Press Release
Legislative Women's Caucus, Legislative Leaders Unveil Innovative, Family Friendly Nursing and Baby Changing Facilities
Newly-Adapted Restrooms Offer Parents Creative Options With State of the Art Facilities
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno and Legislative Women's Caucus Chair Assemblymember Patricia Eddington held a ribbon-cutting ceremony to unveil the installation of nursing and baby changing facilities throughout the Legislative Office Building (LOB).
Inspired by a request from a constituent who needed to nurse her child during a visit to Assembly Labor Committee Chair Susan John, Silver said the facilities were intended to make it easier for the thousands of parents who work and visit the Capitol to meet their families' needs.
"Each year thousands of advocates come to the L.O.B. and to the Capitol, to meet with their legislators and to experience the legislative process. While I believe that we have done a good job of opening up the People's House to all New Yorkers -- government leaders must be ever vigilant and always sensitive to the changing needs of the citizens we serve. These nursing and baby-changing facilities will make the Legislature more user-friendly to the parents and the families who come here to participate in their government," said Silver.
"It is vitally important that the bathrooms in public buildings fit the needs of all New Yorkers. These newly redesigned facilities mark an important step along that path. I am confident these improvements will encourage more people to enter the L.O.B. and become participants in government. I'd like to thank the Legislative Women's Caucus for taking the lead on this issue and working to get these changes made," said Bruno.
"Research clearly demonstrates the tremendous health benefits gained by breast feeding babies. It is a natural process that helps build the antibodies that boost and improve the baby's immune system. Unfortunately, it's becoming harder and harder for mothers to breast feed. Many women work outside the home and it can be difficult to continue the breast feeding process. Others face challenges when out in public. It can be difficult to find a safe, clean environment in which to care for a child. I am pleased that the Senate and the Assembly recognized the importance of this issue and made rooms available for women to have the opportunity to breast feed their infants. I want to thank Speaker Silver and Senator Bruno for their progressive insight into this very important project," said Eddington (D-Suffolk).
"This is a very exciting day for the families of New York State," said John (D-Rochester). "The issue of the lack of breastfeeding facilities came to my attention when a constituent came to Albany with her baby. When it was feeding time there was no place for the mother to feed her child. I offered her the use of my office, but I knew there had to be a better way for this mother to care for her child. I applaud the Speaker for his leadership on this issue, and I know that today's action by the Assembly will encourage employers across New York to do what is right for our children and families."
"Personally speaking, as a mother who nursed four infants, I can attest to the barrier that existed years ago. Finally a greater understanding of the benefits of nursing has brought the Legislature, and society generally, to create a more supportive environment. I applaud and thank our legislative leaders," said Senator Suzi Oppenheimer (D-Westchester).
"Accommodating new mothers and their young children in this very important way is something of which we can all be proud," said Senator Betty Little (R-Queensbury). "I commend Assemblywoman John for bringing this concern to the attention of the Women's Caucus and applaud our legislative leaders, Bruno and Silver, for responding so quickly. Few things could better affirm our commitment to 'family values' than providing these facilities for mothers to care for their babies."
Each floor of the LOB contains one Nursing and Baby changing facility. In addition, baby changing equipment is available in the men's restrooms on each floor. Additional amenities of the newly renovated Nursing Centers include a large, comfortable lounge chair constructed from an antimicrobial vinyl material; a footstool and a "Boppy" pillow, to provide additional support for the nursing mother.
The rooms are equipped with a wall divider for privacy, a ground fault interrupter for safety, hand sanitizers and baby wipes. In addition, refrigerators exclusively for breast milk storage will be available in the nurse's offices in the LOB and the Capitol to allow those mothers who need to express milk and those fathers who may need to store food for their children.
"I commend the Legislative Women's Caucus and their Chair, Assembly Member Patricia Eddington for their leadership in establishing this nursing and baby changing facility and ensuring that similar facilities will be available throughout the Legislative Office Building," said Silver.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Saturday, March 1, 2008
This article REALLY annoys me!
Article
If the stories told were accurate, then these professionals did cross boundaries and were innapropriate in their conduct. An LC making recommendations regarding the care of a 33 week neonate is beyond her scope of practice. There are good and bad in every area, thats why moms should get a doula or an LC who has the appropriate training and references.
