"Denialism. In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychological uncomfortable truth."
--Wikipedia
Why do I read these articles on the internet? Masochism? Three cups of coffee and once again I am reading an article blasting breastfeeding advocacy. The media barrage of articles is like watching the first few drops of rain outside turning into a waterfall that creates a mudslide of destruction. The words these people use to write their hate-filled messages: "witches of breastmilk,"stepford nurses marching through maternity units chanting breast is best," "the breastapo," "autobots from La Leche League." The article aptly entitled, "Is this proof the witches of breast milk are wrong after all."
This article was published in the UK by the Telegraph (11/5/15). Supposedly this mud-slinging article is about a study the author found. The author states, "A study of almost 200 children, by the University of Chicago, has found that breast may not be best when it comes to preventing allergies--one of the most commonly recited fairy tales." We don't know the name of the study or where it was published because in the author's mind that information is not important. We must have faith and trust that the author is correct in her analysis that this study is the truth regarding allergies and breastfeeding.
In my mind this must be satire, the author and the publisher cannot possibly believe their libelous comments regarding breastfeeding advocacy. How do we call this article journalism? If we reversed this article and a breastfeeding mother wrote an article about the autobots of the infant formula industry or the warlocks of the infant formula industry or the stepford nurses marching through the maternity units chanting infant formula, would that kind of article get published? Don't think so. No media outlet would publish it.
I think what we are currently witnessing is a media barrage of breastfeeding denialism. This media madness is designed to create doubt about breastfeeding and create anger against breastfeeding promotion. And its about creating fear among breastfeeding advocates regarding promoting breastfeeding. It is a well-designed media campaign by the infant formula industry. The only real problem for the industry is that their US patents are public record. What they say in their patents regarding human milk/breastfeeding would make any woman question her faith in infant formula as a comparable choice.
The author of this article states, "...those that were breastfed as babies were just as likely to have hayfever as those who were bottle fed. Nor did rates of asthma, eczema and food allergies differ between the two groups." So I really need someone to explain why the infant formula industry is patenting human milk components to prevent allergies. Why do that, if there is no difference between those babies that are breastfed and those that are formula fed?
In a recent patent by the infant formula company, Nutricia is creating a composition of a bacterium, Bifidobacterium breve (obtained from breastfed babies' feces) to improve lung function in people suffering from dust mite allergy.
"The present composition comprises non-genetically modified
Bifidobacterium breve. Bifidobacterium breve is a Gram-positive,
anaerobic, branched rod-shaped bacterium. The present B. breve
preferably has at least 95% identity of the 16 S rRNA
sequence when compared to the type strain of B. breve ATCC 15700, more
preferably at least 97% identity (Stackebrandt & Goebel, 1994, Int.
J. Syst. Bacteriol. 44:846-849). Preferred B. breve strains are
those isolated from the faeces of healthy human
milk-fed infants. Typically, these are commercially available
from producers of lactic acid bacteria, but they can also be directly
isolated from faeces, identified, characterised and produced. According
to a preferred embodiment, the present
composition contains at least one B. breve selected from the group
consisting of B. breve Bb-03 (Rhodia/Danisco), B. breve M-16V
(Morinaga), B. breve R0070 (Institute Rosell, Lallemand), B. breve BR03
(Probiotical), B. breve BR92) (Cell Biotech), DSM
20091, LMG 11613, YIT4065, FERM BP-6223 and CNCM 1-2219. Most
preferably, the B. breve is selected from the group consisting of B.
breve M-16V and B. breve CNCM 1-2219.
"
Patent #9119414 entitled, "Bifidobacterium for dust mite allergy,"
Owned by N.V. Nutricia-Netherlands
In an older patent in 1993,
"In spite of the great efforts which have been invested in preparing
infant formulae, it has not been possible to produce a formula which to
any substantial extent has the advantageous properties of human milk.
Thus, infant formula, often
prepared on the basis of cow milk, is generally incompletely digested by
the infant and is lacking substances known to have effect on the
physiological functions of the infant. In order to obtain an infant formula
with a nutritional value similar to
human milk, a number of additives including protein fragments, vitamins,
minerals etc., which are normally formed or taken up during the
infant's digestion of human milk, are included in the formula with the
consequent risk of posing an increased strain
on and possible long-term damage of important organs such as liver and
kidney. Another disadvantage associated with the use of cow milk-based
formulae is the increased risk for inducing allergy in the infant
against bovine proteins.
