Monday, November 12, 2007

Interpreting Research and Studies...Don't believe everything the media tells you.

Last week my local news channel did breastfeeding a major disservice. They ran a story that was a clip lasting less than 5 seconds, showing bf mom footage, and the news story voice over was saying that in breastfeeding moms with asthma, "Studies show that their babies have decreased lung capacity".I immediately contacted the news room at News 12 and challenged them. I asked the person on the phone to tell me what study they referred to so I could read it, and he told me he did not know. So I told him that I am disappointed that in a less than 5 second clip, the message that gets across is that breastfeeding moms should not breastfeed. I asked him to think about how good and reliable studies have shown that breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of asthma to the baby, and to consider the idea that maybe the lung capacity is related more to the genetics of being born to an asthmatic mother, and had nothing to do with breastfeeding.He did not have an answer, just told me it wasn't their news story, they were just quoting the article, then took my info and said they would contact me if they went further with the story. After I hung up I sent a follow-up email, and then set out to find that study, and here it is:
Ok, so number one, who funded this study? I heard rumors that it was funded by three major pharmaceutical companies. That would not surprise me at all. Pharmaceutical companies are not big supporters of breastfeeding. Why? you ask? Well evidence shows that breastfeeding prevents illnesses, diseases, hospitalizations, and that certainly does not pad the pockets of the drug companies. Drug companies make their money off of illness and disease,and while I am all for finding cures and recognize all of the important work of drug companies, I much prefer preventing the diseases in the first place. As far as the study, anyone can conduct a study, it is how the study is conducted that is the most important in determining the accuracy and merit of the findings. Differences in research design and analytic methods have complicated the interpretation of many studies, I would encourage my local news and any other media that reports on this to re-examine the study cited in this story and see if its a quality study worthy of air time. I encourage the media to investigate reliable studies that have overwhelmingy shown that breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of asthma to the baby, and to consider the idea that maybe the lung capacity is related more to the genetics of being born to an asthmatic mother, and had nothing to do with breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is especially important if there is a family history of asthma/ respiratory disease, because breastfeeding significantly decreases the risks of passing this on to the baby.As a Health Care Professional that spends so much time trying to promote and encourage breastfeeding with new moms, it is very upsetting to know the message that one tiny clip said will be heard by so many. It would have been better if they had made it longer, with statements from a bf knowledgeable MD, or a lactation professional and asked for their opinion. The most important thing would have been to make sure that the fact that asthma is NOT a contraindication to breastfeeding. There were a few positive things I read about breastfeeding benefits last week as well, how come news 12 did not cover that? For one, here is an article about BF and a higher IQ:;_ylt=Ags6p
and here is an article on how breastfeeding is good for the heart:;_ylt=Ags6p.
So as far as News 12, here are my words to you:Do you know that feeding a baby formula increases the risk of asthma, diabetes, ear infections, certain childhood cancers, and SIDS? There is plenty more I can list here as to the benefits of breastfeeding, but I would be typing all day. I encourage you to read the AAP's policy statement on Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. I also ask you to look at these facts-One sudden infant death for every 1000 live birth occurs as a result of failure to breastfeed in western industrialized nations.For every 1000 babies born in the U.Ss each year, four die because they are not breastfed. How would news 12 feel if a baby got sick or died from something that could have been prevented by breastmilk, but mom was an asthmatic, and just watched your story and thought she now had to feed her baby formula? I think it would be wonderful if News 12 would do a follow up, and put a more positive light on breastfeeding, I also think that as the media it is your responsibility to let mothers know the facts here so they can make informed choices regarding their babies.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Evenflo To Become The First Code Compliant Baby Bottle Manufacturer