That said, I wish the NYT realizes how many women benefit from a good doula and a good LC. I am sure they will get plenty of letters disputing this article, maybe it will encourage them to write something to balance the negative protrayal they describe in this article.
If the stories told were accurate, then these professionals did cross boundaries and were innapropriate in their conduct. An LC making recommendations regarding the care of a 33 week neonate is beyond her scope of practice. There are good and bad in every area, thats why moms should get a doula or an LC who has the appropriate training and references.
That said, I wish the NYT realizes how many women benefit from a good doula and a good LC. I am sure they will get plenty of letters disputing this article, maybe it will encourage them to write something to balance the negative protrayal they describe in this article.
Friday, February 22, 2008
NYS Museum Follow Up
Word on the lactivism message boards and lists is that about twenty-five moms and their babies went to the NYS museum not as a nurse in, but as a show of support.
Read about it here
Read about it here
'Breast is best' message flawed article from Science Alert
'Breast is best' message flawed
Original Press Release
Breast is best' message flawed
Wednesday, 20 February 2008
Current promotional and educational programs which describe breastfeeding as 'best' are undermining women’s capacity to make informed decisions about infant feeding, according to an article published by a University of Wollongong doctoral student in Maternal and Child Nutrition.
Ms Nina Berry from UOW’s Centre for Health Initiatives was joint author of a report with Karleen Gribble from the University of Western Sydney called “Breast is no longer best: promoting normal infant feeding”. Breastfeeding is not 'best', say the authors, it is simply the normal way to feed human infants.
The article suggested that breastfeeding promotion and education programs should abandon the ‘breast is best’ message because it is misleading and fails to communicate the importance of breastfeeding.
“In fact, these messages may have obscured the importance of breastfeeding to infant and maternal health and the well-established risks associated with early weaning from breastfeeding,” Ms Berry said. "To say that 'breast is best' is to suggest that what breastfeeding offers is a handful of optional bonuses and that formula-fed infants are the normal standard for comparison. In fact, human babies were designed to be fed human milk."
“Research has found that while most people accept that breastfed babies are healthier, they do not understand that this means that formula-fed babies are likely to be sicker. Because formula feeding is viewed as harmless, women are not getting the support they need to continue breastfeeding and to make informed choices about infant feeding. This misunderstanding demonstrates the failure of the ‘breast is best’ message and the need to rethink breastfeeding promotion”, she said.
The paper in Maternal and Child Nutrition also illuminates an important addition to the body of evidence pointing to the significance of using breastfed babies as the control group when conducting research.
The World Health Organisation (WHO)’s Multicenter Growth Reference study found that the growth of formula- fed babies deviated from that of breastfed babies and that using growth charts based on formula-fed babies could be contributing to the current obesity epidemic.
The use of formula-fed babies in control groups makes it difficult for readers to see that formula-fed babies are at increased risk of adverse health outcomes, Ms Berry said.
The WHO recommends that children are breastfed for up to two years or more and that they should not be given any food or drink other than breast milk for the first six months of their lives.
“It takes a great deal of support for mothers to reach these goals. However, mothers are not being provided with adequate support because the risks associated with early introduction of foods other than human milk are not well understood by health professionals. Furthermore, many health professionals are reluctant to talk to mothers about risks because they do not want to make mothers feel guilty. This is not about guilt. It is about a mother’s right to have all the information she needs to make an informed choice about how she should feed her baby – it is about ensuring that mothers have the support they need,” Ms Berry said.
Original Press Release
Breast is best' message flawed
Wednesday, 20 February 2008
Current promotional and educational programs which describe breastfeeding as 'best' are undermining women’s capacity to make informed decisions about infant feeding, according to an article published by a University of Wollongong doctoral student in Maternal and Child Nutrition.
Ms Nina Berry from UOW’s Centre for Health Initiatives was joint author of a report with Karleen Gribble from the University of Western Sydney called “Breast is no longer best: promoting normal infant feeding”. Breastfeeding is not 'best', say the authors, it is simply the normal way to feed human infants.