"
Patent # 5739407 entitled, "Human .beta.-casein, process for producing it and use therof,"
Owned by Symbicom aktiebolag (Sweden) a division of AstraZeneca
or a Nestle patent published in June of this year (2015)
"Food allergies are among the first allergens that infants encounter in their early life; typically cow's milk proteins may be encountered by infants not receiving exclusive breast-feeding."
Patent #9049881 entitled, "Nutritional composition comprising lactococcus strains and reducing allergy symptoms, especially in infants and children,"
owned by Nestec (Nestle)
The infant formula industry recognizes that the first allergen that an infant will encounter is to cow's milk, if they are not exclusively breastfed. Some companies even recognize that damage is done to some infants. Yet popular media stories continue to deny the damage and problems of infant formula and continue to create the illusion that breastfeeding is promoted by crazed witches or autobots. It reminds me of the climate change deniers who are blind to the environmental degradation of the earth. How long will breastfeeding deniers continue to muddy the waters of reality? Meanwhile the infant formula industry through patenting is extolling the use of human milk components in their products. But who reads patents? Instead we get treated to the comedy-hour of breastfeeding denialism.
Copyright 2015 Valerie W. McClain
"Breastfeeding has been associated with enhanced development and balanced growth and maturation of the infant's respiratory, gastrointestinal and immune systems, thereby providing protection of the infant to infection and inflammatory disease." from Patent # 8802650 entitled, "Method of using human milk oligosaccharides for improving airway respiratory health," filed in 2011 and owned by Abbott Laboratories
Two American bald eagles were soaring and plunging low over the river. They were a sight to see. I quickly glanced at them and returned to trying to concentrate on my driving. Yet my thoughts continued to be scattered and fragmented. I had just read the NY Times article, "Overselling Breast-Feeding," by Courtney Jung (October 16, 2015). Should I write about this article? Here we go again, another article in a major newspaper castigating breastfeeding advocacy. I am always baffled by these articles written by highly educated women who they say have breastfed their babies. How do I understand their thinking? This NY Times article is written by a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. She was educated at Tufts, Columbia and Yale universities. She is the principle investigator for the Toronto Intiative for Economic and Social Rights. She just finished a book entitled, "Lactivism: How Feminists and Fundamentalists, Hippies and Yuppies, and Physicians and Politicians Made Breastfeeding Big Business and Bad Policy." It appears that the NY Times article is from this recent book. She has authored two other books but they have nothing to do with breastfeeding.
The first sentence I read in this NY Times article was, "All to often, advocates cross the line from supporting a women in her decision to breast-feed into compelling a woman to do so." Wow. Is this a statement by an academic or a propagandist? Compelling a person is to "force" someone. I need an explanation of how one forces someone to breastfeed? One of many propaganda techniques is to use loaded words, creating an emotional response, to sway the audience. The author in this article does not give evidence of how breastfeeding advocates compel breastfeeding. Instead she implies that breastfeeding advocacy is equivalent to discrimination against poor women and minorities.
Women in poverty and some minorities (particularly African-American populations) are the least likely to breastfeed. They are the least likely to breastfeed because of a mega-industry's power through advertising. And because of social and economic limitations in which poverty creates enormous barriers to breastfeed. Is the goal of this article to make breastfeeding advocates mute their messages to women in poverty and minorities? This would be mighty beneficial to the infant formula industry.
The author describes the WIC Program as coercive because women who breastfeed get an enhanced food package. She states, "The difference in benefits is intended to create incentives for poor mothers to breast-feed, but withholding food from mothers at nutritional risk, and from their babies, seems more like punishment to me." "Withholding food?" Again the author uses the same propaganda technique, loaded words. There is a difference between the nutritional needs of a breastfeeding mother and a formula feeding mother. Likewise there is a difference between the nutritional needs of the breastfed infant and the formula fed infant. The article states that breastfeeding infants get meat-based baby foods but infant formula-fed infants do not get meat-based baby foods. I assume that the reasoning for this is that formula fed infants get all their iron requirements from infant formula and would not necessarily need meat-based baby foods. The WIC Program is a supplemental food program, and its funding is dependent on the congressional budget. Should we dismantle breastfeeding promotion in the WIC Program in order to promote equality? Does the author, a Canadian professor of political science, understand the WIC Program and the issues surrounding nutritional risks?
