help lactivist.net Lactivist.net is funded from sales from www.lactivist.co.uk and from sponsors adverts. No profit is made from it. Every little helps.
|
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 11th, 2012
A lot of women start breast feeding, but very few babies are breast fed for more than a few days or weeks. There are many suggestions about how to help women who want to breast feed for longer, and online support is one suggestion (online support in this context means using the internet as a source of support). This project seeks to explore if and how the internet can help women with breast feeding. Has the internet helped you with breast feeding? Is there anything missing in the breast feeding support that is available online? These are some of the questions that this study seeks to address ….
My research has been funded by a Vice Chancellor Research Scholarship from the University of Ulster.The research team members are Professor Marlene Sinclair, Professor George Kernohan, Dr. Janine Stockdale and Maria Herron.
This study has been checked by other people who are knowledgeable in the subject area and by a Filter Committee and Ethics Committee in accordance with the University procedures.
Please contact me on herron-m1@email.ulster.ac.uk if you want to discuss any aspect of this project.
I am researching women’s use of the internet in relation to breastfeeding and would be very grateful if you could share your views by completing this short online survey (it should only take a few minutes):
http://tinyurl.com/7c9w8mu
If you have a bit more time, I would also like to interview some women in more detail about using the internet to help with breastfeeding. If you are available to be interviewed (by email), i would be delighted if you could contact me on herron-m1@email.ulster.ac.uk
big thanks!
Maria Herron
Research Student, School of Nursing
Room MG205b, University of Ulster – Magee College
Northern Ireland
herron-m1@email.ulster.ac.uk
By Lisa Lactivist, on June 21st, 2011
RCPCH publishes new position paper on breastfeeding
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) has published a position paper strongly endorsing six months exclusive breastfeeding and supporting the Baby Friendly Initiative.
The RCPCH notes that “breastfeeding plays an important part in protecting children’s health.” It calls for more research to improve the evidence base relating to “the extent to which breastfeeding reduces the risk of diabetes mellitus (IDDM), raised blood pressure, asthma, allergies and other atopic conditions and children’s behaviour.”
Commenting on policy and practice to support breastfeeding, the RCPCH expresses support for the framework of the Baby Friendly Initiative. It goes on to call for “a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach involving families and health-care professionals to increase both the initiation and continuation of breastfeeding. This approach needs to be based on a solid foundation of evidence. A better understanding is also needed about why many women choose not to breastfeed. Breastfeeding is a natural process and with support, knowledge and education, the expectation is that the vast majority of women should be able to breastfeed.”
Click here to find out more
This is from the UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative
By Ally, on June 5th, 2011
Can anyone take a few minutes to answer this for research;
There can be many factors that discourage a mother from breastfeeding. We are not talking here about the challenges she may face once she starts, but about the barriers that can actually deter her from even wanting to breastfeed in the first place.
Thank you 
By Lisa Lactivist, on May 31st, 2011
 Lactivist.net sponsors Pinter and Martin have given us a whopping 25% discount code at www.pinterandmartin.com.
Pinter and Martin are a small publishing house that specialise in psychology, pregnancy, birth & parenting, fiction and yoga. Their titles include
The Psychologist says Stanley Milgram’s The Individual in a Social World is “…a joy to read. The general scope of Milgram’s vision, and ease of his prose make this an essential book for anyone with an interest in (social) psychology.”
Many of their titles are now available on the Kindle, iPad, iPhone and iPod. Recent ebook additions include The Politics of Breastfeeding and The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding
Just quote code LACT25 at the checkout for 25% off.
By Lisa Lactivist, on May 26th, 2011
 I found this on the NHS website – http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CMS2Web/ShowRecord.asp?View=Full&ID=21997000575
The full research is below but these are 2 important snippets:
Mean, unadjusted total Medicaid expenditures for infants in the breast feeding cohort were approximately $102 less than for infants in the formula-feeding cohort ($484.80 +/- 964.14versus $586.67 +/-1,222.36, not statistically significant). Mean pharmacy payments, a subcategory of total Medicaid expenditures, were significantly lower for the breast-fed cohort than for the formula fed cohort ($16.83 and $37.56 respectively, p<0.0001). Compared with the formula-feeding cohort, adjusted pharmacy payments for the breast-feeding cohort were $29.82 (95% CI: $21.14 – $38.50) lower for males and $12.16(95% CI: $5.90 – $18.41) lower for females.
The average formula-fed infant required 21% more Medicaid expenditures and the infant-mother pair required 14% to 19% more WIC dollars than the average breast-fed infant-mother pair.
Authors’ conclusions
The study results show that breast-feeding reduces WIC costs and Medicaid expenditures in the short term, so examination of a longer time period may reveal greater savings. In order to achieve valid conclusions, it is important to consider the problem of incomplete Medicaid expenditure data and breast-feeding infants receiving care from providers who use revenue billing codes (which tends to result in a higher level of payment). The lower pharmacy costs associated with breast-fed children could mean a substantial saving for the Medicaid programme if more low-income mothers chose to breast-feed their infants.
The authors argued that the breast-feeding method produced a net month saving of $9.83, which, applied to the 17.5% of Colorado WIC infants breast-fed for 6 months, can lead to a saving of $25,803 per month. In addition to producing monetary benefits, breast-feeding produces intangible benefits for the mother and infant, as well for society.
So why is the UK government scrapping Breastfeeding Awareness Week?
Please sign the petition to get the funding back – http://www.petitiononline.com/fundBFAW/petition.html
| Economic benefit of breast-feeding infants enrolled in WIC |
| Montgomery D L, Splett P L |
|
|
|
|
Health technology
Breast-feeding versus formula feeding in infants.
Type of intervention
Breastfeeding; Primary prevention.
Hypothesis/study question
The general objective of the study was to determine whether, within a low-income population served by WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children), breast feeding is associated with a reduction in Medicaid expenditures during the first 6 months of life. Formula feeding was explicitly stated asa comparator.
Economic study type
Cost-effectiveness analysis.
Study population
Breast-fed and formula-fed infants. The average age of mothers was 25 for the breast-feeding and 22.2 for the formula-feeding group, (p<0.001). The two groups were comparable in terms of education background. 70% of the breast-feeding group were white women and 55.7% of the formula-feeding group ,(p<0.001). The women in the breast feeding group had a higher rate of employment (43.1% versus 32.3%, p<0.001) and were less likely to smoke (13.7% versus 26.2%, p<0.001).
Setting
Community. The economic study was carried out in Colorado, USA.
Dates to which data relate
The resources were measured using data for the period 1 August 1993 – 31 December 1993. 1993-1994 prices were used.
Source of effectiveness data
Effectiveness data were derived from a single study.
Link between effectiveness and cost data
The costing was undertaken retrospectively on the same patient sample as that used in the effectiveness study.
Study sample
Using the Colorado WIC database, infants were identified as possible subjects if they were: (a) born between August 1, 1993, and December 31, 1993; (b) enrolled in WIC within 1 month of birth; (c) either formula-fed exclusively or breast-fed exclusively for at least the first 3 months of life; and (d) classified as a normal, singleton birth (born after 37 weeks of gestation with a birth weight above 2,500 g and born without any severe medical conditions).
Breast-fed infants were further identified as to duration of exclusive breast-feeding (3, 4, 5 or 6 months of exclusive breast-feeding) based on redemption of WIC wouchers for infant formula. It is not evident that the initial study sample was appropriate for the clinical study question;it was not reported whether power calculations were used to determine the sample size.
The breast-feeding cohort and the formula-feeding cohort consisted of 406 and 470 infants respectively. Infants were excluded if (a) birth certificate or Medicaid records indicated congenital anomaly, or less than 37 weeks of gestation; (b) the Medicaid record indicated that medical services were provided by a health maintenance organization or a federally qualified health centre (where Medicaid payments for services were not related to intensity of service provided);or (c) Medicaid records indicated other third-party reimbursement for any medical service during the study period.
Study design
Single centre cohort study. The cohorts were identified and tracked prospectively for 6 months. No information about loss to follow up was reported.
Analysis of effectiveness
Effectiveness results
The effectiveness results were not explicitly reported.
Clinical conclusions
The study considers that breast feeding is at least as effective as formula feeding in terms of health benefits for infants.
Measure of benefits used in the economic analysis
Since the authors assumed that there was no difference in effectiveness or clinical benefit between the intervention and comparator, the economic analysis was based on the difference in costs only (cost-minimization) plus a benefit to cost ratio calculation.
Direct costs
Discounting was not applied due to the short period of the study (<1 year). Costs and quantities were not reported separately. The type of costs included in the study were as follows: the food costs for the women and infants in the two groups plus the administrative expenses for 6 months, minus manufacturers’ rebates for formula, plus Medicaid expenditures for health care initiated in the first 6 months of each infant’s life for: procedure, revenue, diagnosis-related-group, non-diagnosis-related-group and pharmacy. The quantity/cost boundary adopted was the health service. The estimation of quantities and costs was based on actual data. The source of quantity/cost data was the Colorado WIC database and the Medicaid records. The dates of the price data were 1993-1994.