The article suggested that breastfeeding promotion and education programs should abandon the ‘breast is best’ message because it is misleading and fails to communicate the importance of breastfeeding.
“In fact, these messages may have obscured the importance of breastfeeding to infant and maternal health and the well-established risks associated with early weaning from breastfeeding,” Ms Berry said. "To say that 'breast is best' is to suggest that what breastfeeding offers is a handful of optional bonuses and that formula-fed infants are the normal standard for comparison. In fact, human babies were designed to be fed human milk."
“Research has found that while most people accept that breastfed babies are healthier, they do not understand that this means that formula-fed babies are likely to be sicker. Because formula feeding is viewed as harmless, women are not getting the support they need to continue breastfeeding and to make informed choices about infant feeding. This misunderstanding demonstrates the failure of the ‘breast is best’ message and the need to rethink breastfeeding promotion”, she said.
The paper in Maternal and Child Nutrition also illuminates an important addition to the body of evidence pointing to the significance of using breastfed babies as the control group when conducting research.
The World Health Organisation (WHO)’s Multicenter Growth Reference study found that the growth of formula- fed babies deviated from that of breastfed babies and that using growth charts based on formula-fed babies could be contributing to the current obesity epidemic.
The use of formula-fed babies in control groups makes it difficult for readers to see that formula-fed babies are at increased risk of adverse health outcomes, Ms Berry said.
The WHO recommends that children are breastfed for up to two years or more and that they should not be given any food or drink other than breast milk for the first six months of their lives.
“It takes a great deal of support for mothers to reach these goals. However, mothers are not being provided with adequate support because the risks associated with early introduction of foods other than human milk are not well understood by health professionals. Furthermore, many health professionals are reluctant to talk to mothers about risks because they do not want to make mothers feel guilty. This is not about guilt. It is about a mother’s right to have all the information she needs to make an informed choice about how she should feed her baby – it is about ensuring that mothers have the support they need,” Ms Berry said.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Bill Would Exempt Nursing Mothers From Jury Duty
Bill Would Exempt Nursing Mothers From Jury Duty
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) ―
Legislation pending in the state Senate would exempt nursing mothers from jury duty.
Harford County state Senator Nancy Jacobs says she has known of instances in her own district in which breast-feeding mothers were required to serve on juries, even though they argued they couldn't be away from their babies.
Jacobs says she introduced the bill because of a case a few years ago in which an Anne Arundel County mother was cited for contempt of court. A similar bill was introduced in 2004 but died in a legislative committee.
The proposed exemption would be allowed until the nursing child turns two-years-old.
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) ―
Legislation pending in the state Senate would exempt nursing mothers from jury duty.
Harford County state Senator Nancy Jacobs says she has known of instances in her own district in which breast-feeding mothers were required to serve on juries, even though they argued they couldn't be away from their babies.
Jacobs says she introduced the bill because of a case a few years ago in which an Anne Arundel County mother was cited for contempt of court. A similar bill was introduced in 2004 but died in a legislative committee.
The proposed exemption would be allowed until the nursing child turns two-years-old.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
More on NYS Museum
Click here for article containing statement by NYS museum
So as of now hat I have read on the WWW is that there is a nurse in planned for Friday at NYS museum, however this is from the article that is linked above: "The State Museum has checked its employees and says no one with that name and the description Kelly gave was on the museum floor Tuesday. They say the Museum is “family friendly” and they want Kelly and others to know they are welcome to breastfeed wherever they want. They feel it could not have been one of their employees. “We wouldn’t do that, none of our staff would do that…we try to be as welcoming to families as possible, “ says Cliff Siegfried, Director of the State Museum. He says many state workers with state ID badges routinely walk through the Museum during the course of the day and feels the woman who confronted Kelly could have been one of those employees, not a Museum staffer."
I would like to say that as much as I support the Lactivism movement and am a firm believer in it, there is definitely not enough info yet to be calling a nurse-in. Please refer to this blog article, Nurse ins are not the first line of defense written by Jennider Wilcock AKA The Lactivist. Jennifer says here exactly what I think, but is much more eloquent than I could ever be.