The author writes about Canadian Dr. Michael Kramer's PROBIT trial. And states from that study, "breast-feeding having some benefits but did not reduce the risk of obesity, asthma, allergies, dental cavities or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder." There are a number of issues with this study that I have discussed in this blog.
see http://vwmcclain.blogspot.com/2009/08/probit-studies-by-michael-s-kramer.html
So the author believes that one study proves her belief that breastfeeding has some benefits but obviously in the words of the author not "a talisman to ward off evil and disease." And again her words are emotive. Great propaganda. I didn't know that I was promoting breastfeeding to ward off evil nor do I know of any other breastfeeding advocate that believes that breastfeeding will ward off evil. I do know that I am promoting breastfeeding to prevent diseases in mothers and infants. And I am thoroughly amused that this author has no idea that the infant formula industry has patents using human milk components to prevent obesity, asthma, allergies, etc. The infant formula industry understands and will invest in human milk components. In fact it is the infant formula industry that believes in breastfeeding as a magic talisman. Breastfeeding is their gold standard upon which the value of infant formula is based. Why else advertise about their ingredients that "are just like" human milk ingredients? Yet criticism is not addressed to the infant formula industry but rather against breastfeeding advocacy.
The article seems like a personal vendetta rather than the writings of a scholar. Did the author really comb through all the medical literature on breastfeeding? The author states, "Surprisingly, the question of choice, which is central to so many women's issues, is almost totally absent from discussions about infant feeding." That statement is a negation of reality. Choice is the bedrock of infant feeding. And the reality of choice is that poor women and minorities have no choice in infant feeding. Their choice is limited because of social and economic pressures. Change the social and economic through legislation and more women would breastfeed. Assume that social and economic situations cannot be changed, and what you get is the belief that infant feeding is an equivalent choice.
The author writes the following, "There is a difference between supporting a woman's decision to breast-feed through policy changes like improved maternity leave, flexible work schedules and on-site day care facilities and compelling women to breast-feed by demonizing formula." Therein lies the crux of her argument, the fear of demonizing formula. Interesting. The author never questions how choices are made or whether there really is choice? Instead her next to the last sentence in her conclusion is about demonizing formula.
Fascinating. Currently most if not all universities in the US (and Canada) receive funding from a variety of industries. The University of Toronto is not an exception to this practice and gets quite a bit of funding from a variety of companies. The University receives funding in the $100,00-$999,00 range from a large variety of companies. That list includes Abbott, Mead Johnson, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Heinz, Nestle, etc.
http://boundless.utoronto.ca/recognition/donor-listing/
Infant formula funding for this University is not particularly surprising particularly because this University was involved in the creation of a very popular baby food in the 1930's. Three faculty members (Frederick Tisdall, Theodore Drake and Alan Brown) of the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine created Pablum. Tisdal gave Mead Johnson permission to manufacture Pablum.
http://www.facmed.utoronto.ca/about-faculty-medicine/%E2%80%98open-wide%E2%80%99-better-baby-nutrition
How influential is funding of universities/colleges to what professors can and cannot say without risking unemployment? How a person is employed impacts our views. For instance, I was employed by the WIC Program for 4 years. And I do have criticisms of the Program and yet I realize I am biased in favor of the Program. How much of my defensiveness about WIC are because of being employed in the Program? The author is employed by the University of Toronto. Is it possible for a professor in a University that receives large funding from the infant formula industry to be unbiased about infant formula feeding?
Would we ever see an article in a major newspaper about overselling infant formula? No. Why? Because it would have an economic impact towards a major industry and because that industry has a major influence in the media. What is printed in the media has everything to do with who has the power and money. Creating discord among women benefits the infant formula industry and diverts us from a critical analysis of the influence of the industry.
I was rather shocked to read an article written by Melissa Bartick in the Breastfeeding Medicine blog that was a response to Courtney Jung's article. She states "...let's replace zealotry with compassion and understanding and meet every mom where she is. And if we see zealotry in our colleagues, let's gently remind them that this may be how we got to the Time magazine cover and New York Times op-ed. That is the only way we will stop this negative press."
The acceptance of the article by Courtney Jung as truth is a huge mistake. The result of this acceptance that there are zealots in breastfeeding advocacy and that they need to stay silent because its the only way to stop negative press is a dangerous concept. It does not help the situation but makes the situation even worse. Who defines zealots? Who are the zealots we are talking about that are creating negative press? Why this easy acceptance of this article as if it is steeped in truth? And that truth means that one should silence the "zealots?" I understand quite well the silencing of zealots. This silencing in the breastfeeding advocacy community has been ongoing for many years. It is destructive and not in the best interests of anyone.