Statistical analysis of costs
WIC costs and Medicaid expenditures were summed for each mother-infant pair and compared between the cohorts by means of t tests and analysis of covariance. Regression techniques were used to estimate total Medicaid expenditures for each feeding method when adjusted for other variables. The sex of the infant and number of prenatal visits were found to contribute significantly to total Medicaid expenditures. Analysis of covariance was used to estimate the total difference in Medicaid expenditures between the breast-fed and formula-fed cohorts, adjusted for sex of the infant and number of prenatal visits.
Indirect Costs
Currency
Sensitivity analysis
A simple sensitivity analysis was carried out on administrative costs.
Estimated benefits used in the economic analysis
Cost results
The 6 months food cost was $299 lower for breast-feeding mother-infant pairs than for the formula-fed cohort ($269 versus $568, p<0.0001). With the addition of a 26% administrative cost adjustment, 6 months food cost remained less for the breast-fed cohort than for the formula-fed cohort, $339 versus $715. The 6 months, post-rebate (manufacturer’s rebate) WIC food cost for the formula-feeding cohort, before adjusting for the programme’s administrative cost, was $18.63 less than the food package cost for the breast-feeding cohort. When administrative costs were added to food package cost (calculated with 26% administrative cost of pre-rebate food package), the food cost of the formula-feeding cohort was higher by $59 than that of the breast-feeding cohort. Mean, unadjusted total Medicaid expenditures for infants in the breast feeding cohort were approximately $102 less than for infants in the formula-feeding cohort ($484.80 +/- 964.14versus $586.67 +/-1,222.36, not statistically significant). Mean pharmacy payments, a subcategory of total Medicaid expenditures, were significantly lower for the breast-fed cohort than for the formula fed cohort ($16.83 and $37.56 respectively, p<0.0001). Compared with the formula-feeding cohort, adjusted pharmacy payments for the breast-feeding cohort were $29.82 (95% CI: $21.14 – $38.50) lower for males and $12.16(95% CI: $5.90 – $18.41) lower for females.
Synthesis of costs and benefits
A benefit-cost ratio was calculated. The benefits (Medicare expenditures) were divided by the (WIC) costs of the programmes to produce a ratio score which showed the monetary value of outcomes produced with each dollar of input. Post-rebate breast-fed cohort ratios ranged from 1.02 to 1.73 compared with ratios of 1.59 to 1.75 for the formula-fed cohort. These results do not, however, reflect the finding that both Medicaid and post-rebate WIC costs were higher for the formula-fed alternative. The average formula-fed infant required 21% more Medicaid expenditures and the infant-mother pair required 14% to 19% more WIC dollars than the average breast-fed infant-mother pair.
Authors’ conclusions
The study results show that breast-feeding reduces WIC costs and Medicaid expenditures in the short term, so examination of a longer time period may reveal greater savings. In order to achieve valid conclusions, it is important to consider the problem of incomplete Medicaid expenditure data and breast-feeding infants receiving care from providers who use revenue billing codes (which tends to result in a higher level of payment). The lower pharmacy costs associated with breast-fed children could mean a substantial saving for the Medicaid programme if more low-income mothers chose to breast-feed their infants.
The authors argued that the breast-feeding method produced a net month saving of $9.83, which, applied to the 17.5% of Colorado WIC infants breast-fed for 6 months, can lead to a saving of $25,803 per month. In addition to producing monetary benefits, breast-feeding produces intangible benefits for the mother and infant, as well for society.
CRD COMMENTARY – Selection of comparators
The reason for the choice of comparator is clear.
Validity of estimate of measure of benefit
The health benefits of the intervention and the comparator were not explicitly analysed. As such, the authors conducted an economic evaluation which had some characteristics of cost-benefit analysis (e.g. benefit/cost ratio, net benefit)and others which resembled cost-minimization analysis. However, in terms of cost-benefit analysis, health benefits were not explicitly analysed but, rather, the conversion from health outcomes to dollar values was represented in Medicaid expenditures alone. In terms of cost-minimization, the authors did not adequately demonstrate that the effectiveness of breast-feeding was identical to formula-feeding. However, the results suggest additional benefit for breast-fed infants.
Validity of estimate of costs
Resource quantities were not reported separately from the prices, but adequate details of methods of quantity/cost estimation were given. All the important cost items were included.
Other issues
The results of the study need to be validated, for example with a cohort study which employs a longer period of follow up using appropriate methods to assess differences in the health outcomes of the two populations.
Implications of the study
The study supports the view that the breast feeding of infants is associated with both health and economic benefits.
Source of funding
Supported in part by grants from The American Dietetic Association Research Foundation and the Colorado Breastfeeding Task Force.
Bibliographic details
Montgomery D L, Splett P L. Economic benefit of breast-feeding infants enrolled in WIC. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1997 97(4):379-385
PubMedID
Other publications of related interest
Comment in: Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1997;97(4):385.
Indexing Status
Subject indexing assigned by NLM
MeSH
Adult; Bottle Feeding /economics; Breast Feeding; Cohort Studies; Cost Control; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Food Services /economics; Humans; Infant Food /economics; Infant, Newborn; Medicaid /economics /utilization; Prospective Studies; United States
AccessionNumber
21997000575
Database entry date
31/07/1999
Record Status
This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Lisa Lactivist, on May 15th, 2011
There is a lot of myth surrounding breastfeeding and depression – many people think that taking anti depressants will mean you have to stop breastfeeding. The best resource I found is on Kellymom which has a list of safe anti depressants and a list of non medical ideas that can help.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists says
“Make sure that your doctor knows that you are breastfeeding. For many antidepressants, there is no evidence that they cause problems for breastfed babies, so breastfeeding is usually possible.
However, the decision is an individual one for each woman. Some antidepressants have been used in breastfeeding for many years. There is less information about newer medications. You doctor can provide up-to-date information and advice.
To decide whether to breastfeed when taking an antidepressant, you need to think about:
how severe your illness is (or has been in the past)
treatments which have helped you before
side-effects
up-to-date information about the safety of medication in breastfeeding
the benefits of breastfeeding
whether your baby is very premature or has any health problems
the impact of the untreated illness on your baby.”
They also have a very good leaflet that is also online and it also lists the following organisations that can help:
Association for Postnatal Illness
Helpline: 020 7386 0868. Provides telephone helpline, information leaflets and a network of volunteers who have themselves experienced PND.
Depression Alliance
Tel: 0845 123 23 20; email: information@depressionalliance.org
Information, support and understanding for people who suffer with depression, and for relatives who want to help. Self-help groups, information, and raising awareness for depression.
Cry-sis
Helpline: 08451 228669. Provides self-help and support for families with excessively crying and sleepless and demanding babies.
Family Action
Tel: 020 7254 6251. Support and practical help for families affected by mental illness. Including ‘Newpin’ services – offering support to parents of children under-5 whose mental health is affecting their ability to provide safe parenting.
Home Start
Tel: 0800 068 6368. Support and practical help for families with at least one child under-5. Help offered to parents finding it hard yo cope for many reasons. These include PND or other mental illness, isolation, bereavement, illness of parent or child.
Meet-A-Mum-Association (MAMA)
Helpline: 0845 120 3746. Support and information for all mums and mums-to-be who are lonely, isolated or depressed in pregnancy or after having a baby. Local groups and on-line support.
National Childbirth Trust
Helplines: Pregnancy and Birth Line: 0300 330 0772; Breastfeeding: 0300 330 0771; Postnatal: 0300 330 00773. Support and information on all aspects of pregnancy,birth and early parenthood. Local group and telephone helplines.
Netmums
A website offering support and information on pregnancy and parenting. There is a specific section on offering support. There is also information on local resources and support groups.
The Samaritans
24-hour helpline 08457 90 90 90 (UK) or 1850 60 90 90 (Irelan); Email: jo@samaritans.org.
Confidential emotional support for those in distress who are experiencing feelings of distress or despair, including suicidal thoughts.
Relate
Tel: 0300 100 1234. Relationship support including couple and family counselling. Face-to-face, telephone or online counselling.
A lot of people find that they experience a shift in mood when they stop breastfeeding, personally I was very very tearful as my hormones settled themselves back down. Prolactin is the hormone that stimulates milk production and when that hormone goes, so can the feelings of calm and relaxation that it brings go with it. Weaning off breastmilk also means the end of an era but be reassured that it is the start of a whole new one.
In closing, if it helps anyone, in my experience of depression the thought that holds me together and helps me on a day to day basis is to remember that nothing lasts forever, all things change.
Lisa
By Lisa Lactivist, on April 11th, 2011
This is from http://blogs.babble.com/babys-first-year-blog/2011/04/11/how-much-alcohol-gets-into-breastmilk-really/
There is a space to comment at the bottom of the linked page.
Posted by Naomi on April 11th, 2011 at 2:24 am Recently, I got a comment on one of my older posts on drinking and breastfeeding. The post was specifically about drinking Guinness and about whether or not the rumor that Guinness helped to make more milk was true. In the post, I also talk about other affects of drinking alcohol while nursing, specifically sleep. The commenter seemed agitated (although I could be misreading) when she said:
You shouldn’t drink ANY alcohol while you’re nursing. Everything you put into your body is consumed by your baby. They even taste it. If you wouldn’t feed it, then don’t eat it.