****Evenflo has also pledged to become the first baby bottle manufacturer in the U.S. to achieve compliance with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes.This is a definite positive for breastfeeding. Especially after Gerber sold out to Nestle.EVENFLO ACQUIRES LEADING BREASTFEEDING PRODUCT LINE AMEDACombined Company Resources and Commitment to BreastfeedingCreates `Best-in-Class' BusinessVANDALIA, Ohio – October 18, 2007 – Evenflo Company, Inc. has entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement to acquire Ameda Breastfeeding Products from Hollister Incorporated of Libertyville, IL. It is expected that the deal will close in January, 2008 pending completion of contractual requirements.The acquisition of Ameda represents a defining moment in Evenflo's ongoing strategy to deliver products and services that are "Best for Baby" and moms. Extensive scientific research worldwide shows that breastfeeding is the preferred feeding method for newborns and infants. With the addition of Ameda, a leading maker of hospital grade breast pumps and accessories, Evenflo is elevating its commitment to breastfeeding."Evenflo is dedicated to developing and marketing products that are `Best for Baby' and, by extension, best for mothers too," said Rob Matteucci, CEO of Evenflo. "We want to support moms with the highest-quality breast pumps and accessories to make it as easy as possible for moms who want to breastfeed to do so. The addition of Ameda to our family of products further expands our ability to provide moms the widest range of options to enhance their breastfeeding experience."Evenflo will retain the Ameda brand name, which is widely respected within the professional breastfeeding community and among lactation experts. Under the Evenflo umbrella, Ameda will continue to serve its core institutional market, while expanding its reach into the premium consumer retail market. The combined resources of the two companies create a "best-in-class" breastfeeding business, integrating Ameda's product development expertise and strong reputation in the professional medical sector with Evenflo's strong retail and consumer marketing experience, leading to significant synergies.Evenflo plans to retain the Ameda employees to maintain industry knowledge, and to open a dedicated Ameda office in the Chicago area to enable continuity and minimal disruption to the business.To further underscore its commitment to breastfeeding, Evenflo has also pledged to become the first baby bottle manufacturer in the U.S. to achieve compliance with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. The WHO Code was created in 1981 as a guide for marketing practices of infant formula, bottle and nipple manufacturers to ensure that breast milk substitutes, feeding bottles and nipples are not marketed inappropriately.As part of its pledge, Evenflo will immediately take the following three steps: 1) discontinue all bottle/nipple advertising directed to consumers; 2) change our feeding packaging to align with WHO Code guidelines; and 3) remove bottle/nipple images from our Web site. At the same time, Evenflo will continue to innovate in its core bottle and nipple products, and work closely with retail partners to ensure broad-scale availability for moms who do not breastfeed or do not breastfeed exclusively. Ameda already meets all the requirements of the WHO Code."The WHO code is designed to promote and protect breastfeeding around the world, and Evenflo's decision to help support this important objective by becoming Code compliant is to be congratulated,congratulated," said Marsha Walker, ExecutiNational Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy. "I believe Evenflo's actions will help encourage moms and remove barriers to breastfeeding in the U.S. I'm gratified to see Evenflo and Ameda delivering on their promise to develop and market products in a manner that will not interfere with or impede breastfeeding,manner said."This is an exciting time for Evenflo and Ameda," Matteucci said. "After months of intense studying and planning, Evenflo's management team and our board of directors, as well as Ameda's management, are convinced that this acquisition represents a value-added combination which will grow Evenflo's and Ameda's business and enable us to become leaders in the fast-growing breastfeeding category."About EvenfloHeadquartered in Vandalia, Ohio, Evenflo Company, Inc. is a privately held leading manufacturer and marketer of infant and juvenile products. Evenflo was founded in 1920 and is a top supplier of infant and juvenile products to key retailers such as Toys "R" Us, Babies "R" Us, Wal-Mart, Target, and K-Mart. The company's product offering spans a broad range of essential infant and juvenile product categories, including car seats, strollers, portable play yards, feeding supplies, carriers, stationary activity centers, and safety gates. Evenflo's premier brand name has 97 percent awareness with new mothers, and the company enjoys 1 or 2 market share positions in 10 important product categories. For more information on Evenflo, visit www.evenflo.infoAbout AmedaAmeda has been the first name in breast pumps for over 60 years. First developed by Swedish inventor and civil engineer Einar Egnell to mimic a baby's natural nursing rhythm and intensity, Ameda used this innovative technology to create a breast pump that was simple, comfortable, and efficient. Today, Ameda breast pumps continue to utilize Einar Egnell's breakthrough technology—along with advanced features that today's mothers expect. Ameda is currently part of Hollister Incorporated, an independently-Hollister Incorporated, an idevelops, manufactures and markets healthcare products, servicing over 90 countries. For further information on Ameda, visit

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Australian Breastfeeding Association Ad

I wish they had ads like this in the USA!

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Breastfeeding Shown on Sesame Street

This clip is from 1977, how did we end up going so backwards to muppets bottlefeeding their muppet babies? Sesame street needs to bring back the boob!

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Infuriatingly Ignorant Hippocrate Bill Maher....

Infuriatingly ignorant Bill Maher
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
I never cared for him, and now I never will. Here is a link to a clip of his show,
drag the fwd thing to 3:35, thats where he starts his bf rant.

Updated for irony:

This has come to my attention:

Bill Maher is PETAS spokesperson for Breastfeeding!!!!!
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Forget Writing to Bill Maher! Write to PETA, Demand an apology or request that he be removed from the campaign!!!!!

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads

First item of interest:

This article appeared on the front page of the Washington Post last week (you can also go here Dr Jay is awesome! and see an item from 20/20's archives, Milk Money w/ one of my favorites, Dr. Jay Gordon):
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketPhoto Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads
Formula Industry Urged Softer Campaign
By Marc Kaufman and Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 31, 2007; A01
In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of
breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an
attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince
mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not
breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma
inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant
formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican
National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the
Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department
political appointees toned down the campaign.

The ads ran instead with more friendly images of dandelions and
cherry-topped ice cream scoops, to dramatize how breast-feeding could
help avert respiratory problems and obesity. In a February 2004 letter,
the lobbyists told then-HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson they were
"grateful" for his staff's intervention to stop health officials from
"scaring expectant mothers into breast-feeding," and asked for help in
scaling back more of the ads.

The formula industry's intervention -- which did not block the ads but
helped change their content -- is being scrutinized by Congress in the
wake of last month's testimony by former surgeon general Richard H.
Carmona that the Bush administration repeatedly allowed political
considerations to interfere with his efforts to promote public health.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is
investigating allegations from former officials that Carmona was blocked
from participating in the breast-feeding advocacy effort and that those
designing the ad campaign were overruled by superiors at the formula
industry's insistence.

"This is a credible allegation of political interference that might have
had serious public health consequences," said Waxman, a California Democrat.

The milder campaign HHS eventually used had no discernible impact on the
nation's breast-feeding rate, which lags behind the rate in many
European countries.

Some senior HHS officials involved in the deliberations over the ad
campaign defended the outcome, saying the final ads raised the profile
of breast-feeding while following the scientific evidence available then
-- which they say did not fully support the claims of the original ad

But other current and former HHS officials say the muting of the ads was
not the only episode in which HHS missed a chance to try to raise the
breast-feeding rate. In April, according to officials and documents, the
department chose not to promote a comprehensive analysis by its own
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) of multiple studies on
breast-feeding, which generally found it was associated with fewer ear
and gastrointestinal infections, as well as lower rates of diabetes,
leukemia, obesity, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome.

The report did not assert a direct cause and effect, because doing so
would require studies in which some women are told not to breast-feed
their infants -- a request considered unethical, given the obvious
health benefits of the practice.

A top HHS official said that at the time, Suzanne Haynes, an
epidemiologist and senior science adviser for the department's Office on
Women's Health, argued strongly in favor of promoting the new
conclusions in the media and among medical professionals. But her
office, which commissioned the report, was specifically instructed by
political appointees not to disseminate a news release.