Copyright 2015 Valerie W. McClain
"The large quantity of sialylated oligosaccharides in human milk is of particular interest. Sialic acid is a nine-C sugar that is a vital structural and functional component of brain gangliosides. It is thought to play an essential role in nerve cell transmission, memory formation and cell communication. Studies in rat pups indicate that early supplementation with sialic acid improves both brain ganglioside sialic acid and learning ability in well-nourished and malnourished animals and that these changes persist into adulthood."
Patent # 8771780 entitled "Oligosaccharide ingredient"
Owned by Nestle, Inventors Norbert Sprenger et al.
Reality, thy name is Man. A Merriam-Webster Student Dictionary on the internet defines man as "a human being, especially an adult male human" or "the human race." This Student Dictionary defines woman as "an adult female person," and uses the sentence, "a woman who is a servant or attendant." Men are human beings, of the human race. Women are defined as servants of the human race. Reality defined and designed by a dictionary.
How often is a reality defined by others? What we believe, as defined by others, becomes the "truth." As a teenager in the sixties, I accepted a reality that my family, my church and my school presented about what a woman can and cannot do. My Dad was a computer technician for Univac but he spent his evenings and weekends working on and driving a stock car. Sometimes his pit crew buddies were not available, so I became the substitute. Bleeding brakes, slanted carburetors, roll cages and slick wide tires became a new interest. I wanted to be part of his pit crew and learn more about cars. Maybe I could be a driver or so I dreamed. I asked my Dad, if I could be part of his pit crew. My Dad said no. He told me women were not allowed in the pits. I asked why. I don't remember his answer. I think it was something like "bad luck," same reasoning given for not allowing women into mines. My anger is all I remember from that time, overshadowing what he actually said to me. In those teenage years I remember his steadfast belief that women should stay home after they are married and that of course women should be paid less than men for the same job. Yet surprisingly, he pushed me to go to college. We had many arguments over my going to college. I didn't want to go because I was tired of school, in fact unknown to my parents, I was regularly skipping school. My girlfriend and I ended up in my senior year at the vice principle's office for skipping classes. I thought for sure he would call my parents but he told us that since we had never been in trouble before and since our grades were excellent he would let us go with a warning. Next time there would be consequences!
My Dad won the argument about college. Amazingly I graduated from college and enjoyed college more than I would admit to my parents. I thought my Dad was authoritarian and backwards in his views on women. Yet he pushed for my education. And years later, he always read what I wrote and always had words of encouragement. He was a writer himself and he understood the frustrations and joys of writing.
We are a society that is schizophrenic about women and their place in society. My Dad's views on women were divided. On the one hand he believed in a hierarchy in which men were in control. On the other hand he recognized that women were more than objects to be controlled. Growing up in that era has created within me a wish that I had been born decades later. Seeing what women do and are able to do now in our society amazes me. I am envious of the opportunities that are now available for women. The first time I saw a woman working on road construction, I was so excited. Of course, now most people would not understand that excitement. Women are astronauts, race car drivers, scientists, doctors, researchers, and even run for President of the US (although none have ever won the Presidency or even been a Vice President) The society I was born into has undergone massive changes as far as women and career opportunities.
Society can change. But how deep runs that change? Is it only a superficial veneer, a thin dusting of equality? Like the dictionary definitions of man and woman, is our reality still man-made? Women still make less money than men doing the same or similar jobs. Something I was mad about and argued with my Dad about in the 1970s. Women are still defined by their appearance not their accomplishments. Rape is rarely prosecuted. The word slut is often used among young people to shame a woman/girl who is supposedly sexually active with many partners. No such term exists for men.
How is breastfeeding, human milk and patents viewed in a man-made society? Breastfeeding represents a lack of male control. Man cannot control a crying baby in need of its mother's breast. Man cannot control the relationship. They can control the relationship, if the substance is pumped and bottled. When I did breastfeeding classes, the first thing couples often asked was that the father wanted to feed the baby and so they needed pumping and storage information. My suggestions to couples that there are many other things fathers can do with their babies besides feed them was often met with disbelief. I found that pumping and storing milk in the early weeks often lead to problems. If the mom could not pump tons of milk, she presumed that she had milk supply problems. There are host of problems when pumping starts in the early days with a newborn: oversupply, mastitis, sore nipples, less time spent with breastfeeding baby and more time spent with pump, giving bottles rather than breastfeeding, etc. The reason for the breastpump often had nothing to do with employment or separation from baby but simply because the man wanted to bottlefed the baby.
In our man world, women are expected to go back to employment quickly without regard for the realities of the postpartum period. I worked with women who had to be back to work two weeks after their babies were born. Some of those women had c-sections and some of those women suffered for years afterwards with health issues because of it. In the US there is no consideration for the health and emotional risks for moms and babies created by the economic necessity of having to go back to work too soon. Nor is consideration given to pregnant women, many who work right up til they give birth. This standard US belief that women should be able to have their babies and get back to work immediately is essentially about the structure of male corporate and legislative power.
