout pregnancy would significantly decrease the number of mothers who are clearly vitamin D deficient, reducing related serious risks to their babies."
The research also highlighted the problem of women with dark skin who do not absorb as much sunlight and therefore manufacture less vitamin D in vivo.

Source: British Journal of Nutrition

 HERE to read the entire article

This also applies to breastfeeding mothers.  Many times the statement that breastmilk is lacking enough vitamin D and that therefore babies should be give Vitamin D supplements has been hashed and rehashed through the media and doctors offices over and  over again.  Yet rarely have these stated the reason WHY breastmilk might be Vitamin D deficient:  Because the Mother herself is also Deficient in Vit D!!!!  It makes sense does it not?  If mom is already not getting enough, then how can she pass on enough to her baby- either in the womb or in her breastmilk?

Pregnancy and Lactation

One of the great mysteries in human biology is the fact that most human breast milk is deficient in vitamin D. How could Nature overlook such an important nutrient in the "perfect food?" One possibility is that most human breast milk is deficient in vitamin D because most mothers are deficient in vitamin D.
Two very important papers detailing this were published by Dr. Bruce Hollis and his group from the Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, at the Medical University of South Carolina. Both papers support the concept of widespread deficiencies in pregnant women, especially black women, and both papers call for drastic upward revisions of maternal vitamin D supplementation.

One of the papers discovered that pregnant women need at least 4,000 IU a day of vitamin D to maintain both their own vitamin D levels and that of their infants. Ideally, they should receive at least 5,000 IU per day.

HERE to go to the original article with multiple links to further studies on Vit D 

Infact Canada has an excellent article about Vit D supplementation of breastfed infants.  Infact points out that most of the statements about the "deficiency" of Breastmilk is blown out  of proportion and the blatant sales pitch for liquid supplement for infants totally unnecessary.  If mom has enough, so will Baby!!!!!!

How impartial is Canada's Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants¹?
A just released pamphlet* from the Canadian Pediatric Society explaining the vitamin D recommendation of the infant feeding statement, says it all. Using language designed to arouse fear in new parents, breastmilk is dismissed as nutritionally inadequate, "Breastmilk contains 15 to 40 I.U. of vitamin D per litre and does not provide your baby with an adequate intake of vitamin D". Added to this are graphic descriptions of the symptoms of rickets, all designed to create doubt and anxiety on the part of parents in a mother's ability to breastfeed. Parents are told that sunlight is not a reliable source but that a "daily vitamin D supplement is a far more reliable way." One wonders did they not read the scientific literature? Did they not read the articles about the low prevalence and that only a very select minority is at risk? Did they note in the literature that vitamin D is not naturally a dietary substance but is derived from exposure to the sun? Pushing a product with kickbacks to the profession seems to be the quick fix.

*This brochure was produced by the Canadian Pediatric Society and made possible by an educational grant from Mead Johnson Nutritionals, makers of D-VI-SOL

HERE to read the entire article on Infact Canada's website

And finally, here's what Dr. Jack Newman has to say on the topic:

Vitamin D
It seems that breastmilk does not contain much vitamin D, but it does have a little. We must assume this is as nature intended not a mistake of evolution. In fact, breastmilk is one of the few natural foods that does contain some vitamin D. We were obviously meant to get our vitamin D from being exposed to sunlight. The baby stores up vitamin D during the pregnancy and he will remain healthy without vitamin D supplementation for at least a couple of months, unless the mother herself is vitamin D deficient during the pregnancy. Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women in Canada and the USA is uncommon, but it does exist. Outside exposure also gives your baby vitamin D even in winter, even when the sky is cloudy. A few minutes of exposure very late on a summer’s day is ample. Thirty minutes during a summer week, and an hour or so in winter, gives your baby more than enough vitamin D even if only his face is exposed.

Under unusual circumstances, it may be prudent to give the baby vitamin D. For example, in situations where exposure of the baby to ultraviolet rays of the sun is not possible (Northern Canada in winter or if the baby is never taken outside), giving the baby vitamin D drops would be advised. If you have had very little outside exposure yourself (women who are veiled are particularly at risk, especially if they are dark skinned), make sure your intake of vitamin D during the pregnancy is higher than usually recommended. Your baby may need vitamin D supplementation as well. Recent studies suggest that high intake of vitamin D while breastfeeding (4000 IU a day—10 times the usual recommended dose) does in fact increase the amount of vitamin D in the milk to levels that will protect the baby from rickets.

HERE to read the original article on NBCI website