Wanda K. Jones, director of the women's health office, said agency media
officials have "all been hammering me" about getting Haynes to stop
trying to draw attention to the AHRQ report. HHS press officer Rebecca
Ayer emphatically told Haynes and others in mid-July that there should
be "no media outreach to anyone" on that topic, current and former
officials said.

Both HHS and AHRQ ultimately sent out a few e-mail notices, but the
report was generally ignored. Requests to speak with Haynes were turned
down by other HHS officials.

Regarding the changes made to the earlier HHS ad campaign, Kevin Keane,
then HHS assistant secretary for public affairs and now a spokesman for
the American Beverage Association, said formula companies lobbied hard,
as did breast-feeding advocates.

"We took heat from the formula industry, who didn't want to see a
campaign like this. And we took some heat from the advocates who didn't
think it was strong enough," Keane said. "At the end of the day, we had
a ground-breaking campaign that goes further than any other
administration ever went."

But the campaign HHS used did not simply drop the disputed statistics in
the draft ads. The initial idea was to startle women with images starkly
warning that babies could become ill. Instead, the final ads cited how
breast-feeding benefits babies -- an approach that the ad company hired
by HHS had advised would be ineffective. The department also pulled back
on several related promotional efforts.

After the 2003-05 period in which the HHS ads were aired, the proportion
of mothers who breast-fed in the hospital after their babies were born
dropped, from 70 percent in 2002 to 63.6 percent in 2006, according to
statistics collected in Abbott Nutrition's Ross Mothers Survey, an
industry-backed effort that has been measuring breast-feeding rates for
more than 30 years. In 2002, 33.2 percent of women were doing any
breast-feeding at six months; by 2006, that rate had declined to 30 percent.

The World Health Organization recommends that, if at all possible, women
breast-feed their infants exclusively for at least six months.

* * *
The breast-feeding ad campaign originated in a formal "Blueprint for
Action on Breastfeeding" released in 2000 by David Satcher, who had been
appointed surgeon general by President Bill Clinton. The Office on
Women's Health convinced the nonprofit Ad Council to donate $30 million
in media time, and it hired an ad agency to work alongside scientists
from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, and elsewhere.

Officials met with dozens of focus groups before concluding that the
best way to influence mothers was to delineate in graphic terms the
risks of not breast-feeding, an approach in keeping with edgy Ad Council
campaigns on smoking, seat belts and drunken driving. For example, an ad
portraying a nipple-tipped insulin bottle said, "Babies who aren't
breastfed are 40% more likely to suffer Type 1 diabetes."

Gina Ciagne, the office's public affairs specialist for the campaign,
said, "We were ready to go with our risk-based campaign -- making
breast-feeding a real public health issue -- when the formula companies
learned about it and came in to complain. Before long, we were told we
had to water things down, get rid of the hard-hitting ads and generally
make sure we didn't somehow offend."

Ciagne and others involved in the campaign said the pushback coincided
with a high-level lobbying campaign by formula makers, which are mostly
divisions of large pharmaceutical companies that are among the most
generous campaign donors in the nation.

The campaign the industry mounted was a Washington classic -- a
full-court press to reach top political appointees at HHS, using
influential former government officials, now working for the industry,
to act as go-betweens.

Two of the those involved were Clayton Yeutter, an agriculture secretary
under President George H.W. Bush and a former chairman of the Republican
National Committee, and Joseph A. Levitt, who four months earlier
directed the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition food safety center, which regulates infant formula. A
spokesman for the International Formula Council said both were paid by a
formula manufacturer to arrange meetings at HHS.

In a Feb. 17, 2004, letter to Thompson, Yeutter began "Dear Tommy" and
explained that the council wished to meet with him because the draft ad
campaign was inappropriately "implying that mothers who use infant
formula are placing their babies at risk," and could give rise to
class-action lawsuits.

Yeutter acknowledged that the ad agency "may well be correct" in
asserting that a softer approach would garner less attention, but he
said many women cannot breast-feed or choose not to for legitimate
reasons, which may give them "guilty feelings." He asked, "Does the U.S.
government really want to engage in an ad campaign that will magnify
that guilt?"

He also praised Keane, the HHS public affairs official, for making
"helpful changes" and removing "egregious statements," but asked that
more be done. Two months later, Yeutter wrote Thompson to thank him for
meeting with a group that included Levitt and an official of the
council. The group members supported breast-feeding, he said, but they
wanted HHS to use "positive visual images."

The formula companies also approached Carden Johnston, then president of
the American Academy of Pediatrics. Afterward, Johnston wrote a letter
to Thompson advising him that "we have some concerns about this negative
approach and how it will be received by the general public."

The letter made a strong impression at HHS, former and current officials
said. But it angered many of the medical group's members and the head of
its section on breast-feeding, Lawrence M. Gartner, a Chicago physician.
Gartner told Thompson in a letter that the 800 members of the
breast-feeding section did not share Johnston's concerns and had not
known of his letter.

"This campaign needed to be much stronger than it was," Gartner said,
adding that in his view, the original ads were backed by solid
scientific evidence.

According to former and current HHS officials, Cristina V. Beato, then
an acting assistant secretary at HHS, played a key role -- in addition
to that of Keane -- in toning down the ads. They said she stressed to
associates that it was essential to "be fair" to the formula companies.

Beato was then serving in an acting capacity because lawmakers refused
to vote on her confirmation because of complaints that she had padded
her official r?sum?. In a 2004 interview with the ABC newsmagazine
"20/20," which described some of the industry's efforts to change the
breast-feeding ad campaign, Beato confirmed that she "met with the
industry, because they kept calling my office, every two weeks." She
said in a telephone interview that their complaints played no role in
her decisions.

"I brought together our top public health people to examine the health
claims, and they examined the science and concluded what should be in
and what should be out," Beato said.