My advice, for what its worth, is call of the nurse-in for now. There are not enough facts at this point and the museum can be 100% innocent of any wrong doing and should not have to suffer because a museum visitor made an ignorant statement.
So as of now hat I have read on the WWW is that there is a nurse in planned for Friday at NYS museum, however this is from the article that is linked above: "The State Museum has checked its employees and says no one with that name and the description Kelly gave was on the museum floor Tuesday. They say the Museum is “family friendly” and they want Kelly and others to know they are welcome to breastfeed wherever they want. They feel it could not have been one of their employees. “We wouldn’t do that, none of our staff would do that…we try to be as welcoming to families as possible, “ says Cliff Siegfried, Director of the State Museum. He says many state workers with state ID badges routinely walk through the Museum during the course of the day and feels the woman who confronted Kelly could have been one of those employees, not a Museum staffer."
I would like to say that as much as I support the Lactivism movement and am a firm believer in it, there is definitely not enough info yet to be calling a nurse-in. Please refer to this blog article, Nurse ins are not the first line of defense written by Jennider Wilcock AKA The Lactivist. Jennifer says here exactly what I think, but is much more eloquent than I could ever be.
My advice, for what its worth, is call of the nurse-in for now. There are not enough facts at this point and the museum can be 100% innocent of any wrong doing and should not have to suffer because a museum visitor made an ignorant statement.
Mom told to stop breastfeeding in NYS Museum
Click here for article
ALBANY -- In New York, the law states you can breastfeed in any public place. But an Albany woman says a State Museum employee must not know that. Kristin Kelly is a young mother of three including a 4 month old she breast feeds.
Tuesday she says she was insulted and humiliated for feeding her baby in public even though she knew she was well within the law.
"I absolutely felt like I was doing something wrong," said Kristin Kelly with tears in her eyes.
Kelly and her three children ages 5, 3 and little four month old Zachary were enjoying an afternoon at the New York State Museum. Near the end of their visit Zachary got hungry and Kristin says she found a bench up against a wall and began to breast feed her baby.
"I sat down and made sure I was covered, three blankets over him actually, and I began to nurse, while my other two children sat beside me," she said.
Suddenly, according to Kristin all this was interrupted.
"A lady that said she was an employee of the museum they had another person report me and so I had to go to the bathroom where they had a chair set up where you could nurse or I would have to leave the museum," she said.
Kristin says was speechless when the woman with the museum ID tag came back a second time, stared at her and asked her to move again.
Zachary was finished by then but when Kristin told her husband Shaun he was so outraged he contacted the museum. Shaun says a spokesperson told him the museum allows nursing anywhere but he was not surprised Kristin was told to stop.
When Newschannel 13 contacted the museum, the museum director, Cliff Siegfried said, "the museum has no such policy prohibiting breast feeding anywhere."
As for Kristin she believes there's a lesson here for all breast feeding mothers and those who would stop them.
"I have a right to feed my child where ever I want to feed him," she said.
The museum director also told Newschannel 13 that he was still looking into identifying the museum employee who Kristin says told her to stop breast feeding. He did not however say what action, if any would be taken if the employee is identified.
ALBANY -- In New York, the law states you can breastfeed in any public place. But an Albany woman says a State Museum employee must not know that. Kristin Kelly is a young mother of three including a 4 month old she breast feeds.
Tuesday she says she was insulted and humiliated for feeding her baby in public even though she knew she was well within the law.
"I absolutely felt like I was doing something wrong," said Kristin Kelly with tears in her eyes.
Kelly and her three children ages 5, 3 and little four month old Zachary were enjoying an afternoon at the New York State Museum. Near the end of their visit Zachary got hungry and Kristin says she found a bench up against a wall and began to breast feed her baby.
"I sat down and made sure I was covered, three blankets over him actually, and I began to nurse, while my other two children sat beside me," she said.
Suddenly, according to Kristin all this was interrupted.
"A lady that said she was an employee of the museum they had another person report me and so I had to go to the bathroom where they had a chair set up where you could nurse or I would have to leave the museum," she said.
Kristin says was speechless when the woman with the museum ID tag came back a second time, stared at her and asked her to move again.