Hmmm. I’ve now nursed a combined 26 months (and counting) and as long as I’ve been nursing, I’ve had one beer OR one glass of wine most nights. The day has been long. Both my babies are in bed. It’s my time, and I’d like to relax. I’ve been told by my doctor that 1-2 drinks a night is not a problem when it comes to nursing but I decided to look into more information on the subject.
La Leche League has a whole page devoted to this topic with lots of interesting information, which I encourage you to check out. There seems to be a general consensus that yes, alcohol does get into your breast milk, although most of their sources say it’s not harmful.
Regardless, my husband, T, being the science Ph.D. snob that he is, does not trust one iota of information on LLL’s page as factually scientific. So, we (he) decided to do a little math computation to figure out exactly how much alcohol was really getting into the blood stream and thus the milk. See his results below:
Alcohol appears in mother’s milk at about the same concentration that alcohol is in the mother’s blood (one informal but convincingly scientific post found it to be much less). So, one drink (consumed quickly) will typically give us a Blood Achohol Level (BAC) of 0.03%. This means that there is 0.03grams of alchohol in each 100mL of our blood. So, if your baby has about 4-5 ounces of milk (100mL), he/she will ingest about 0.03grams of alcohol.
For comparison, a standard drink (one beer, a glass of wine) has about 14 grams of alcohol in it. So, the baby is drinking the equivalent of 1/175th of a beer. This is like having a beer the size of a marble. Babies typically weigh about 1/10th of an adult (17lb baby, 170lb adult), so the effect on their system will be magnified. Very young infants metabolize alcohol at about half the rate of an adult, but soon the rates are similar to adults.
So, your baby’s BAC will be about 5% of yours. This seems like an insignificant amount, but there may be be some developmental impact on babies that don’t apply to adults. One major example of this is low weight gain. If my baby had weight gain issues (and I was a female who breastfed), I would eliminate alcohol just to take it out of the list of possible causes.
One last and important point: everything above assumed that you fed your baby right after slamming the beer. If you have one beer and wait a few hours to feed, your BAC and the risk to your baby are basically zero. Instead, feed baby, have a beer, wait a few hours, feed baby again. Check out this useful graph. Also note that having many beers is much worse than having one beer, since the window of peak BAC is much wider.
So, there you have it. Look, even with this math and science and all the information available about breastfeeding and alcohol, we all have to make our own choices. We’ve made ours.
By Lisa Lactivist, on April 4th, 2011
 By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent 9:00PM BST 02 Apr 2011 The Telegraph
The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.
Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.
The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.
They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.
The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle’s health.
But Professor Ning Li, the scientist who led the research and director of the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology at the China Agricultural University insisted that the GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows.
He said: “The milk tastes stronger than normal milk.
“We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”
China is now leading the way in research on genetically modified food and the rules on the technology are more relaxed than those in place in Europe.
The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows.
Writing in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science One, the researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme,
Lysozyme is an antimicrobial protein naturally found in large quantities in human breast milk. It helps to protect infants from bacterial infections during their early days of life.
They created cows that produce another protein from human milk called lactoferrin, which helps to boost the numbers of immune cells in babies. A third human milk protein called alpha-lactalbumin was also produced by the cows.
The scientists also revealed at an exhibition at the China Agricultural University that they have boosted milk fat content by around 20 per cent and have also changed the levels of milk solids, making it closer to the composition of human milk as well as having the same immune-boosting properties.
Professor Li and his colleagues, who have been working with the Beijing GenProtein Biotechnology Company, said their work has shown it was possible to “humanise” cows milk.
In all, the scientists said they have produced a herd of around 300 cows that are able to produce human-like milk.
The transgenic animals are physically identical to ordinary cows.
Writing in the journal, Professor Li said: “Our study describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers the similar nutritional benefits as human milk.
“The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk. It fulfilled the conception of humanising the bovine milk.”
Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, he added the “human-like milk” would provide “much higher nutritional content”. He said they had managed to produce three generations of GM cows but for commercial production there would need to be large numbers of cows produced.
He said: “Human milk contains the ‘just right’ proportions of protein, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, and vitamins for an infant’s optimal growth and development.
“As our daily food, the cow’s milk provided us the basic source of nutrition. But the digestion and absorption problems made it not the perfect food for human being.”
The researchers also insist having antimicrobial proteins in the cows milk can also be good for the animals by helping to reduce infections of their udders.
Genetically modified food has become a highly controversial subject and currently they can only be sold in the UK and Europe if they have passed extensive safety testing.
The consumer response to GM food has also been highly negative, resulting in many supermarkets seeking to source products that are GM free.
Campaigners claim GM technology poses a threat to the environment as genes from modified plants can get into wild plant populations and weeds, while they also believe there are doubts about the safety of such foods.
Scientists insist genetically modified foods are unlikely to pose a threat to food safety and in the United States consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for more decades.
However, during two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth.
Researchers accept that the cloning technology used in genetic modification can affect the development and survival of cloned animals, although the reason why is not well understood.
A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals said the organisation was “extremely concerned” about how the GM cows had been produced.
She said: “Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern.
“Why do we need this milk – what is it giving us that we haven’t already got.”
Helen Wallace, director of biotechnology monitoring group GeneWatch UK, said: “We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes.
“There are major welfare issues with genetically modified animals as you get high numbers of still births.
“There is a question about whether milk from these cows is going to be safe from humans and it is really hard to tell that unless you do large clinical trials like you would a drug, so there will be uncertainty about whether it could be harmful to some people.
“Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way.”
Professor Keith Campbell, a biologist at the University of Nottingham works with transgenic animals, said: “Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food?
“Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide huge benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html
Thank you to Laura for flagging this one up!
By Lisa Lactivist, on February 19th, 2011
Stefanie Taylor asks:
Could you ladies answer my super short survey??? I am writing a long research paper and need some stats Thank you! (also, could you please include your country at the end)
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/note.php?note_id=134037696651162&id=1548586287
By Lisa Lactivist, on February 10th, 2011
From Suite 101
Jan 31, 2011 Kerri TYLER
The year started with a media frenzy over a new UK report on breastfeeding. But what’s the truth behind the headlines?
New parents have enough to cope with in terms of information overload, so breastfeeding mothers in the UK must be tearing their hair out. In January 2011, newspapers ran headlines such as ‘Six months of breast milk…could harm babies’ and, in the best-selling Sun, ‘Breast is not best’.
World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines advise women to exclusively breastfeed to six months. But new research seems to suggest that babies breastfed to six months may be losing out on essential nutrients, especially iron. Such children may also be more susceptible to food allergies and even obesity.
Take a look behind the headlines, though, and the story is far from conclusive. NHS Choices, the information provider of the UK’s National Health Service, deflates the hyperbole by explaining how the researchers (from London’s Institute of Child Health, the University of Edinburgh and the Institute of Child Health at the University of Birmingham; printed in the British Medical Journal or BMJ) reached their conclusions.
Far from being new research, the report which triggered the media frenzy was a narrative review of existing evidence; or, as Rosie Dodds, Senior Policy Advisor with the National Childbirth Trust (NCT), the UK’s leading parenting charity puts it, “an opinion piece which raised questions and did not provide any new evidence, alter policy or recommendations.”
Based on the studies they considered, the researchers conclude that the existing advice should be reconsidered. They do not detail how many studies they reviewed, nor how they selected them. They confirm that the studies they reviewed were observational, so cannot conclusively prove cause and effect, and they say their results should be approached with caution.
So what are the facts?
The new report cites a 2007 study that suggests babies breastfed to six months are at greater risk from anaemia and had lower levels of iron.
However, there is disagreement over just how much iron a baby needs. La Leche League, a charity that supports breastfeeding mothers, says, “[Iron in] breast milk is more completely absorbed than the kind in formula, baby cereal or supplements. Breastmilk contains a protein that binds to any extra iron baby doesn’t use because too much iron can end up feeding the wrong kind of bacteria in his intestines, and this can result in diarrhoea/constipation or even microscopic bleeding. Formula-fed babies can have too much iron in their intestines, which causes these problems and ends up reducing their overall iron.” Rosie Dodds of the NCT adds, “The authors mention early cord clamping, which is almost universal in this country, but do not reference the recent Cochrane review which concludes that physiological or ‘late cord clamping can be advantageous for the infant by improving iron status’.”
There is little debate over this: evidence clearly indicates that exclusive breastfeeding to six months reduces a baby’s chances of pneumonia, gastroenteritis and ear and respiratory infections.
It’s complicated. The British Medical Journal report suggests there’s an increased risk of food allergies if solids are introduced before three to four months. However, allergies may be increased if the foodstuffs that trigger them are introduced too late. So how can parents get it right? More research is needed. “Trials are being undertaken to test if babies with a family history of true allergy might be helped by earlier introduction of certain foods,” says La Leche League. “But, as a rule, the majority of babies are less likely to have an allergic reaction to foods by around six months.”