Duane Alexander, head of the government's National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, was among the officials contacted by the
industry who later supported eliminating some of the ads.

"Our concern was that the campaign was going to discredit itself if it
included these things -- these wild claims really -- that had no
sufficient basis in science," Alexander said.

Another top agency official who weighed in on the campaign was Ann-Marie
Lynch, then in charge of the agency's Office of Planning and Evaluation.
Lynch, a former lobbyist for the drug industry trade association PhRMA,
reversed an HHS decision to finance a $630,000 community outreach effort
to promote breast-feeding, according to an e-mail obtained by The
Washington Post. Asked to comment, Lynch said she never discussed "baby
formula issues with baby formula manufacturers" at HHS.

Speaking to the International Lactation Consultant Association in 2005,
Haynes, of the HHS women's health office, said she was "overruled."
Veteran pediatrician and breast-feeding researcher Ruth A. Lawrence of
the University of Rochester, who was on the initial advisory committee
brought together by Haynes, said the science undergirding the ads was
"entirely convincing. Everyone on the committee had to agree on a
finding before it was approved. We were very distressed by what happened."

After the changes, the advertising company, McKinney + Silver of Durham,
N.C., withdrew from the campaign in protest, according to sources inside
and outside HHS. A company spokeswoman declined to comment. Carmona,
meanwhile, was told that Beato and HHS press officer Christina Pearson
did not want him to become involved in the campaign's launch or in any
public promotion of the underlying themes, according to current and
former HHS officials. Beato and Pearson said they do not recall giving
that advice.

The industry substantially increased its own advertising as soon as the
HHS campaign was launched. According to a 2006 report by the Government
Accountability Office, formula companies spent about $30 million in 2000
to advertise their products. In 2003 and 2004, when the campaign was
underway, infant formula advertising increased to nearly $50 million.

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

Thursday, August 23, 2007


Hooray to Elliot Spitzer! Things like this make me proud to be a New Yorker!


August 22, 2007


Governor Eliot Spitzer has signed into law legislation that protects working mothers. ability to continue providing nutrient-rich breast milk to their infants upon return to the workplace.

The legislation requires employers to provide uncompensated time, and make a reasonable effort to provide private space for women to express milk or nurse their children for a period of up to three years following the birth of a child. In addition, it also bars an employer from discriminating against an employee exercising this right.

"A woman should not be forced to sacrifice her ability to provide for her children economically or nutritionally," said Governor Spitzer. "Employers know the merit of retaining valuable employees, and this modest accommodation allows mothers who chose to breast feed to continue their invaluable contribution to the economy without fearing for their job."

The Assembly and the Senate unanimously approved this legislation.

Assemblywoman Roann Destito, sponsor of the legislation, said: "This new law is a major victory for all New York families as well as employers because it protects a mother's care for her child and strengthens her ability to be a dedicated employee. A young mother was fired in my district for expressing breast milk for her child. That will not happen again because today we recognize that all women may choose to work and that their children will have the best nutritional care available at the early stages of life."

Senator John J. Flanagan, sponsor of the legislation, said: "Where our current labor laws fail to protect individuals in the workplace, the government has a responsibility to step in and correct these deficiencies. More and more mothers are choosing to work outside the home or are being forced to return to work to make ends meet. This critically important legislation will enable these mothers to raise and provide for their families in an accepting workplace environment without fear of discrimination."

Kate Kahan, Director of Work & Family at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said: "This bill is an important, welcome step in making New York's workplaces more family-friendly. We have known for years that breast feeding has real benefits, but too many working women are unable to nurse their babies because their employers do not make simple accommodations. That will change for countless working moms in New York as a result of this law, and their children will be stronger and healthier as a result. We thank Governor Spitzer and every lawmaker and advocate who supported and advanced this legislation."

Liz Watson of the New York City Bar Association's Sex and Law Committee said: "This law is a win-win for businesses and families. Businesses win because employees who are new parents will miss work less often and have lower health care costs because breastfed babies are healthier. Families win because mothers will not have to quit breastfeeding when they return to work. The New York City Bar Association applauds Governor Spitzer, Senator Flanagan, Assemblywoman Destito and the mothers around New York State for their work to pass this important legislation that will benefit New York's children."

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Applebees breastfeeding ignorance and ignorant reporter Mandy Stadtmiller

No eating good in the neighborhood if your a nursling! Unless of course you ave a blanket over your head!
An Applebees restaurant repeatedly showed ignorance at its finest when dealing with a breastfeeding mother, this is the mom's story:

Kentucky mother promotes breast-feeding after confrontation

LEXINGTON, Ky. --A Lexington mother is launching a campaign promoting breast-feeding after a recent confrontation over nursing her infant at a local Applebee's restaurant.

"On a large scale ... I want breast-feeding to be accepted," Brooke Ryan, 34, told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

As part of her campaign, Ryan is organizing a "Nurse Out" on Sept. 8 with posters and breast-feeding outside the Applebee's in Lexington where she was confronted.

On June 14, Ryan sat down for lunch with her kids. Ryan said she picked a booth in the back of the restaurant away from other customers and discreetly nursed her 7-month-old son, Michael, when he got hungry.

A waitress asked Ryan to cover up with a blanket, though Ryan says it was too hot to carry one. After the waitress repeated her request, Ryan asked to see the manager and handed him a copy of the 2006 Kentucky law prohibiting interference with mothers breast-feeding in public.

Thirty-nine states, including Kentucky, allow women to breast-feed in any public or private location.

Ryan says she was told by the manager that he was aware of the law, but that customers were complaining about indecent exposure. He too asked her to cover up with a blanket.

Ryan left as her food came to nurse her baby in the car.

Her lawyer sent two letters to Thomas and King, the company that operates Applebee's in central Kentucky. A company attorney responded that the chain would consider keeping blankets in the restaurant so that breast-feeding women could cover themselves.