Zachary was finished by then but when Kristin told her husband Shaun he was so outraged he contacted the museum. Shaun says a spokesperson told him the museum allows nursing anywhere but he was not surprised Kristin was told to stop.
When Newschannel 13 contacted the museum, the museum director, Cliff Siegfried said, "the museum has no such policy prohibiting breast feeding anywhere."
As for Kristin she believes there's a lesson here for all breast feeding mothers and those who would stop them.
"I have a right to feed my child where ever I want to feed him," she said.
The museum director also told Newschannel 13 that he was still looking into identifying the museum employee who Kristin says told her to stop breast feeding. He did not however say what action, if any would be taken if the employee is identified.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
LA Department of Water and Power Criticized for Spending Money to Support Lactation.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_8266373
DWP users asked to pay breast-feeding bill
By Beth Barrett, Staff Writer
Sidestepping any potential opposition from its commission, the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power is shopping for a contractor to run pregnancy
and breast-feeding classes for its workers for up to $50,000 a year.
Because the contract for "lactation specialist services" is less than $150,000,
General Manager H. David Nahai can award it without seeking approval from
the DWP board once the proposals are opened March 7.
But board member Nick Patsaouras criticized Nahai on Thursday for not
bringing the controversial contract to commissioners for discussion.
"In general, I respect the general manager has the authority (to award
contracts) under $150,000, but in this case some board members in the past
expressed objections and so it should come before the board," he said.
Patsouras said it's inappropriate to continue the lactation program at a time
when the utility wants to raise electric rates by 9 percent over three years
and water rates by 6 percent over two years.
"It's absurd. At a time when we're asking ratepayers to increase the rates,
we're going for lactation," Patsaouras.
But Nahai said he intends to go forward with the program that's operated
since 1988, calling it a good deal for ratepayers.
"(They) are getting a tremendous return on their investments," Nahai
said. "This program has resulted in an overall 27 percent reduction in
absenteeism, and a 36 percent reduction in health-care claims
by new mothers who use the service.
"Apart from all that, we live in an enlightened age where an entity such as the
DWP has to have a humanitarian outlook."
Nahai said DWP is in step with many other government, private and academic
institutions that provide similar services.
Last year, the same contract cost DWP $37,000. In 2005, the lactation
specialist worked 16 hours per week, fielded nearly 1,000 telephone calls and
conducted 48 classes for expectant parents.
An independent study of the agency's finances nearly two years ago found
more than $16 million in non-core activities in fiscal 2006, including $1.1 million
for various family-care and breast-feeding programs.
At that time, Nahai, who was vice president of the commission, said the DWP's
spending habits as well as whether or not to raise rates, were a bigger issue
than a lactation program.
Patsaouras, then a commissioner, argued against it.
"We're in the business of producing water and electricity, not in the social-
service business," he said at the time
DWP users asked to pay breast-feeding bill
By Beth Barrett, Staff Writer
Sidestepping any potential opposition from its commission, the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power is shopping for a contractor to run pregnancy
and breast-feeding classes for its workers for up to $50,000 a year.
Because the contract for "lactation specialist services" is less than $150,000,
General Manager H. David Nahai can award it without seeking approval from
the DWP board once the proposals are opened March 7.
But board member Nick Patsaouras criticized Nahai on Thursday for not
bringing the controversial contract to commissioners for discussion.
"In general, I respect the general manager has the authority (to award
contracts) under $150,000, but in this case some board members in the past
expressed objections and so it should come before the board," he said.
Patsouras said it's inappropriate to continue the lactation program at a time
when the utility wants to raise electric rates by 9 percent over three years
and water rates by 6 percent over two years.
"It's absurd. At a time when we're asking ratepayers to increase the rates,
we're going for lactation," Patsaouras.
But Nahai said he intends to go forward with the program that's operated
since 1988, calling it a good deal for ratepayers.
"(They) are getting a tremendous return on their investments," Nahai
said. "This program has resulted in an overall 27 percent reduction in
absenteeism, and a 36 percent reduction in health-care claims
by new mothers who use the service.
"Apart from all that, we live in an enlightened age where an entity such as the
DWP has to have a humanitarian outlook."
Nahai said DWP is in step with many other government, private and academic
institutions that provide similar services.