The jury’s still out. One study in Belarus found that children who were exclusively breastfed to six months were more likely to be overweight than those who were breastfed to three months. However, earlier evidence from Denmark showed that introduction of solids before six months was linked with a greater risk of being overweight by the age of 42.
So what’s the best thing to do?
Until conclusive, results-based evidence is published, trust your instincts regarding your own baby‘s nutritional needs. Don’t let friends, family members or news providers make you feel bad about your choices. As far as introducing solids is concerned, La Leche League suggests you watch for cues that baby’s ready, such as being able to sit up, taking an interest in food, putting it in his or her mouth and chewing without choking – and that often happens around six months.
Copyright Kerri TYLER. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 30th, 2011
Are you expecting a baby or do you have a baby/toddler aged between birth and thirty six months?
This questionnaire will look at your thoughts and ideas regarding the promotion and sharing of information surrounding breastfeeding in the UK by groups such as Health Professionals, Government messages and the NHS. It will ask you some general background questions about yourself and whether you breast or formula fed, alongside questions looking at your beliefs about breastfeeding promotion and messages. The aim is to better understand what is important to parents during this time.
If there are any questions you do not want to answer for any reason or you do not want to carry on with the interview please just say so. Importantly if answering any of the questions raises concerns about caring for your child in any way, or about other worries that you have, you should contact your health visitor or G.P. for further advice or support.
There are no right or wrong answers – we are interested in your honest opinions and attitudes so please answer as truthfully as possible. Any information that you do give in the questionnaire will only be used for the purposes of the study, and will be kept confidential. You will not be identified from your answers in any way.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to get in contact with Amy Brown in one of the following ways:
Email: a.e.brown@swansea.ac.uk
Phone: 01792 518672
Post: Dr. Amy Brown, Department of Psychology, Swansea University, SA2 8PP
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/breastfeedingpromotion
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 24th, 2011
The line-up for this conference is looking a little one-sided  Author & ‘feminist’ Joan Wolf http://tinyurl.com/mmy6fn , scientist Mary Fewtrell http://tinyurl.com/696hblq and journalist Zoe Williams http://tinyurl.com/dxtx3e If you’re in the London area 21st March you might be interested to attend.
This event, which received funding from the Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness, is being held on Monday March 21st at the British Library Conference Centre. It is FREE to attend, but places are limited to 45, so please email the organiser Charlotte Faircloth C.Faircloth@kent.ac.uk to book in.
Pages now live:
Programme
Abstracts and papers
Information for participants
http://blogs.kent.ac.uk/parentingculturestudies/pcs-events/forthcoming-events/feeding-children/
Feeding children in the new parenting culture
The British Library Conference Centre, London, Monday 21st March 2011
Funded by the Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness
9.30‐10 Arrivals and Coffee
10 Welcome, Dr Charlotte Faircloth (Mildred Blaxter postdoctoral
fellow, SSPSSR, University of Kent)
10.10 Dr Polly Russell (Curator, Social Science Collection: ‘Eat your
greens’: Feeding children of the past – examples from the
British Library.
10.30‐12.30 Keynote session ‘Is breast really best?’
Chair Dr Charlotte Faircloth
10.30‐11.30 Dr Joan Wolf (Women and Gender Studies Programme, Texas
A and M University), author ‘Is Breast Best? Taking on the
Breastfeeding Experts and the New High Stakes of Motherhood
11.30‐12.00 Discussants: Professor Elizabeth Murphy (Pro‐Vice‐Chancellor
and Head of the College of Social Science, University of
Leicester), Dr Mary Fewtrell (Reader in Childhood Nutrition,
Honorary Consultant Paediatrician, Institute of Child Health,
UCL) and Zoe Williams (Columnist, The Guardian)
12 ‐ 12.30 Open Discussion
12.30‐1.30 Lunch
1.30 ‐3 Panel 1: Feeding children in the ‘obesity crisis’
Chair: Professor Frank Furedi (Professor of Sociology, SSPSSR,
University of Kent)
Speakers: Dr Roel Pieterman (Sociologist of Law, Erasmus
University, NL) From ‘overweight’ to ‘healthy weight’: reframing
policy to stop the obesity epidemic among Dutch
children.”
Dr Julia Keenan (Research Assistant, University of East Anglia)
‘I just want them to eat when they’re hungry and I want
them to eat well. And I want them not to be hung up really,
and I don’t want them to be overweight’: The impact of
obesity discourses on maternal identities, early feeding
relationships and parenting practices.
Dr Emma Rawlins (Research Fellow, Centre for Research into
Family and Relationships, University of Edinburgh) “I’ve got no
choice, I’ve got children”: Understanding family eating
practices
3‐3.30 Coffee
3.30 – 5 Panel 2: Food, motherhood and meaning
Chair and closing comments: Dr. Ellie Lee (Senior Lecturer,
Social Policy, SSPSSR, University of Kent)
Speakers: Dr. Charlotte Faircloth. Militant Lactivism?
Accounting for infant feeding
Dr. Rebecca O’Connell (Research Officer, Thomas Coram
Research Unit, Institute of Education) Food responsibilities in
working families: avoiding maternal blame
Dr. Emma Head (Lecturer, School of Sociology and
Criminology, Keele University) ‘Don’t rush to mush’? Infants,
food and contemporary family practices
5.30‐ 7 Wine reception in nearby venue (by invitation)
Thanks to Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths and Breastfeeding Older Children
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 17th, 2011
This is very cheering indeed, researchers and experts are commenting on the the ‘Six months of exclusive breastfeeding, how good is the evidence’ article using phrases such as
“just a respectable opinion based on shaky grounds”
“Why don’t we concentrate on physiology and neuromuscular development to advise mothers on when to start solids, instead of wandering in search of doubtful evidence?”
“Breastfeeding is more than infant nutrition”
“The health benefits for the mother, both short and long term, are not explored, and the risks and expense of formula feeding, even in industrialized settings, are brushed aside.”
“it might be noted that three of the four authors declare receiving funding from the infant food industry, which would benefit from policy that dictated a significant increase in the need for infant formula.”
This is the page on the British Medical Journal website where experts can reply to published articles.
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955/reply
On Twitter the BMJ Group have said to the Leaky Boob “I’ll suggest a follow up piece to editorial team following press interpretation. BMJ always strives for balance in our content”.
How much can we blame the press though? The information they got about it was a press release from the BMJ which included snippets like
‘Dr Fewtrell argues that the evidence that breast milk alone provides sufficient nutrition for six months is questionable. She says there is a higher risk of iron deficiency anaemia if babies are exclusively breast fed and that there could also be a higher incidence of celiac disease and food allergies if children are not introduced to certain solid foods before six months.”
Here are some of the replies to ‘Six months of exclusive breast feeding: how good is the evidence?’
Not so good
-
Adriano Cattaneo, Epidemiologist
Institute for Maternal and Child Health, Trieste, Italy
The evidence provided by Fewtrell and collaborators to challenge the WHO 6-month recommendation is no better than the one provided by WHO. It is in fact slightly worse.
The WHO recommendation is based on two RCTs and 16 observational studies. All the studies published after 2001 on infection, nutritional adequacy, allergy and coeliac disease, and outcomes in the longer term that Fewtrell and collaborators cite to question the 6-month policy are observational. The only two RCTs they cite are ongoing and can not be used to argue against the WHO 6-month policy. Until further evidence becomes available, I prefer to stand by the WHO recommendations (and hope the UK and Italian DoH will agree with me).
Incidentally, the WHO recommendation has never been meant to apply to all infants. It is a public health recommendation to be used for national and professional policies and regulations (for example, on labelling of baby foods). Infants in fact do not wake up the day they reach six months and ask for solids!!! Readiness to eat the first solids is distributed as any other biological variable, a Bell shaped curve that in my opinion (because no research is available to know the real shape) has a mode at six months and is skewed to the right (i.e. more infants are ready after than before six months). Why don’t we concentrate on physiology and neuromuscular development to advise mothers on when to start solids, instead of wandering in search of doubtful evidence?
Finally, I am amazed by the rapid spread into the popular press and media of the questionable messages posted by Fewtrell and collaborators in their paper. Less than 24 hours after publication, newspapers in Italy (and I guess in UK and other countries; TV will follow suit) are already talking about a “new study” showing that exclusively breastfeeding infants to six months may be dangerous. Am I wrong if I ask the authors to make a quick public statement to transparently say that theirs is not a “new study” but just a respectable opinion based on shaky grounds?
Competing interests: None declared
Breastfeeding is more than infant nutrition
- Miriam H. Labbok, Professor/Physician
Carolina Global Breastfeeding Institute, Dept of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Caro
January 14, 2010
Dear Editors:
With thanks to my friends and respected colleagues for addressing the importance of six months of exclusive breastfeeding, it would seems that their argument considers breastfeeding primarily as a replacement for formula feeding. The health benefits for the mother, both short and long term, are not explored, and the risks and expense of formula feeding, even in industrialized settings, are brushed aside.