"That's like telling Rosa Parks she still had to sit in the back of the bus, but we'll give her a blanket to make her more comfortable," Ryan said.

Thomas and King President Mike Scanlon told the newspaper that he didn't know about the incident, though he said Applebee's had no policy against breast-feeding.

"It is perfectly legal to breast-feed in public and we support that," Scanlon said. "I'm not sure the manager said cover the baby's head, I think he said cover yourself modestly. This was by no means intended as interference, but a request to do it modestly, which I believe is an appropriate response."

Ryan says that as an experienced breast-feeder, she is extremely modest, and, in that instance, made sure that she was facing into the corner.

"Some women think it's fine to cover up with a blanket, but a woman shouldn't be forced to," said her husband, Michael Ryan.

State Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, who sponsored the breast-feeding protection bill, agrees.

"She was not treated right under the new law," he said. "There should have been no comment made to her at all; the restaurant overstepped its boundaries."

Ryan also is asking for a public apology from Applebee's and training for its employees about the rights of breast-feeding mothers.

"I'm not trying to be provocative," she said. "I want to teach."

Lactivists have organized a national nurse in at applebees on September 8th 2007 throughout the country. The nurse in will serve as a peaceful protest that will hopefully result in an educational awareness regarding public breastfeeding

Last but not least I bring you the article I have given the "uneducated, ignorant, asshat award":

C-O-D-D-L-E-D: Gwen Stefani still nurses her 15-month-old son.I love when stars breast feed their children, it's really entertaining...
posted by nyClick here to commentAugust 23, 2007 -- ‘ONE of my friends’ sons pulled on his mother’s skirt at a party with friends while she was in mid-conversation, pointed at her breast and said, ‘Milk, mama, I want milk,’ ” recalls Darran, a 37-year-old in Manhattan.

“Another friend of a friend breastfed her daughter until the age of 6,” he continues. “No joke!”

We’re not laughing. These little New Yorkers are only part of what some consider overcoddling - Peter Pan syndrome in embryo. Gwen Stefani just revealed that she’s still nursing her 15-month-old son, Kingston, and Kate Hudson is regularly snapped wheeling around her tyke, Ryder, in a stroller. He’s almost 4 years old.

When are these children going to grow up?

“I was at a Gristede’s in Midtown,” reports Steve, 34, from Manhattan. “There was a lady with an older toddler in a stroller shopping. The kid was clutching his ‘woobie,’ sucking on a pacifier. Then he got up from the stroller, the woman placed her shopping bags into it, and the kid pushed the stroller out of the store.”

Not everyone, however, gets so worked up about it, pointing out that the longer you breastfeed, the better it may be for the child - and strollers can keep kids safe from cars, bikes and other urban dangers.

“It’s unfair to presume that mothers who breastfeed for extended periods of time are ‘coddling,’ ” says Jacqueline, 30, from Brooklyn. “For one thing, the American Academy of Pediatrics actually recommends breastfeeding for two years, if possible. As for Kate Hudson, even a big child’s legs are lot shorter than an adult’s. Since when does early childhood have to be boot camp?”

We’re not looking to draft the little ones just yet, but surely a bit of self-reliance is a good thing? Krissy, a 26-year-old nanny in Brooklyn Heights, once had a 6-year-old approach her with, “Wipe my butt,” and then followed this request with: “I like it better when someone does it for me.”

Of course, it does help to have a sense of humor.

“In our circle of friends with kids, the general rule is that if your toddler can say the word ‘breast,’ they are too old to be breastfed,” says Jim, 39, of Manhattan. “That rule has been overridden by one of my male friends. At a party recently, he revealed that this strategy is a win-win for all, since the kid gets extra vitamin D and he gets double-D’s.”

Overall, advises iVillage parenting expert Michele Borba, “There’s a real difference between mothering and smothering.

“Follow the commandment: Never do for your child what the child can do for him- or herself. Because then you are robbing the child of the ‘I can do it’ feeling.”

Not to mention creeping out the rest of us.

This is what I sent to the editor:
To whom it May Concern:

I am sure this will not be the only letter you receive regarding this, but I just want to express my disappointment in the article, FOR CODDLED TOTS, TAPS NEVER RUN DRY, By MANDY STADTMILLER.
On a day when any article you print about breastfeeding should have been on the fact that yesterday, Elliot Spitzer signed into law legislation protecting the rights of mothers in the workplace, instead it is an article riddled with passive aggressive humor at mothers who choose to breastfeed beyond what our society sees as a normal age.
I would like to pint out that this new law protects a mother for three years after she gives birth, so then they must have taken into consideration the benefits of extended breastfeeding.
I have heard this statement so many times by people who like to think they are funny, the statement along the lines that once a baby can say breasts, its time to wean, does not make it so. First off, due to the fact that numerous reliable studies have shown that breastfed children have higher IQ's, we must take into consideration that they may speak sooner than others. So we should wean them because they are smart?
Also the person who is uncomfortable with seeing the natural process of a woman breastfeeding her child should remove himself or herself the situation. Then maybe look within to identify what issues they have that something so trivial and natural would cause them such angst.

I have heard nothing back from the editor, but I did send a copy of my letter to the author of the article, Mandy Stadtmiller, this was her response:

Thanks, Heather - appreciate you taking the time to write.


Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Happy World Breastfeeding Week 2007!

To all my friends on here that are breastfeeding moms, were breastfeeding moms, or plan to become breastfeeding moms, I just want to thank you on behalf of your beautiful babies for giving them the very best start and lowering their riskes of illness, disease, and obesity. You are all truly the best!

History Lesson:

Why this week to celebrate World Breastfeeding week?

It commemorates the anniversary of the Innocenti Declaration.

On the Protection, Promotion and Support of Breastfeeding.