Breasts in the US are considered part of women's sexual equipment and not about feeding babies. Big breasts spilling out of bikini tops are used to sell everything from cars to beer. Breast enlargement is often the desired gift of young women. Never mind that such surgery can sometimes damage nerves that will influence whether breastfeeding happens or not. In our man-made world it is okay for a woman to wear a skimpy bikini or thong in public but breastfeeding in public is a no-no. How many women stop breastfeeding because they are too embarrassed to breastfeed in public? How many women end up in some dirty public bathroom breastfeeding? Why? Because the reality of a male-dominated society defines what is sexual and what isn't sexual.
Human milk in a male-centric society becomes a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. While the media appeals made by milk banks is for the poor premature infants needing milk in NICUs (neonatal intensive care units), the reality is that human milk has stem cells and components that are desired by various industries. Who runs those various industries? Mostly men. While about 50% of the population is composed of women, very few women are CEOs of companies or in positions of authority. Those few women who are CEOs get there because they play by the rules of corporate power.
Ownership of human milk components, patenting, is never questioned in a man-made world. After all, women are not quite human. Like mother earth, we are just a natural resource in which to make money. So what, if donor milk goes to the infant formula, drug and food industries for their enrichment. So what, if breastfeeding doesn't happen because women can just pump their milk. Anyone watch the recent movie, "Mad Max" with enslaved women pumping their milk for the survival of a bunch of crazy, violent male villains? Art imitating life?
The survival of breastfeeding is dependent upon a society that recognizes the needs of women in pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding. The survival of the human species is predicated upon its treatment of women. Treat women like objects, like a lesser form of humanity and for economic enrichment; the result will be the destruction of a society.
Copyright 2015 Valerie W. McClain
"As crude a weapon as the cave man's club, the chemical barrage has been hurled against the fabric of life--a fabric on the one hand delicate and destructible, on the other miraculously tough and resilient, and capable of striking back in unexpected ways. These extra ordinary capacities of life have been ignored by the practitioners of chemical control who have brought to their task no 'high-minded orientation,' no humility before the vast forces with which they tamper."--Rachel Carson, "Silent Spring"
The canary in the coal mine is a legend in the US that coal miners in the early days of mining, when there were no ventilation systems, used canaries to serve as an early warning that the air was toxic. Canaries, being sensitive to methane and carbon dioxide, would die and serve as a warning to miners to evacuate the mine.
Like the canary in the coal mine, scientists use human milk as an indicator of the toxins in our environment. And like the caged canary, who has no idea that it may be giving its life to save some miners, women have no idea that the gift of human milk can be a usurious situation. What is created is a media frenzy of toxic breast milk headlines and media questions about the value of breastfeeding. Recently Forbes had an article entitled, "How Toxic Is Your Breastmilk?" (8/21/15) It was written in response to a study published in Environmental Science & Technology entitled, "Breastfeeding as an Exposure Pathway for Perfluorinated Alkylates," by Morgensen et al. (being cited to the corresponding author Philippe Grandjean)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02237
But it was not just Forbes that responded to this research paper with dramatic headlines and questionable assumptions. An internet website called Science had these headlines, "Breast-Fed Babies Show Buildup of Potentially Harmful Chemical,' or from the website apextribune, "Prolonged Breastfeeding Exposes Babies To Health Risks."
Did this recent study on Perfluorinated Alkylates (synthetic chemicals that are found in products such as Scotchgard, Teflon, food packaging, stain-resistant textiles, couches, carpets, fire fighting foams--some of these chemicals are being phased out of production) prove how toxic breast milk was or that prolonged breastfeeding exposes babies to health risks? No. This is a study that "calculated" the infant's prenatal serum PFAS (Perfluorinated alkylates) based on the mother's serum PFAS at 32 weeks of pregnancy. No measurements of breast milk were taken. Let me repeat this--no measurements of breast milk for PFAS were taken. Serum levels of the children were taken at 11 months and 18 months and 60 months. Exclusive breastfeeding and partial breastfeeding were not defined in this study and was based on mother's recall when their infants were 60 months old. What one person or organization means by exclusive breastfeeding may not be the same as another person or organization. There is a need for researchers who do studies on human milk and/or breastfeeding to declare what definitions they are using. Some definitions of exclusive breastfeeding can mean that the mother was also giving her infant water. Some definitions of exclusive breastfeeding mean no vitamins or medications. If an "exclusively breastfed" infant is also getting water (water being one of the ways humans ingest contaminates), then how do we know it is only human milk that is contaminating the infant with a toxic substance? Likewise if infants are being given vitamins derived from marine oils (known to be heavily contaminated with toxins), how do we factor out the contamination from the vitamins vs. human milk?