Last year, the same contract cost DWP $37,000. In 2005, the lactation
specialist worked 16 hours per week, fielded nearly 1,000 telephone calls and
conducted 48 classes for expectant parents.
An independent study of the agency's finances nearly two years ago found
more than $16 million in non-core activities in fiscal 2006, including $1.1 million
for various family-care and breast-feeding programs.
At that time, Nahai, who was vice president of the commission, said the DWP's
spending habits as well as whether or not to raise rates, were a bigger issue
than a lactation program.
Patsaouras, then a commissioner, argued against it.
"We're in the business of producing water and electricity, not in the social-
service business," he said at the time
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Breast milk used to treat cancer patients
By SHELLY SLATER / WFAA-TV
BEN TORRES Beatriz Hernandez, a pasteurization assistant at Mother's Milk Bank of North Texas, fills bottles with breast milk to be later pasteruized.
Also Online
Shelly Slater reports
Taking a breath isn't taken for granted in the Bauer house.
"I was dying. I was literally dying, and I knew it," said Dr. Donn Bauer.
Bauer had a cancerous tumor in his right vocal chord, severe enough to cut off his airway. Surgeons removed it, leaving him with a hole in his neck to talk and breathe.
"So I was bent on getting better. No matter what," he said, wiping his eyes.
But he didn't get better.
Bauer lost 35 pounds in one week, and his diabetes made recovery almost impossible. Then he discovered a new remedy: a mother's breast milk.
"It's just a boost of energy, and it's not like drinking an energy drink or a couple cups of quick coffee, but a slow process of feeling good," he said.
"It's gold. It is incredible liquid," said Amy Vickers with the Mother's Milk Bank of Fort Worth.
The immune-building properties of breast milk can't be copied by formula.
Because of that, the Mother's Milk Bank in Fort Worth struggles to keep up.
In the past three years, the demand has multiplied 300 times.
"I'd be beating a path there, and banging on their door, camping out," said Bauer.
But the milk bank can't help Bauer right now because its supply is too low.
That's due, in part, to Texas' growing teen pregnancy rate.
The government says about one in every 1,000 13-year-olds in Texas is getting pregnant. Of those, about 70 percent of don't get proper prenatal care which leads to more premature births.
Adian was born eight weeks premature and weighed only two pounds.
He and other preemies are the milk bank's priority patients.
"I don't think he would have made it this far if he wasn't on donor milk," said mother, Beatriz Hernandez.
Hernandez couldn't make enough milk for Adian. His body rejected formula.
"I'm very happy for everybody who has a heart to [donate breast milk]," she said.
Right now, Bauer can't get breast milk. Instead, he takes pills in an attempt to duplicate the benefits of the real thing.
Dr. June Meymand runs a cancer center and says breast milk protects her patients' healthy cells, while killing the cancer at same time.
"What actually causes the damage to the body will be carried out through the intestine and will not become active," she said.
It worked for Bauer. He's now cancer-free.
"If I end up going I end up going, but I came into this world screaming and fighting and that's exactly how I'm going out," Bauer said.
He believes his miracle is thanks to a mother's milk.