Recognising that:
Breastfeeding is a unique process that:
Provides ideal nutrition for infants and contributes to their healthy growth and development Reduces incidence and severity of infectious diseases, thereby lowering infant morbidity and mortality Contributes to women's health by reducing the risk of breast and ovarian cancer, and by increasing the spacing between pregnancies Provides social and economic benefits to the family and the nation Provides most women with a sense of satisfaction when successfully carried out

and that Recent Research
has found that: these benefits increase with increased exclusiveness of breastfeeding during the first six months of life, and thereafter with increased duration of breastfeeding with complementary foods, and programme intervention can result in positive changes in breastfeeding behaviour

We therefore declare that:
As a global goal for optimal maternal and child health and nutrition, all women should be enabled to practise exclusive breastfeeding and all infants should be fed exclusively on breastmilk from birth to 4-6 months of age. Thereafter, children should continue to be breastfed, while receiving appropriate and adequate complementary foods, for up to two years of age or beyond. This child-feeding ideal is to be achieved by creating an appropriate environment of awareness and support so that women can breastfeed in this manner.

Attainment of this goal requires, in many countries, the reinforcement of a "breastfeeding culture" and its vigorous defence against incursions of a "bottle-feeding culture". This requires commitment and advocacy for social mobilization, utilizing to the full the prestige and authority of acknowledged leaders of society in all walks of life.

Efforts should be made to increase women's confidence in their ability to breastfeed. Such empowerment involves the removal of constraints and influences that manipulate perceptions and behaviour towards breastfeeding, often by subtle and indirect means. This requires sensitivity, continued vigilance, and a responsive and comprehensive communications strategy involving all media and addressed to all levels of society. Furthermore, obstacles to breastfeeding within the health system, the workplace and the community must be eliminated.

Measures should be taken to ensure that women are adequately nourished for their optimal health and that of their families. Furthermore, ensuring that all women also have access to family planning information and services allows them to sustain breastfeeding and avoid shortened birth intervals that may compromise their health and nutritional status, and that of their children.

All governments should develop national breastfeeding policies and set appropriate national targets for the 1990s. They should establish a national system for monitoring the attainment of their targets, and they should develop indicators such as the prevalence of exclusively breastfed infants at discharge from maternity services, and the prevalence of exclusively breastfed infants at four months of age.

National authorities are further urged to integrate their breastfeeding policies into their overall health and development policies. In so doing they should reinforce all actions that protect, promote and support breastfeeding within complementary programmes such as prenatal and perinatal care, nutrition, family planning services, and prevention and treatment of common maternal and childhood diseases. All healthcare staff should be trained in the skills necessary to implement these breastfeeding policies.

Operational Targets
All governments by the year 1995 should have: Appointed a national breastfeeding coordinator of appropriate authority, and established a multisectoral national breastfeeding committee composed of representatives from relevant government departments, non-governmental organizations, and health professional associations

Ensured that every facility providing maternity services fully practises all ten of the Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding set out in the joint WHO/UNICEF statement "Protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding: the special role of maternity services".

Taken action to give effect to the principles and aim of all Articles of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes and subsequent relevant World Health Assembly resolutions in their entirety;

and enacted imaginative legislation protecting the breastfeeding rights of working women and established means for its enforcement

We also call upon international organizations to:
Draw up action strategies for protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding, including global monitoring and evaluation of their strategies

Support national situation analyses and surveys and the development of national goals and targets for action;

and Encourage and support national authorities in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating their breastfeeding policies

The Innocenti Declaration was produced and adopted by participants at the WHO/UNICEF policymakers' meeting on "Breastfeeding in the 1990s: A Global Initiative, co-sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (A.I.D.) and the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA), held at the Spedale degli Innocenti, Florence, Italy, on 30 July - 1 August 1990. The Declaration reflects the content of the original background document for the meeting and the views expressed in group and plenary sessions.

Some great website to check out:

Friday, July 20, 2007

Evil Nestle

A new marketing tactic by Nestle for its new formula that has added probiotics (bacteria). Nestle has mailed health care providers in the US an advertising brochure on their new formula whic contains Bifidobacterium lacti.. It includes instructions on reconstituting the powdered formula with an emphaisis on making sure that the water is not above 100 degrees Farenheit, in order to keep the bacteria active. These directions are a contradiction to the WHO guidelines that state water should be boiled and then cooled to 70C-90C and added to the powder . This is a recommended temperature in order to kill off pathogens that may be in the powder such as Enterobacter sakazakii. Nestle also neglects to say that powdered formula should not be fed to any baby under 4 weeks of age, but thats not surprising, Nestle has never cared if babies get sick or god forbid die due to formula use. In addition, Nestle is also trying to solicit radio stations in the US, offering an interview with a pediatrician called, "Do You Feel Fearful of Formula Feeding? Don't be scared, say experts!" The interview promises new information on formula, and in a passive aggressive fashion insults and tries to give a negative connotation to breastfeeding by listing the "benefits" of anyone being able to feed the baby, not having to pump or schedule work and activities around the baby's feeding schedule, and not having to feed the baby so frequently. The interview then will look at the new "miracle bacteria" that has been added to Nestle's formula. The interview has been scheduled for August 1, the first day of World Breastfeeding Week in the US.

If any radio stations bite on the offer of this pathetic interview, the general public will be receiving a biased and potentially dangerous look at infant formula. Breastfeeding advocates may wish to be on the lookout for this interview that is scheduled to air between 6:00am and 10:00am on August 1. If any of your local radio stations air this, I encourage you to call in and provide evidence-based information, especially on the improper reconstitution instructions that have lead to deaths in babies as well as the suggested implication of breastfeeding being inconvenient. It really is amazing though how Nestle timed it, most breastfeeding advocates will be at some type of World Breastfeeding Week function, so while the cats away the Dirty Underhanded Nestle will play. I wonder if Nestle has started to work on their new baby cigarette to help baby relax? Who needs colic drops??? Who needs teething tablets, light up a Nestleboro light and baby is happy as can be!