No serum levels of PFAS were taken of infants when they were "exclusively" breastfeeding. And again no human milk samples were taken to show levels of PFAS. Serum levels of infants were first taken at 11 months of age. How are humans exposed to PFAS? Exposure is through water, food, dust (important to consider regarding infants who crawl on the floor and do alot of hand to mouth exploring), carpeting and stain resistant clothing. Most infants, are given solid foods on average between 4-6 months of age. How did this study factor out exposures from other sources than human milk during those 11 months for the exclusively breastfed infant? One might compare the exclusively breastfed infant and partially breastfeed infant with the formula fed infant.
But strangely enough this study had only one formula fed infant. One. Yes one formula fed infant, Interestingly, this one formula fed infant had the lowest concentrations of PFAS. Was this infant being fed powdered, ready-to fed or concentrated infant formula? No information. Looking at the data in graph form it appears that the one infant formula fed infant had a mother that had lower serum PFAS concentrations in her pregnancy than most of the other mothers. The mother with the worst PFAS levels was the mother who "exclusively" breastfed for 6 months and partially breastfed for the following 5 months. The graph shown was for 12 children out of the 81 children tested. The 81 children were selected from a previous study of 656 children. How were the 81 children selected?
The authors do say that, "While human milk is unlikely to be the sole source of exposure, a PFAS transfer of 1 microgram/kg during 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding would support the notion that human milk could be the dominant exposure source for infants." The authors did not measure human mik but are relying on the Bavarian Monitoring of Breast Milk study done in Chemosphere 2013 for this particular data. I could only obtain the abstract which states,"For PFC the intake is clearly below the tolerable daily intake.." and "breastfeeding is still highly recommended."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565351300845X
I find it interesting that the authors cite the data of another study; yet appear to come to a different conclusion than the authors of the cited study. I have many questions regarding this particular study by Morgensen et al. I find myself annoyed that scientists would rather study human milk for toxins than study and compare infant formula. I remember some years ago looking at the dioxin studies on breast milk and they compared it against either one or two samples of cow's milk or two or three samples of infant formula. It seems standard practice to not make such comparisons or to use very small selected samples of infant formula.
One would believe by these studies that infant formula is devoid of chemical contaminates and human milk is chock full of them.
Shouldn't we be asking why infant formula samples are so difficult to obtain by researchers? Could it be because human milk samples are often freely obtained by researchers while infant formula is a costly product? Could it be because the infant formula and dairy industry have enormous funds and power within our institutions to keep such research from happening or to keep researchers from asking the right questions?
One of the biggest companies in the US who has been in trouble over its contamination of PFAS into the environment is Dupont. Huffingtonpost just did an article on Dupont and its dumping of PFAS in W. Virginia and Ohio (the PFAS got into the water supplies of a number of cities). Its a long article but worth reading for understanding the contamination problem and health issues of PFAS.
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/
DuPont is a stakeholder in the infant formula industry. DuPont Nutrition and Health acquired Danisco in 2011. DuPont Danisco pediatric nutrition ingredients (prebiotics and probiotics) are used in baby formulas.
http://www.dupont.com/products-and-services/food-ingredients/brands/danisco-food-ingredients/sub-brands/danisco-pediatric-nutrition.html
There is a journalism award called the Dupont-Columbia award.
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/blog/2015-dupont-award-winners
How influential are such awards to journalists who write about environmental issues? How influential are corporations in creating media campaigns that scapegoat breastfeeding? Is this part of the reason journalists/media seem fixed upon the topic of toxins in breast milk but believe for some strange reason that infant formula is pure, toxin-free?
No I do not believe that human milk is some sterile, uncontaminated substance. Human milk has been called white blood. Like blood, human milk can give us a picture of the chemicals we encounter in our environment. But it does not give us a total picture of how those chemicals react within our bodies. Why do some people get cancer in a chemically contaminated area and others do not? It seems to me that it would depend on how well a person's immune system functions. The current body of evidence is that exclusive breastfeeding builds a highly functioning immune system. An immune system that the infant formula industry is desperately trying to imitate through the use of synthetic chemicals. Why should we believe research that only looks at human milk as the indicator of toxic contamination? When we start getting articles on toxic blood or toxic semen, then I might take these one-sided studies and media hysteria more seriously.