For the most part, this article actually presents substantial additional data supporting six months for the infant and child health outcomes while noting the few findings that might speak against it. One possibly new issue raised, based on a single Swedish study, is coeliac disease; the article itself notes that gluten load, rather than timing, might well be the culprit. Concerning iron stores, we know that much of this problem could be addressed with proper delay of cord clamping, giving infants greater iron stores from birth, or if still needed, later micronutrient supplementation might be considered. This birth-related issue and other maternal issues are disregarded: six months (vs. four) exclusive breastfeeding has many advantages for maternal health and birth spacing in less developed and industrialized countries alike. Also, the large body of published research on later maternal and child obesity, cancer and related diseases is barely considered. In sum, there is little here to argue against the definition of optimal feeding practice, for mother and child, to remain exclusive breastfeeding for six months.
As to the research from developed countries, such research on exclusive breastfeeding in developed countries is very difficult to interpret in part due to small self-selected numbers and in part due to inadequate definitions of breastfeeding practices. The WHO nutrition section and other nutrition groups tend to define the term exclusive breastfeeding only in its role as a food, and therefore the definition of exclusive breastfeeding generally includes the feeding of expressed milk and/or pasteurized donor milk. Such milk feeding may not be creating the same physiological, hormonal and gut floral/fauna responses in the mother and child as is created by direct breastfeeding, and, in situations where there may be considerable separation of mother and child, the immune composition of the milk may no not address the child’s environmental exposures. We are far from understanding the differences in health outcomes for mother and child with the use of pumps and expressed milk, a very common practice in the US. Other concerns, such as delayed exposure to food flavors, would not appear significant, given recent research that has confirmed that breastfed infants are already exposed to the flavors of foods ingested by mother through her milk.
On a different issue, it may also be important to correctly the statement on US government support. USG policy has noted the importance of six months, rather than 4-6, since the preparation of the US DHHS Blueprint for Action on Breastfeeding, published in 2000, and has been supporting six months exclusive breastfeeding for more than 5 years with the Healthy People goal for the Nation to increase exclusive breastfeeding through six months.
Finally, it might be noted that three of the four authors declare receiving funding from the infant food industry, which would benefit from policy that dictated a significant increase in the need for infant formula.
Rather than calling for truncation of exclusive breastfeeding, limiting its myriad of positive immediate health, child spacing and long- term health effects, let us instead call for 1) delayed cord clamping for iron stores, with iron supplements as needed in later infancy, 2) research on the impact of exclusive breastfeeding vs. expressed milk feeding on the health of both mothers and their children, and, most of all, 3) unbiased, informed, and mother-centered support – clinical, social and economic – so that women may make an unbiased, informed infant feeding choice, and succeed in six months of exclusive breastfeeding.
Sincerely,
Miriam H. Labbok, MD, MPH, FACPM, IBCLC, FABM
The Carolina Breastfeeding Institute (CGBI) Professor, and Director, CGBI Department of Maternal and Child Health Gillings School of Global Public Health
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7445
Note:
–Labbok is on the Board of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine and North America Representative on the Board of Directors, World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action
–CGBI is a member of The North Carolina Breastfeeding Coalition; The United States Breastfeeding Committee; The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health.
–CGBI is a component of The WHO Collaborating Centre for Research Evidence for Sexual and Reproductive Health at UNC
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests
- Alison E Powell, Former midwife
Cambridge
I note that three of the four authors of this paper (MF, AL, and DCW) “have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past 3 years”.
Such companies stand to gain directly and indirectly from a national policy recommendation for earlier weaning – or indeed from media coverage that undermines breastfeeding.
Competing interests: None declared
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 17th, 2011
The British Medical Journal are saying via Twitter that the published analysis ‘Six months of exclusive breast feeding: how good is the evidence?’ is an opinion piece that has been interpreted differently in the press.
This is the press release the BMJ sent out.
Contact: Emma Dickinson
edickinson@bmjgroup.com
44-020-738-36529
BMJ-British Medical Journal
Is ‘breast only’ for first 6 months best?
Analysis: 6 months of exclusive breast feeding: How good is the evidence?
Current guidance advising mothers in the UK to exclusively breast feed for the first six months of their baby’s life is being questioned by child health experts on bmj.com today.
The authors, led by Dr Mary Fewtrell, a consultant paediatrician at the UCL Institute of Child Health in London, have reviewed the evidence behind the current guidance and say the time is right to reappraise this recommendation.
The researchers stress that while they fully back exclusive breast feeding early in life, they are concerned that exclusively doing so for six months and not introducing other foods may not always be in the child’s best interests.
In 2001 the World Health Organisation (WHO) made its global recommendation that infants should be exclusively breast fed for the first six months. Many western countries did not follow this recommendation but in 2003 the UK health minister announced that the UK would comply.
Fewtrell and colleagues support six months exclusive breast feeding in less developed countries where access to clean water and safe weaning foods is limited and there is a high risk of infant death and illness. However they have reservations about whether the WHO’s guidance about when to introduce other foods is right for the UK.
The WHO’s recommendation that mothers should breast feed exclusively for six months is largely based on a systematic review undertaken in 2000 that considered existing research in this area, say the authors. This review concluded that exclusively breast fed babies have fewer infections and that the babies experience no growth problems.
Dr Fewtrell argues that the evidence that breast milk alone provides sufficient nutrition for six months is questionable. She says there is a higher risk of iron deficiency anaemia if babies are exclusively breast fed and that there could also be a higher incidence of celiac disease and food allergies if children are not introduced to certain solid foods before six months.
The authors also fear that prolonged exclusive breast feeding may reduce the window for introducing new tastes, particularly bitter taste which may be important in the later acceptance of green leafy vegetables. This could encourage unhealthy eating in later life and lead to obesity, they say.
Fewtrell and colleagues conclude that it is time to review the UK’s guidance in the light of the evidence that has built up on this issue over the last ten years.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/bmj-io011311.php
###
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 17th, 2011
This is a tweet from the British Medical Journal to Breastfeeding advocates The Leaky Boob. It admits that the article recently published that suggests that exclusive breastfeeding may not be enough for babies was ‘interpreted differently in press’ and that it is an ‘opinion piece’.
Sadly, I do not think this fact will be newsworthy.
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 15th, 2011
 As you may have seen in the news there has been a review of research published in the British Medical Journal that suggests that babies should be given solid food from the age of 4 months. This one paper was funded by baby food companies and goes against the majority of the research available. You can see that paper here – http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full
The Analytical Armadillo has started to go through the report and break it down, Armadillo is famous for great research and accurate reporting.
http://www.lactivist.net/?p=2426
The press have reported it in a sensationalist way, claiming that earlier weaning can prevent allergies. My personal concern is that many mothers will take a 4 month growth spurt as a sign to wean onto solids and to stop breastfeeding. All babies are different but I am not convinced that mothers are taught the signs that babies are ready for solid – sitting up, lack of tounge thrust etc.
Anyway, back to the hard sell – I’ve got 40% off all the ‘I’ll wean when I am ready‘ slogan t-shirts, badges and postcards until the 20th January 2011 – lets get the word out there!
Lisa
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 15th, 2011
Friday, 14 January 2011
Starting Solids – The Facts Behind Today’s Media Hype
http://www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2011/01/starting-solids-facts-behind-todays.html
Part 1
So – most people by now will have heard today’s news, if not here’s a brief summary:
“Relying purely on breastfeeding for the first six months might not be best for babies, experts in the UK have warned. The team said breastfed babies may benefit from being given solid food earlier.”
“They suggest later weaning may increase food allergies and iron deficiency levels, but other experts backed the existing guidance.”
Current advice suggests weaning (insert – from WHO and the Department Of Health) should occur at six months, but the UCL team say it could happen as early as four.
I’m guessing many people with a young infant coming up to solids age will now be absolutely bewildered about when they should be thinking about solids!
Before I get on to the paper that fuelled today’s news – let’s start with a few facts we should bear in mind:
- The paper states three of the four authors “have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years”.
- The recommendation not to wean until six months has substantially cut the numbers of women who introduced solids before four months – from 85% in 2000 to 51% in 2005. This is massively significant in terms of health implications as the evidence against introducing solids before 17 weeks is extremely strong.
- The recommendation not to wean until six months is also going to have impacted significantly on the profits of baby food companies. As more parents follow the guideline for six months, less are buying baby food from four to six months…
- Why are non breastfed infants not discussed? When are they supposed to introduce solids? I guess this is far less likely to be of interest because most formula fed infants receive solids pre 6 months. Whilst the DOH guidelines state 6 months for both breast and formula fed, there is no big focus on “6 months exclusive formula feeding” and so profits from this group are likely to remain far more stable. Ironically as the non breastfed infant’s gut matures more slowly than that of a breastfed infant due to lack of human growth factors, and as non breastfed infants are not exposed to new flavours via breastmilk, starting solids is likely to be just as significant (if not more) to non breasted infants and an area that really should receive more focus in terms of health impact.
What does the paper actually say?
The paper is entitled “Six months of exclusive breast feeding: how good is the evidence? and despite the media coverage of this, says far less than you may think. It notes that the DOH guidelines are based on the WHO paper, which found:
No deficits have been demonstrated in growth among infants from either developing or developed countries who are exclusively breastfed for 6 months.
But says the science was not fully evaluated by the DOH and calls for a reappraisal of the evidence.