Bowen AB, Braden CR. Invasive Enterobacter sakazakii disease in infants. Emerg Infect Dis 2006; 12(8):1185-1189

WHO/FAO. Safe preparation, storage and handling of powdered infant formula: guidelines.

See also NABA's new publication "Still Selling Out Mothers and Babies"

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The Breast Crawl

From w w w . w o r l d b r e a s t f e e d i n g w e e k . org:

Initiation of breastfeeding within the 1st hour of birth is the first and most vital step towards reducing infant and under-five mortality, by reducing the overwhelmingly high neonatal mortality rate. Save ONE million babies – beginning with one action, one hour support and one message: beginning breastfeeding within the 1st hour of birth!

In addition, Welcome Baby Softly is The International Lactation Consultant Association's approach to the theme, which focuses on the importance of protecting the environment for mothers and infants during that all-important first hour or two after birth, allowing the infant to use all five of his heightened senses to get to know mother and father and greet his new world.

Anyway, here is an excellent clip of the breast crawl. You can read more about it at:

Friday, June 22, 2007

More Formula Company Tactics

This is another website sponsored by the International Formula Council.

They link to, the site I posted about the other day that is campaigning against hospitals banning formula gift bags.

Then there is this site, whose members are, Mead Johnson Nutritionals; Nestlé USA, Inc., Nutrition Division; PBM Products, LLC; Ross Products Division, Abbott ; Solus Products; and Wyeth Nutrition. The site seems to be a place to read the twist and manipulative spin on all breastfeeding research:

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Are they kidding???

Today I had the displeasure of being introduced to the most ridiculous contraption called "The Babywell Milk Expresso", it is a machine that claims to mix formula perfectly and hygienically, all for $449. The WHO violating marketing of this product at, opened with "It doesn't matter whether you Breast or Formula feed." then goes on to state one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard, "The Babywell Milk Expresso is here to prepare the formula milk for breastfeeding mothers to consume, Breast feeding mothers can use the machine to dispense formula for their own consumption with the purpose of enhancing the quality of their breast milk.". Ok, A. EWW gross and B. FALSE!!!! Breastfeeding mothers do NOT need to drink formula to enhance breastmilk! Funny thing is that I read of it first on a lactation list, then posted a bulletin about it on myspace, this was less than 12 hours ago and now the site has been changed to:
"At Babywell, we strongly believe that breast feeding is still the best. However, we do know that many mothers could not breast feed long enough too.
The Babywell Milk Expresso is here to prepare the formula milk for breast feeding mothers to consume or for the precious babies of formula feeding mothers."
They must have taken all the complaints seriously! Score one for the Lactivists!
Unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that people will be fooled into buying this, and I feel so bad for those poor moms that don't know any better that will be brewing themself a formula latte every morning!

Friday, May 25, 2007

Harvard Researchers Say Children Need Touching and Attention

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketPhoto Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Harvard Researchers Say Children Need Touching and Attention by Alvin Powell, Contributing Writer, Harvard Gazette America's "let them cry" attitude toward children may lead to more fears and tears among adults, according to two Harvard Medical School researchers. Instead of letting infants cry, American parents should keep their babies close, console them when they cry, and bring them to bed with them, where they'll feel safe, according to Michael Commons and Patrice Miller, researchers at the Medical School's Department of Psychiatry. The pair examined child-rearing practices here and in other cultures and say the widespread American practice of putting babies in separate beds - even separate rooms - and not responding to their cries may lead to more incidents of post-traumatic stress and panic disorders among American adults. The early stress due to separation causes changes in infant brains that makes future adults more susceptible to stress in their lives, say Commons and Miller. "Parents should recognize that having their babies cry unnecessarily harms the baby permanently," Commons said. "It changes the nervous system so they're sensitive to future trauma." Their work is unique because it takes a cross-disciplinary approach, examining brain function, emotional learning in infants, and cultural differences, according to Charles R. Figley, director of the Traumatology Institute at Florida State University and editor of The Journal of Traumatology. "It is very unusual but extremely important to find this kind of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research report," Figley said. "It accounts for cross-cultural differences in children's emotional response and their ability to cope with stress, including traumatic stress." ___________ "Parents should recognize that having their babies cry unnecessarily harms the baby permanently. It changes the nervous system so they're sensitive to future trauma." - Dr. Michael Commons, Dept of Psychiatry, Harvard ___________ Figley said their work illuminates a route of further study and could have implications for everything from parents' efforts to intellectually stimulate infants to painful practices such as circumcision. Commons has been a lecturer and research associate at the Medical School's Department of Psychiatry since 1987 and is a member of the Department's Program in Psychiatry and the Law. Miller has been a research associate at Harvard Medical School's Program in Psychiatry and the Law since 1994 and an assistant professor of psychology at Salem State College since 1993. She received master's and doctorate degrees in education from Harvard's Graduate School of Education. The pair say that American child-rearing practices are influenced by fears that children will grow up dependent. But parents are on the wrong track. Physical contact and reassurance will make children more secure when they finally head out on their own and make them better able to form their own adult relationships. "We've stressed independence so much that it's having some very negative side effects," Miller said. The two gained the spotlight in February when they presented their ideas at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Philadelphia. In a paper presented at the meeting, Commons and Miller contrasted American child-rearing practices with those of other cultures, particularly the Gusii tribe of Kenya. Gusii mothers sleep with their babies and respond rapidly when the baby cries. "Gusii mothers watching videotapes of U.S. mothers were upset by how long it took these mothers to respond to infant crying," Commons and Miller said in their paper on the subject. The way we are brought up colors our entire society, Commons and Miller say. Americans in general don't like to be touched and pride themselves on independence to the point of isolation, even when undergoing a difficult or stressful time. Despite the conventional wisdom that babies should learn to be alone, Miller said she believes many parents "cheat," keeping the baby in the room with them, at least initially. In addition, once the child can crawl around, she believes many find their way into their parents' room on their own. American parents shouldn't worry about this behavior or be afraid to baby their babies, Commons and Miller said. Parents should feel free to sleep with their infant children, to keep their toddlers nearby, perhaps on a mattress in the same room, and to comfort a baby when it cries. "There are ways to grow up and be independent without putting babies through this trauma," Commons said. "My advice is to keep the kids secure so they can grow up and take some risks." Besides fears of dependence, other factors have helped form our childrearing practices, including fears that children would interfere with sex if they shared their parents' room and doctors' concerns that a baby would be injured by a parent rolling on it if it shared their bed, the pair said. The nation's growing wealth has helped the trend toward separation by giving families the means to buy larger homes with separate rooms for children. The result, Commons and Miller said, is a nation that doesn't like caring for its own children, a violent nation marked by loose, nonphysical relationships. "I think there's a real resistance in this culture to caring for children, "Commons said. "Punishment and abandonment has never been a good way to get warm, caring, independent people." Reprinted with permission of Dr. Commons.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