Copyright 2015 Valerie W. McClain
"We won't have a society if we destroy the environment."--Margaret Mead
"A spiritual voice is urgently needed to underline the fact that global warming is already causing human anguish and mortality in our nation and abroad and much more will occur in the future without rapid action."
--Bill McKibben
"To cherish what remains of the Earth and to foster its renewal is our only legitimate hope of survival."--Wendell Berry
Resilence, according to a dictionary is the ability to recover from or adjust easily to change. Breastfeeding is resilence. The survival of infants has depended upon exclusive breastfeeding for thousands of years. We are mammals and the mammary gland is how we as a species have survived. With the influence and rise of the infant formula industry, breastfeeding has come close to extinction. And now the Earth appears to be facing the threat of extinction because of mankind's unwillingness to protect the environment.
We are seeing more and more extreme weather conditions that threaten not only our lives but our way of living. What do we do when the power goes out for a few days? or a few months? What do we do when a massive tornado or hurricane destroys our communities? What do we do when our grocery store has no food to eat or bottled water to drink? How do we survive the extreme heat or extreme cold during extreme weather events? Is climate change happening?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I imagine most of us don't want to think about the possibility of having to live through a natural disaster or more natural disasters. In Florida, living along the coast, we think about disasters during hurricane season (June-December). I remember well the back-to-back hurricanes we had one year. I lost power to my house for 9 days in August. Florida in August is very hot and humid. Many people had their homes damaged, some severely. We had blue tarped roofs everywhere because of the damage of high winds and rain.
How does a mother bottlefeed her baby when there is no power for days, and running down to the store is not an option? What happens when roads are impassable and gasoline stations are closed? What happens when water and sewer systems break? A mother who is exclusively breastfeeding does not have to worry about how she will feed her baby. She has the milk right there, correct temperature, no bottles or nipples/teats to worry about cleaning or disposing of into the environment.
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/dangers-of-plastic
Breastfeeding is not wasteful of resources. There are no cans to dispose of, no plastic bottles or nipples to fill landfills. No leftover milk to dump into city sewers. Electricity is not needed. Breastfeeding is an elegant system of environmental balance. There would be no need for more and more dairy farms, if more women exclusively breastfed their babies. Dairy farms are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/2542/carbon-footprints-of-dairy-farming-systems/
In June of this year the Encyclical Laudato Si' (On Care for Our Common Home) written by Pope Francis was published. It reflects the concern regarding climate change and the need for communities to reduce the destruction of the environment. It is a powerful document that it is very well-written and one does not have to be Catholic to appreciate the depth and astuteness of the Pope's Encyclical on climate change.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
In November of this year the United Nations Climate Change Conference will be held in Paris, France. There are hopes that this Conference will create a binding agreement on climate change among all nations. It is time to reflect on how "the breastfeeding mother contributes to the health of her baby and to the health of our planet." IBFAN has created a pamphlet on "Climate Change and Health." There are many pictures in this pamphlet from the Philippines and how their breastfeeding organizations utilize their mobile breastfeeding tents to support and encourage breastfeeding during disasters. There are solutions to climate change and one solution is to breastfeed. This solution needs our support and encouragement.
http://ibfan.org/docs/climate-change-24062015.pdf
A Happy World Breastfeeding Week to all!
Copyright 2015 Valerie W. McClain
"On a macroscale, human milk is a national resource. Its loss is not only an economic burden for poorer families, but it is a waste of existing high protein baby food, time tested over millenia, and has to be replaced by other protein rich foods, usually based on cow's milk. In the developing countries this has been calculated to represent a waste of millions of dollars annually. Similar, but lesser, losses are occurring in poverty areas of industrialized countries, including the United States."
--Dr. Derrick Jelliffe's testimony to the Senate Subcommittee June 5, 1973
Forty-two years later and in the "aftermath" of a major economic recession, we still are wasting this national resource. The resource is breastfeeding. Human milk feeding carries a bigger economic and environmental cost. Food prices are skyrocketing in the USA, and food insecurity is increasing. Food insecurity is defined by the USDA as, "a measure of lack of access at times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members."
Feeding America (nation's largest hunger relief organization) has been documenting food insecurity in the USA for the past 5 years. Their stats on food insecurity among children is that the largest estimated population of food-insecure children is in Los Angeles County--nearly 600,000 children, 1 in4 live at risk of hunger. In New York City there is estimated to be more than 400,000 children at risk. Wealthy counties are not exempt from child food-insecurity. One of the wealthiest counties in the USA-Loudoun, Virginia has 10,000 food insecure children.