They raise several concerns they feel warrant further investigation (as other studies contradict the ones quoted – it’s not cut and dry and needs further evaluation)
Window for introducing new tastes
The discussion is all quite vague, from the paper:
There are also relatively unexplored concerns about the potential for prolonged exclusive breast feeding to reduce the window for introducing new tastes. Bitter tastes, in particular, may be important in the later acceptance of green leafy vegetables, which may potentially affect later food preferences with influence on health outcomes such as obesity
Perhaps this is relatively unexplored because we know babies are exposed to different flavours via breastmilk and so experience a wide range of tastes?
I asked Gill Rapley – Deputy programme director of Unicef Baby Friendly Initiative, ex-health visitor, midwife, NCT breastfeeding counsellor, lactation consultant and Baby Led Weaning proponent what she thought of this comment:
This is pure speculation and scare-mongering. Two counter-arguments spring to mind:
- Breastfed babies get a variety of flavours in their mother’s milk and are known to be more receptive to a range of tastes once solids are introduced. They do not need experience of the food itself beforehand to be able to enjoy it at 6 months. (However, this may not be so for formula-fed babies.)
-The evidence for a ‘window of opportunity’ for the introduction of tastes is largely based on the observation that babies of 6 months and older tend to refuse new flavours. What these studies actually show is that they refuse new flavours offered on a spoon. No one has questioned the fact that the method of feeding used (in all the available research) happens to be spoon-feeding, simply because no one realised that there was an alternative way of offering solid foods to babies. In fact, in research terms, the feeding method is an important variable, whose significance has not been formally tested. As we know, the mass of anecdotal evidence from BLW parents suggests that babies who are allowed to feed themselves rapidly acquire a liking for a wide range of foods, including those with a bitter taste, such as broccoli.
Insufficient Iron
From the paper:
More recent data from 2007 raise further concerns on whether six months’ exclusive breast feeding would reliably meet iron requirements. US infants exclusively breastfed for six months, versus four to five months, were more likely to develop anaemia and low serum ferritin, which is of concern given irreversible long term adverse effects on motor, mental, and social development after iron deficiency.(20) (21) (22) Such risks might be reduced by improving iron status in pregnancy, delaying umbilical cord clamping, and supplementing infants at risk (for example, those with low birth weight).
So I dug out the studies they quoted (20-22)
Only one examines iron levels and infant feeding (20) The others are about the effects of severe anaemia. The study examines 2268 infants, which sounds pretty impressing – until you discover only 136 were breastfed exclusively for six months. Furthermore it’s 6 months or more, so some may have been exclusively fed longer than 6 months which is often advised at the moment for high risk infants. They found solids at 4-6 months instead of 6 months + reduced the risk of anaemia, low serum ferritin but not low hemoglobin and concluded:
Young children in the United States fully breastfed for 6 months may be at increased risk of iron deficiency. Adequate iron may not be provided by typical complementary infant foods.
It adjusted for birth weight and demographic, but no mention of other factors ie prematurity
This small study also contradicts the finding of numerous other studies. For example a 2008 study found:
Full-term babies who are exclusively breastfed are not at heightened risk of low iron stores by the age of 6 months, even if their mothers were iron-deficient during pregnancy
Breast milk is low in iron, but infants can absorb it much more easily than they absorb the iron in fortified formula. Healthy full-term infants are also born with enough iron stores to make deficiency unlikely in the first 6 months.
Read more here
Coeliac disease
From the paper:
A more recent study in infants at risk (with a first degree relative with type 1 diabetes or carriage of certain HLA types), showed that introduction of gluten before three months and after six months was associated with increased risk of biopsy proven coeliac disease(26) and islet cell autoantibodies(27) . This finding suggests that gluten may best be introduced during a critical window of three to six months. In the same cohort, introduction of wheat after six months predicted increased risk of wheat allergy at age four years.(28)
Hmmm well it’s an interesting interpretation of the studies. The first they quote (26) has no mention of exclusive breastfeeding and purely examines the introduction of solids. It also (significantly) is studying a group of “at risk” infants. Those introduced to solids in the first 3 months had a five fold risk, and children not exposed to gluten until seven months or later were at a slightly increased risk compared to those who received it at 4-6 months. This difference was only marginally significant, however.
When examining just the 25 children with biopsy-proven celiac disease, initial exposure to gluten in the first 3 months or at 7 months and later, significantly increased the risk compared with exposure at 4 to 6 months. But it doesn’t say how many of the 25 children with CDA were exclusively breastfed. They also note that CDA rates are much lower in Finland (that consumes small amounts of Gluten) compared to Sweden which consumes far more.
They conclude:
The results of the present study provide for the first time convincing evidence that the time-honored, widespread recommendation to introduce gluten at the normal time into the diet of infants born to at-risk parents is indeed correct.
The second study they quote (27) is also examining high risk infants and has very similar findings to (26) again no mention or separation of feeding method.
The third study (28) is of 1612 children, four of whom developed detectable wheat-specific immunoglobulin. All four were first exposed to cereal grains after 6 months AND a first-degree relative with asthma, eczema, or hives was also independently associated with an increased risk of wheat-allergy development. Four children doesn’t seem very compelling evidence, and at least some of the four must have had another risk factor mentioned in order for them to associate it! Again no mention of feeding method. Feeding method is extremely significant as a study by Lvarsson found:
The risk of celiac disease was reduced in children aged <2 y if they were still being breast-fed when dietary gluten was introduced. This effect was even more pronounced in infants who continued to be breast-fed after dietary gluten was introduced. The risk was greater when gluten was introduced in the diet in large amounts than when introduced in small or medium amounts. American Journal of linical Nutrition, Vol. 75, No. 5, 914-921, May 2002.
Allergy
The authors note that allergy and intolerance is still on the increase despite later weaning and conversely peanut allergy is low in cultures that wean with peanuts. They go on to say:
The development of immune tolerance to an antigen may require repeated exposure, perhaps during a critical early window, and perhaps modulated by other dietary factors including breast feeding. A 2008 review(24) found an increased risk of allergy if solids were introduced before three to four months. After four months, the evidence was weak, but suggested an increased risk with delayed introduction of certain allergens
I can’t access the review (24) but I have read before that links with allergy prevention were less compelling after 17 weeks – I don’t think the WHO dispute this either.
In response to today’s media coverage – a couple of leading organisations have released a statement:
UNICEF
Baby Milk Action
What actually is the Department of Health Guideline?
From the DOH:
At about six months babies are ready to be moved onto a mixed diet.
Try giving solid foods when your baby:
- can sit up
- wants to chew and is putting toys and other objects in their mouth
- reaches and grabs accurately.
It is normal for babies aged three to five months to begin waking in the night when they have previously and starting solids will not make your baby more likely to sleep through the night again.
Health experts agree that around six months is the best age for introducing solids. Before this, your baby’s digestive system is still developing and weaning too soon may increase the risk of infections and allergies. Weaning is also easier at six months. If your baby seems hungrier at any time before six months, they may be having a growth spurt, and extra breast or formula milk will be enough to meet their needs.
If you decide to wean at any time before six months, there are some foods that should be avoided as they may cause allergies or make your baby ill. These include wheat-based foods and other foods containing gluten (e.g. bread, rusks, some breakfast cereals), eggs, fish, shell fish, nuts, seeds and soft and unpasteurised cheeses. Ask your health visitor for advice, especially if your baby was premature.
Solid foods should never be introduced before four months. Here
and:
The World Health Organization(WHO) recommends that infants are fed exclusively on breastmilk until the age of 6 months and then breastfed alongside food for as long as the mother and baby are happy. Evidence suggests that as well as providing all the energy and nutrients that the child needs in its first few months of life, breastmilk promotes sensory and cognitive development. It leads to slower, healthier weight gain, reducing the chance of later obesity. It provides greater protection from infectious and chronic disease.
Babies breastfed for a minimum of 6months are less likely to experience colic, constipation, sickness/vomiting, diarrhoea, chest infections and thrush. Breastfeeding has also been shown to reduce the risk of ovarian and breast cancer in mothers.
The rest of the article and part 2 is at http://www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2011/01/starting-solids-facts-behind-todays.html
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 14th, 2011
Why Delay Solids?
Health experts and breastfeeding experts agree that it’s best to wait until your baby is around six months old before offering solid foods. There has been a large amount of research on this in the recent past, and most health organizations have updated their recommendations to agree with current research. Unfortunately, many health care providers are not up to date in what they’re telling parents, and many, many books are not up to date.
The following organizations recommend that all babies be exclusively breastfed (no cereal, juice or any other foods) for the first 6 months of life (not the first 4-6 months):
Most babies will become developmentally and physiologically ready to eat solids by 6-9 months of age. For some babies, delaying solids longer than six months can be a good thing; for example, some doctors may recommend delaying solids for 12 months if there is a family history of allergies.
Although some of the reasons listed here assume that your baby is breastfed or fed breastmilk only, experts recommend that solids be delayed for formula fed babies also.
- Delaying solids gives baby greater protection from illness.