The Importance of Breastmilk

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that babies be exclusively breastfed, with no supplements, for the first six months of life. They also advise that breastfeeding continue for 12 months or longer if mutually desired. The AAP recognizes that, “Human milk is uniquely superior for infant feeding and is species-specific; all substitute feeding options differ markedly from it… Human milk is the preferred feeding for all infants, including premature and sick newborns.”
Colostrum is a yellow, sticky fluid, which is secreted during the first 3-5 days postpartum:
It contains over sixty components, thirty of which are exclusive to human milk.
Colostrum continues to offer the immunities that were available to your baby via the placenta.
It is high in protein, as well as fat-soluble vitamins and minerals.
Colostrum contains high amounts of sodium, potassium, chloride and cholesterol thought to encourage optimal development of your baby’s heart, brain and central nervous system.
The yellow color of colostrum is due to B-carotene, one of the many antioxidants present.
Colostrum’s natural laxative benefit encourages the passage of meconium, which reduces the risk of jaundice in your baby.
This fluid is rich in immunoglobulins, which protect your infant from viruses and infections.
It continues to be secreted in breastmilk for up to two weeks postpartum.
Human milk is a complex living, biological fluid. It contains just the right amounts of nutrients, in the right proportions for your baby. It is processed gently through the baby’s digestive system so that these important nutrients are easily absorbed. Breastmilk’s features include special factors and hormones that contribute to the optimal health, growth and development of infants:
Human milk contains at least one hundred ingredients not found in any artificial infant milk.
It resembles blood more than milk due to the many live cells called macrophages. These cells kill bacteria, fungi and viruses.
Lactoferrin coats and protects your baby’s intestines. When combined with lysozyme, they have a direct antibiotic effect on bacteria such as E. coli and staphylococci.
Secretory IgA, along with other immunoglobulins protect the ears, nose and throat, as well as the GI track against foreign viruses and bacteria. These antibodies are capable of altering their protective qualities to fight any allergens, germs or bacteria that may be present in your environment. This action decreases your infant’s chances of developing allergies, respiratory infections, otitis media (ear infections) and asthma.
Lactose accounts for the majority of carbohydrates in human milk. It enhances calcium absorption and metabolizes into galactose and glucose, which supplies energy to your infant’s rapidly growing brain.
Human milk contains numerous long-chain fatty acids including DHA and ARA. These lipids are responsible for cell membrane integrity in the brain, retinas and other parts of your baby’s body.
Breastmilk changes during the course of a feeding and throughout the day. It is secreted first as foremilk, which satisfies your baby’s initial thirst. Hindmilk is secreted as the feeding progresses. It is high in fat and calories to promote growth and development in your baby.
Preterm milk differs markedly from full term milk by offering premature babies longer access to colostrum, higher levels of IgA and other antiinfective properties. Preterm milk also contains greater concentrations of triglycerides and long-chain fatty acids. These qualities offer the premature infant optimal nutrition for his short-term energy needs as well as for his long-term neurological and visual development. Preterm milk also offers the best protection from necrotizing enterocolits (NEC), an often fatal condition in premature babies.
All the research on human milk confirms it’s many advantages. Babies who are breastfed have a decreased chance of developing:
Respiratory and ear infections
Allergies and atopic diseases
Urinary tract infections
Diarrheal infections, gastrointestinal reflux and NEC
Bacterial meningitis
Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis
Childhood lymphomas such as Hodgkin’s Disease and Leukemia
Current research indicates that human milk’s protective qualities last well into adulthood. Adults who were breastfed as infants have a decreased risk of developing:
Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's Disease
Diabetes, Heart Disease and Obesity
Multiple Sclerosis
Breast Cancer

Dramatic Visual

A baby dies every 30 seconds from unsafe bottle feeding. The photograph above tells the tragic story of the fatalities that occur due to unsafe bottle feeding."Use my picture if it will help" said this mother. The children are twins, the bottle-fed child is a girl who died the day after this photograph was taken by UNICEF in Islamabad, Pakistan. Her brother was breastfed and thrived. The mother was incorrectly told she could not breastfeed both children. This horrific picture demonstrates the risk of artificial infant feeding, particularly where water supplies are unsafe. The expense of formula can lead to parents over-diluting it to make it last longer or using unsuitable milk powders or animal milks. In all countries breastfeeding provides immunity against infections. Despite these risks the baby food industry aggressively markets breastmilk substitutes encouraging mothers and health workers to favour artifical infant feeding over breastfeeding. Such tactics break marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. Nestlé, the world's largest food company, is found to be responsible for more violations than any other company and is the target of an international boycott.