Breastfeeding promotion act 2007
Breastfeeding promotion act 2007
Rep. Caroline Maloney is making an effort once again to move the Breastfeeding Act of 2007 forward. Last weekend there was a meeting of the State Breastfeeding Coalitions and they learned that the 23 cosponsors that she has obtained are not enough, and that they need at least 200 sponsors. So please urge your Congressional Representatives to cosponsor this bill along with the Senators to introduce the bill in the Senate. And please use your networks to get the word out. This bill is important for all mothers who work or who may work in the future and would help to eliminate one important barrier to more optimal breastfeeding in the US.Last weekend, at the US Breastfeeding Committee's National Conference of State/Territory Breastfeeding Coalitions, we learned that we need much more action on US Representative Carolyn Maloney's bill in the US House, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act, to get it moving forward.We need your action NOW on this bill, HR 2236. The bill currently has only 23 cosponsors,and needs about 200 cosponsors to move forward. If you are a US citizen/legal resident, please contact your Rep now and urge him/her to cosponsor this bill.This bill makes breastpumps tax deductible, provides for safety standards for them,and gives incentives to employers to help moms pump. To read the text of the bill, and see a list of cosponsors, go to: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2236
To contact your Representative about this bill, you can either go through MomsRising at:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/momsrising/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=13731 or the Children's Hospital (Boston) advocacy page at: http://capwiz.com/childadvocacy/home/
Pass this on!Melissa Bartick, MDChair, Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition
Rep. Caroline Maloney is making an effort once again to move the Breastfeeding Act of 2007 forward. Last weekend there was a meeting of the State Breastfeeding Coalitions and they learned that the 23 cosponsors that she has obtained are not enough, and that they need at least 200 sponsors. So please urge your Congressional Representatives to cosponsor this bill along with the Senators to introduce the bill in the Senate. And please use your networks to get the word out. This bill is important for all mothers who work or who may work in the future and would help to eliminate one important barrier to more optimal breastfeeding in the US.Last weekend, at the US Breastfeeding Committee's National Conference of State/Territory Breastfeeding Coalitions, we learned that we need much more action on US Representative Carolyn Maloney's bill in the US House, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act, to get it moving forward.We need your action NOW on this bill, HR 2236. The bill currently has only 23 cosponsors,and needs about 200 cosponsors to move forward. If you are a US citizen/legal resident, please contact your Rep now and urge him/her to cosponsor this bill.This bill makes breastpumps tax deductible, provides for safety standards for them,and gives incentives to employers to help moms pump. To read the text of the bill, and see a list of cosponsors, go to: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2236
To contact your Representative about this bill, you can either go through MomsRising at:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/momsrising/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=13731 or the Children's Hospital (Boston) advocacy page at: http://capwiz.com/childadvocacy/home/
Pass this on!Melissa Bartick, MDChair, Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition
Breast milk contains stem cells!
if I was not already amazed by all of the wonderful benefits of breastmilk:
Breast milk contains stem cells
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081102-16879.html..
The Perth scientist who made the world-first discovery that human breast milk contains stem cells is confident that within five years scientists will be harvesting them to research treatment for conditions as far-reaching as spinal injuries, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. But what Dr Mark Cregan is excited about right now is the promise that his discovery could be the start of many more exciting revelations about the potency of breast milk. He believes that it not only meets all the nutritional needs of a growing infant but contains key markers that guide his or her development into adulthood. “We already know how breast milk provides for the baby’s nutritional needs, but we are only just beginning to understand that it probably performs many other functions,” says Dr Cregan, a molecular biologist at The University of Western Australia. He says that, in essence, a new mother’s mammary glands take over from the placenta to provide the development guidance to ensure a baby’s genetic destiny is fulfilled. “It is setting the baby up for the perfect development,” he says. “We already know that babies who are breast fed have an IQ advantage and that there’s a raft of other health benefits. Researchers also believe that the protective effects of being breast fed continue well into adult life. “The point is that many mothers see milks as identical – formula milk and breast milk look the same so they must be the same. But we know now that they are quite different and a lot of the effects of breast milk versus formula don’t become apparent for decades. Formula companies have focussed on matching breast milk’s nutritional qualities but formula can never provide the developmental guidance.” It was Dr Cregan’s interest in infant health that led him to investigate the complex cellular components of human milk. “I was looking at this vast complexity of cells and I thought, ‘No one knows anything about them’.” His hunch was that if breast milk contains all these cells, surely it has their precursors, too? His team cultured cells from human breast milk and found a population that tested positive for the stem cell marker, nestin. Further analysis showed that a side population of the stem cells were of multiple lineages with the potential to differentiate into multiple cell types. This means the cells could potentially be “reprogrammed” to form many types of human tissue. He presented his research at the end of January to 200 of the world’s leading experts in the field at the International Conference of the Society for Research on Human Milk and Lactation in Perth. “We have shown these cells have all the physical characteristics of stem cells. What we will do next is to see if they behave like stem cells,” he says. If so, they promise to provide researchers with an entirely ethical means of harvesting stem cells for research without the debate that has dogged the harvesting of cells from embryos. Further research on immune cells, which have also been found in breast milk and have already been shown to survive the baby’s digestive process, could provide a pathway to developing targets to beat certain viruses or bacteria.