Although babies continue to receive many immunities from breastmilk for as long as they nurse, the greatest immunity occurs while a baby is exclusively breastfed. Breastmilk contains 50+ known immune factors, and probably many more that are still unknown. One study has shown that babies who were exclusively breastfed for 4+ months had 40% fewer ear infections than breastfed babies whose diets were supplemented with other foods. The probability of respiratory illness occurring at any time during childhood is significantly reduced if the child is fed exclusively breast milk for at least 15 weeks and no solid foods are introduced during this time. (Wilson, 1998) Many other studies have also linked the degree of exclusivity of breastfeeding to enhanced health benefits (see Immune factors in human milk and Risks of Artificial Feeding).
- Delaying solids gives baby’s digestive system time to mature.
If solids are started before a baby’s system is ready to handle them, they are poorly digested and may cause unpleasant reactions (digestive upset, gas, constipation, etc.). Protein digestion is incomplete in infancy. Gastric acid and pepsin are secreted at birth and increase toward adult values over the following 3 to 4 months. The pancreatic enzyme amylase does not reach adequate levels for digestion of starches until around 6 months, and carbohydrate enzymes such as maltase, isomaltase, and sucrase do not reach adult levels until around 7 months. Young infants also have low levels of lipase and bile salts, so fat digestion does not reach adult levels until 6-9 months.
- Delaying solids decreases the risk of food allergies.
It is well documented that prolonged exclusive breastfeeding results in a lower incidence of food allergies (see Allergy References and Risks of Artificial Feeding). From birth until somewhere between four and six months of age, babies possess what is often referred to as an “open gut.”  This means that the spaces between the cells of the small intestines will readily allow intact macromolecules, including whole proteins and pathogens, to pass directly into the bloodstream.This is great for your breastfed baby as it allows beneficial antibodies in breastmilk to pass more directly into baby’s bloodstream, but it also means that large proteins from other foods (which may predispose baby to allergies) and disease-causing pathogens can pass right through, too. During baby’s first 4-6 months, while the gut is still “open,” antibodies (sIgA) from breastmilk coat baby’s digestive tract and provide passive immunity, reducing the likelihood of illness and allergic reactions before gut closure occurs. Baby starts producing these antibodies on his own at around 6 months, and gut closure should have occurred by this time also. See How Breast Milk Protects Newborns and The Case for the Virgin Gut for more on this subject.
- Delaying solids helps to protect baby from iron-deficiency anemia.
The introduction of iron supplements and iron-fortified foods, particularly during the first six months, reduces the efficiency of baby’s iron absorption. Healthy, full-term infants who are breastfed exclusively for periods of 6-9 months have been shown to maintain normal hemoglobin values and normal iron stores. In one study (Pisacane, 1995), the researchers concluded that babies who were exclusively breastfed for 7 months (and were not give iron supplements or iron-fortified cereals) had significantly higher hemoglobin levels at one year than breastfed babies who received solid foods earlier than seven months. The researchers found no cases of anemia within the first year in babies breastfed exclusively for seven months and concluded that breastfeeding exclusively for seven months reduces the risk of anemia. See Is Iron-Supplementation Necessary? for more information.
- Delaying solids helps to protect baby from future obesity.
The early introduction of solids is associated with increased body fat and weight in childhood. (for example, see Wilson 1998, von Kries 1999, Kalies 2005)
- Delaying solids helps mom to maintain her milk supply.
Studies have shown that for a young baby solids replace milk in a baby’s diet – they do not add to baby’s total intake. The more solids that baby eats, the less milk he takes from mom, and less milk taken from mom means less milk production. Babies who eat lots of solids or who start solids early tend to wean prematurely.
- Delaying solids helps to space babies.
Breastfeeding is most effective in preventing pregnancy when your baby is exclusively breastfed and all of his nutritional and sucking needs are satisfied at the breast.
- Delaying solids makes starting solids easier.
Babies who start solids later can feed themselves and are not as likely to have allergic reactions to foods.
 WHO: Guiding principles for complementary feeding of the breastfed child- WHO: Feeding the non-breastfed child 6-24 months of age (March 2004)
- WHO Global strategy for infant and young child feeding (2003)
- WHO: Complementary feeding: report of the global consultation, and summary of guiding principles for complementary feeding of the breastfed child. (2002)
- WHO: Nutrient adequacy of exclusive breastfeeding for the term infant during the first six months of life. (2002)
- WHO: The Optimal Duration of Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review WHO/NHD/01.08 (2002)
- WHO Resolution WHA54.2 on Infant and young child nutrition (18 May 2001)
- WHO Global strategy for infant and young child feeding: the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding A54/INF.DOC./4 (1 May 2001)
- Developmental Readiness of Normal Full Term Infants to Progress from Exclusive Breastfeeding to the Introduction of Complementary Foods: Reviews of the Relevant Literature Concerning Infant Gastrointestinal, Immunologic, Oral Motor and Maternal Reproductive and Lactational Development (April 2001), Audrey J. Naylor, MD, DrPH and Ardythe L Morrow, PhD, Editors.
- WHO: The Optimal Duration of Exclusive Breastfeeding: Report of an Expert Consultation WHO/FCH/CAH/01.24 (28-30 March 2001)
- Chantry CJ, Howard CR, Auinger P. Full breastfeeding duration and associated decrease in respiratory tract infection in US children. Pediatrics. 2006 Feb;117(2):425-32.
- Optimal duration of exclusive breast feeding in low income countries (editorial). Black RE and Victora CG. BMJ 2002 (30 November);325:1252-1253.
- Rethinking current recommendations to introduce solid food between four and six months to exclusively breastfeeding infants. Borresen, HC. J Hum Lact 1995 Sep;11(3):201-4.
- How Breast Milk Protects Newborns by Jack Newman, MD
- Protective nutrients and bacterial colonization in the immature human gut (abstract)
- The Bacterial Flora of Humans by Kenneth Todar, PhD
“At birth the entire intestinal tract is sterile, but bacteria enter with the first feed. The initial colonizing bacteria vary with the food source of the infant. In breast-fed infants bifidobacteria account for more than 90% of the total intestinal bacteria. Enterobacteriaceae and enterococci are regularly present, but in low proportions, while bacteroides, staphylococci, lactobacilli and clostridia are practically absent. In bottle-fed infants, bifidobacteria are not predominant. When breast-fed infants are switched to a diet of cow’s milk or solid food, bifidobacteria are progressively joined by enterics, bacteroides, enterococci lactobacilli and clostridia. Apparently, human milk contains a growth factor that enriches for growth of bifidobacteria, and these bacteria play an important role in preventing colonization of the infant intestinal tract by non indigenous or pathogenic species.”
- Mohrbacher, N. and Stock, J. BREASTFEEDING ANSWER BOOK. Schaumburg, Illinois, USA; La Leche League International 1997.
- American Academy of Pediatrics, Work Group on Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk. Pediatrics. 1997;100(6):1035
- Pisacane A, et al. Iron status in breast-fed infants. J Pediatr 1995 Sep;127(3):429-31.
- Sleisenger & Fordtran. Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, 6th ed. W. B. Saunders Company (1998): p. 1495-1497.
Comparisons between different lengths of exclusive breastfeeding:
- Kramer MS, Kakuma R. The optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding: a systematic review. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2004;554:63-77.
From the abstract: Infants who are breastfed exclusively for 6 months experience less morbidity from gastrointestinal tract infection than infants who were mixed breastfed as of 3 or 4 months of age. No deficits have been demonstrated in growth among infants from either developing or developed countries who are exclusively breastfed for 6 months or longer. Moreover, the mothers of such infants have more prolonged lactational amenorrhea and faster postpartum weight loss. Based on the results of this review, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months to its member countries.
- Onayade AA, Abiona TC, Abayomi IO, Makanjuola RO. The first six month growth and illness of exclusively and non-exclusively breast-fed infants in Nigeria. East Afr Med J. 2004 Mar;81(3):146-53.
CONCLUSION: It is concluded that exclusive breast-feeding supported adequate growth during the first six months of life for most of the infants studied. Early introduction of complementary foods did not provide any advantages in terms of weight gain in our environment, it was frequently associated with illness episodes and growth faltering. Many mothers however require support, encouragement and access to health care providers to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months of life.
- Kramer MS, et al. Infant growth and health outcomes associated with 3 compared with 6 mo of exclusive breastfeeding. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Aug;78(2):291-5.
CONCLUSIONS: Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 mo is associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal infection and no demonstrable adverse health effects in the first year of life.
- WHO: The optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding. A systematic review
WHO/FCH/CAH/01.23 (2002)
(compares introduction of solids at 3-4 months vs 6 months)
- Kramer MS, Kakuma R. Optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(1):CD003517.
(compares introduction of solids at 3-4 months vs 6 months)
From the reviewer’s conclusions: “Infants who are exclusively breastfed for six months experience less morbidity from gastrointestinal infection than those who are mixed breastfed as of three or four months, and no deficits have been demonstrated in growth among infants from either developing or developed countries who are exclusively breastfed for six months or longer. Moreover, the mothers of such infants have more prolonged lactational amenorrhea.”
- Dewey KG, Cohen RJ, Brown KH, Rivera LL. Effects of exclusive breastfeeding for four versus six months on maternal nutritional status and infant motor development: results of two randomized trials in Honduras. J Nutr. 2001 Feb;131(2):262-7.