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/map-the-meal-gap/2013/map-the-meal-gap-2013-exec-summ.pdf
Florida is one of the top 10 states for child food insecurity (ranked #8) with 1,071,760 children considered food insecure. Congressional District 5 in Florida (one of the most gerrymandered districts in the country, and runs from Jacksonville in the North to Orlando in the center of the state) has one of the highest Congressional District rates of food insecure children with 58,270 children considered food insecure. It appears from maps that in general that the Southern states have the highest rates of child food insecurity. And in general the South has the lowest rates of breastfeeding initiation and duration in comparison to the rest of the country.
According to the US Conference of Mayors 2014 Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness, in a 2013 survey, 62% of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest federal food and nutrition assistance programs(SNAP, National School Lunch Program, and WIC). Which means that 38% of food-insecure households had only food banks or friends or family to help them. They estimated for the year 2013 that, "3.8 million households were unable to consistently provide adequate, nutritious food for their children."
One of the ways in which food insecure households cope with making ends meet is the purchase of inexpensive, unhealthy foods, getting assistance from friends or family, eating food past expiration dates, watering down food or drinks, selling or pawning personal property, and growing a garden. Food insecure families often have to choose between food or paying utilities, food or transportation, food or medicine/medical care, food or housing, food or higher education.
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/From-Paycheck-to-Pantry-Oxfam-FeedingAmerica.pdf
It appears that many food banks provide infant formula for families who are food insecure. And while it is important to provide infant formula for infants whose mothers can't breastfeed or don't want to breastfeed, it is not the solution to food insecurity. It is a temporary fix. Infant formula in areas of poverty creates more food insecurity. Will the food banks provide for all the infant formula a baby needs? Or will a mother be struggling every week to find enough infant formula for her baby? Even the WIC Program provides a limited amount of infant formula and mothers who need more than the prescribed allotment must pay out-of-pocket for babies that need more than is provided.
How often will infant formula feeding moms in difficult economic circumstances give their infants regular cow's milk or soy milks (since infant formula is so much more expensive than cow or soy milks)? How often will mothers water down infant formula which can cause water intoxication which can lead to death?
How do food banks regulate the distribution of infant formula? Is it handed out to whoever asks for it? Is this situation monitored so that moms who might be interested in relactation get the help they need? Are pregnant moms that show up to food pantries given breastfeeding literature and numbers of where to get breastfeeding help? I don't know what is done but many food banks state that they provide infant formula. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to provide breastfeeding information?
Over the years I have read in the newspapers about mothers whose infants died or were hospitalized for malnutrition from starvation (some of those moms were charged with murder). In some of the cases the mother was watering down the infant formula (recently a mother was watering down her breast milk). In some of the cases the mother was giving the baby whole cow's milk. Seeing a failure to thrive infant is horrifying. But should the blame for these deaths be placed on mothers? It appears to me that our society has no clue about the importance of breastfeeding. Nor do they understand how to protect breastfeeding or how breastfeeding works. Nor does society in general, even recognize the risks of infant formula for food-insecure families.
The recommendation by the CDC is that newborn and young infants receive liquid infant formula that is sterile rather than powdered infant formula. The reason being the risk of bacterial infection-Cronobacter sakazakii.
The cost of ready-to-feed infant formula on the internet ranged from US $7.28/qt to $7.49/qt. There are 32 oz to a quart. In general the amount of infant formula per day for an infant can be calculated by infant's weight times 2 to 2 1/2 ounces. An 8 pound baby would use the quart of infant formula in approximately 1 1/2 to 2 days. So about $22-$24/week. And as the baby gains weight more and more formula is needed until the addition of solid foods.
An exclusively breastfeeding mother would only need an extra 300-500 calories (1 peanut butter sandwich is approximately 350 calories) per day of food to sustain breastfeeding. Thus the cost of feeding the formula fed infant versus the exclusively breastfed infant is dramatically different. And when you add in that exclusive breastfeeding creates a healthy immune system and that the antibody production creates a milk that protects against pathogens in the environment: bacterium, viruses, parasites and fungi. And breastmilk contains stem cells that encourage growth and repair of all cells. Thus, the exclusively breastfeeding infant is healthier than the formula fed infant, meaning health care costs are lower.
Nature has a system that protects infants and has protected infants for thousands of years. Society must endeavor to protect breastfeeding and particularly when it involves families who face food insecurity.
Copyright 2015 Valerie W. McClain