Breast milk contains stem cells
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081102-16879.html..
The Perth scientist who made the world-first discovery that human breast milk contains stem cells is confident that within five years scientists will be harvesting them to research treatment for conditions as far-reaching as spinal injuries, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. But what Dr Mark Cregan is excited about right now is the promise that his discovery could be the start of many more exciting revelations about the potency of breast milk. He believes that it not only meets all the nutritional needs of a growing infant but contains key markers that guide his or her development into adulthood. “We already know how breast milk provides for the baby’s nutritional needs, but we are only just beginning to understand that it probably performs many other functions,” says Dr Cregan, a molecular biologist at The University of Western Australia. He says that, in essence, a new mother’s mammary glands take over from the placenta to provide the development guidance to ensure a baby’s genetic destiny is fulfilled. “It is setting the baby up for the perfect development,” he says. “We already know that babies who are breast fed have an IQ advantage and that there’s a raft of other health benefits. Researchers also believe that the protective effects of being breast fed continue well into adult life. “The point is that many mothers see milks as identical – formula milk and breast milk look the same so they must be the same. But we know now that they are quite different and a lot of the effects of breast milk versus formula don’t become apparent for decades. Formula companies have focussed on matching breast milk’s nutritional qualities but formula can never provide the developmental guidance.” It was Dr Cregan’s interest in infant health that led him to investigate the complex cellular components of human milk. “I was looking at this vast complexity of cells and I thought, ‘No one knows anything about them’.” His hunch was that if breast milk contains all these cells, surely it has their precursors, too? His team cultured cells from human breast milk and found a population that tested positive for the stem cell marker, nestin. Further analysis showed that a side population of the stem cells were of multiple lineages with the potential to differentiate into multiple cell types. This means the cells could potentially be “reprogrammed” to form many types of human tissue. He presented his research at the end of January to 200 of the world’s leading experts in the field at the International Conference of the Society for Research on Human Milk and Lactation in Perth. “We have shown these cells have all the physical characteristics of stem cells. What we will do next is to see if they behave like stem cells,” he says. If so, they promise to provide researchers with an entirely ethical means of harvesting stem cells for research without the debate that has dogged the harvesting of cells from embryos. Further research on immune cells, which have also been found in breast milk and have already been shown to survive the baby’s digestive process, could provide a pathway to developing targets to beat certain viruses or bacteria.
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:http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3133919420071101
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: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071105/sc_nm/breastfeeding_iq_dc;_ylt=Ags6p
and here is an article on how breastfeeding is good for the heart:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071105/sc_nm/breastfeeding_iq_dc;_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.
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: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071105/sc_nm/breastfeeding_iq_dc;_ylt=Ags6p
and here is an article on how breastfeeding is good for the heart:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071105/sc_nm/breastfeeding_iq_dc;_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 www.ameda.com.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
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
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.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3DXxgralYF8
Updated for irony:
This has come to my attention:
Bill Maher is PETAS spokesperson for Breastfeeding!!!!!
http://www.milksucks.com/baby.asp
Forget Writing to Bill Maher! Write to PETA, Demand an apology or request that he be removed from the campaign!!!!!
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.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3DXxgralYF8
Updated for irony:
This has come to my attention:
Bill Maher is PETAS spokesperson for Breastfeeding!!!!!
http://www.milksucks.com/baby.asp
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):
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
campaign.
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.
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):
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
campaign.
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
GOVERNOR SIGNS INTO LAW LEGISLATION PROTECTING RIGHTS OF NURSING MOTHERS IN THE WORKPLACE
Hooray to Elliot Spitzer! Things like this make me proud to be a New Yorker!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 22, 2007
GOVERNOR SIGNS INTO LAW LEGISLATION PROTECTING RIGHTS OF NURSING MOTHERS IN THE WORKPLACE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
GOVERNOR SIGNS INTO LAW LEGISLATION PROTECTING RIGHTS OF NURSING MOTHERS IN THE WORKPLACE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 22, 2007
GOVERNOR SIGNS INTO LAW LEGISLATION PROTECTING RIGHTS OF NURSING MOTHERS IN THE WORKPLACE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