- Hop LT, Gross R, Giay T, Sastroamidjojo S, Schultink W, Lang NT. Premature complementary feeding is associated with poorer growth of vietnamese children. J Nutr. 2000 Nov;130(11):2683-90.
(mainly compares introduction of solids before/after 3 mo)
- Wilson AC, et al. Relation of infant diet to childhood health: seven year follow up of cohort of children in Dundee infant feeding study. BMJ 1998 January;316:21-25. (compares introduction of solids before/after 15 weeks)
Page last modified: 04/03/2010
Written: 05/21/1998
http://www.kellymom.com/nutrition/solids/delay-solids.html
By Lisa Lactivist, on January 14th, 2011
Six months of breastfeeding alone could harm babies, scientists now say
The actual research in the British Medical Journal is here http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955 but you need a membership to see all of it – this is the Guardian article about it, as always the comments are good!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/14/six-months-breastfeeding-babies-scientists
Fresh review of evidence contradicts WHO guidance leaving campaigners outraged and mothers baffled
- The Guardian, Friday 14 January 2011
 Failing to start weaning babies on to solids before six months old could be harmful, according to some scientists. Photograph: Rex FeaturesTo the outrage of breastfeeding campaigners and probably the utter confusion of most women with small babies, scientists today advocate rewriting the rulebook to drop the current guidance that says mothers should breastfeed exclusively for the first six months of their child’s life.
It was 2001 when the World Health Organisation announced that exclusive breastfeeding for six months was best for babies. In 2003 the then Labour minister Hazel Blears adopted the recommendation for the UK.
But today, in the British Medical Journal, doctors from several leading child health institutes say the evidence for the WHO guidance was never there – and that failing to start weaning babies on to solids before six months could be harmful.
Mary Fewtrell, from the childhood nutrition research centre at the University College London Institute of Child Health, said probably no babies had been harmed, as few mothers in the UK manage to stick to six months of nothing but breastmilk with a baby who by then is taking an interest in the contents of people’s plates. “About 1% were doing it in 2005, although probably more now,” she said. “But only about 20% breastfeed at all at six months. It is not a common behaviour.”
Fewtrell and colleagues from Edinburgh and Birmingham universities say that is partly because mothers often find by that stage that their babies want more. Their trawl of the existing evidence shows, they say, that babies also need more.
According to the paper, failing to start weaning on to solid food (they are not talking about formula milk) before six months appears to raise risks for the baby. Evidence that was unavailable when the WHO made its recommendation suggests they have a greater chance of iron deficiency anaemia, “known to be linked to irreversible adverse mental, motor or psychosocial outcomes.” Unlike the US, the UK does not have a screening programme for iron deficiencies in children, so it is impossible to say if there have been problems.
Other evidence, they say, suggests that babies not introduced to certain foods earlier than six months may have a higher incidence of food allergies. “Countries where peanuts are used as weaning foods have low incidences of peanut allergy (Israel, for example),” they write.
The third potential issue is coeliac disease. The numbers of children developing coeliac disease rose in Sweden following advice to mothers to delay the introduction of gluten into their child’s diet until after six months, and it fell when the recommendation reverted to four months.
Fewtrell said she supported the WHO recommendation, but argued that it needed to be interpreted differently in different countries. Exclusive breastfeeding protects against infections, which is critical in developing countries, but less important in the UK where hygiene and sanitation are better. “There’s only one piece of evidence relevant to babies in the UK – a slightly decreased risk of gastroenteritis,” she said.
She said she hoped the government’s scientific advisory committee on nutrition, which is looking at infant feeding, would take on board their findings.
Advocates of breastfeeding point out that the recommendation not to wean until six months has substantially cut the numbers of women who introduced solids before four months – from 85% in 2000 to 51% in 2005. But Fewtrell said that was no argument for misleading women.
“I really want to emphasise we are not in any way anti-breastfeeding, particularly in the long term,” she said. “We’re extremely pro-breastfeeding. We would go along with recommendations to breastfeed exclusively for four months.”
Pro-breastfeeding groups were dismayed, however. Unicef pointed out that it did not contain any new experimental data and said the UK policy had been a success as greater numbers of mothers now delayed the introduction of solids until after four months. It added that most early foods “are not nutrient dense and do not provide quantities of iron and zinc”.
Patti Rundall, of the campaigning group Baby Milk Action, said moving to weaning at four months would be “a regrettable and backward step that is out of step with current scientific thinking”.
She accused the paper’s authors of taking funds from the babyfood industry. The paper acknowledges that three of the four authors “have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years”.
Fewtrell was unapologetic. Ideally, mothers would give their babies fresh food, including meat, for iron. “This is not an attempt to promote commercial weaning foods,” she said. “We are a university and Medical Research Council-funded group.” They had advised babyfood manufacturers because they were specialists in child nutrition, she said.
“Some organisations are all too happy to quote our data when it supports breastfeeding,” she said. “They are choosy in what they will allow.”
Justine Roberts of Mumsnet said women needed clarity after at least three changes of policy in her own child-rearing years. “A lot of mums work quite hard, and it is quite hard work trying to exclusively breasfeed for six months without introducing solids. If that turns out not to be correct advice, we’d like to know as soon as possible.”
The Department of Health said it would review the research, adding: “Breast milk provides all the nutrients a baby needs up to six months of age and we recommend exclusive breastfeeding for this time.” “Mothers who wish to introduce solids before six months should always talk to health professionals first.”
By Lisa Lactivist, on November 1st, 2010
This is so good! It is from http://www.momblognetwork.com/parenting/answering-ill-informed-breastfeeding-statements and the author is NaturalMamaNZ http://naturalmamanz.blogspot.com/
“There’s nothing wrong with formula”
Formula fed infants are 4 times more likely to die of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
Formula fed infants are 8 times more likely to suffer from Necrotizing Enterocolitis (severe intestinal inflammatory disorder).
Formula fed infants are 2.5 times more likely to suffer from Diarrhea.
Formula fed infants are 2-4 times more likely to suffer from Respiratory Illness.
Formula fed infants are 2 times more likely to suffer from Cancer.
Formula fed infants are 4 times more likely to suffer from Respiratory Distress and Infections.
Formula fed infants are 3 times more likely to suffer from Meningitis.
Formula fed infants are 14 times more likely to be hospitalized in their first year.
“My child is formula fed and happy, bright and healthy”
This is like saying, “I only ever eat junk food and I’m a happy, bright and healthy adult”. Sounds harsh, but I consider formula junk food for a baby. As healthy as a child might seem, they’d be even healthier if they were breastfed. A formula fed child is lucky they appear healthy, DESPITE having to live on such a deficient substance. Formula is made of low quality carbs, fats and protein – this is not enough for an infant. Infants need the nutritional and immunological qualities of breastmilk that protect infants from illnesses they are susceptible to (see above). It needs to be reiterated: infant organs are immature, they’re tiny, easily overwhelmed, highly susceptible to certain illness, and need a specialized food that caters to their delicate constitution. The only nutritionally complete food that is designed for and caters to an infants unique predisposition is breastmilk.
“I know breastfed children who are sick all the time”
Yes so do I, imagine how much sicker the child would be if they didn’t receive their mothers immunity via her breastmilk. Children like these are accounted for in statistics, and the statistics say formula fed infants are immensely more likely get sick. Every child is unique – their environment, their genetic makeup, their experiences – and while these may be uncontrollable factors that raise or lower a child’s risk of illness, a proven method to reduce risk of illness is to simply breastfeed.
“Shouldn’t he be weaned by now?”
The natural weaning age for humans is physiologically estimated to be between 2.5 and 7 years.
The World Health Organization officially recommends breastfeeding for at least 2 years.
The antibodies and nutrients (particularly energy, protein and fat) abundant in human milk increase in concentration during the second year and during the weaning process.
In the second year, 448 mL of breastmilk provides:
o 29% of energy requirements
o 43% of protein requirements
o 36% of calcium requirements
o 75% of vitamin A requirements
o 76% of folate requirements
o 94% of vitamin B12 requirements
o 60% of vitamin C requirements
“It’s disrespectful to nurse in public”
No, it’s disrespectful to stare at and harass a breastfeeding mother. Breasts are for breastfeeding, not titillating men’s sexual appetites . If you can’t keep your sexual thoughts in check long enough for a mother to feed her child, take yourself to the nearest bathroom and sort your sexual frustrations out. Any mother breastfeeding in public, baring her breasts, is to be applauded and revered for standing up for her right to use, and declare her breasts as nourishment for her child. It takes strong , instinctive women like these to push back against the oppressive sexualization of breasts. And of course, the law is on our side, so we can always state our rights and offer to get a lawyer involved.
These are just a couple of statements, but there’s numerous other ill-informed statements and questions regarding breastfeeding that I want to answer in the future. But this is all for now.
If you have your own take on answering these statements don’t hesitate to comment.
Sources:
Formula Feeding Doubles Infant Deaths in America
by Linda Folden Palmer, DC
A Natural Age of Weaning
by Katherine A. Dettwyler, PhD
|
|
Recent Comments