Subscribe: One small step for breastfeeding.....
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
article  babies  baby  breastfeeding  feeding  formula  health  infant formula  infant  infants  milk  mother  report  women 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: One small step for breastfeeding.....

One small step for breastfeeding.....

Updated: 2018-03-11T00:47:47.901-08:00


Dr. Mercola Angers Fans by Promoting Infant Formula


By Lisa RussellPublished Oct 18, 2010 0diggsdigg Share Article Print Article Dr Mercola's natural-minded fan base is angry about his decision to market an artificial breastmilk product. His ethics are called into question. Dr Joseph Mercola's Facebook Fan Page was buzzing with activity early on the morning of Monday, October 18, 2010. Some of his "fans," which (at 8am PST) number over 128,000, are angry with his decision to market a breastmilk substitute for infants.The controversy has inspired women to speak out against his lack-of-a-position regarding male genital mutilation (routine infant circumcision) as well.One former Mercola fan sums up the consensus of the objectors:I have been a very vocal supporter of yours for YEARS. However, as a prominent lactivist & child health advocate with a large network here on Facebook, and having read this morning about your upcoming powdered infant formula to hit the market in a year's time, you should know that I will now be pulling my support for you entirely. That, coupled with your wishy-washy stance on infant genital cutting, makes it clear to all (or it should), that infant health is clearly NOT your concern; getting the lion's share of the formula market, however, is. If you truly cared about infant health, you'd inject some of your burgeoning fortune into *breastfeeding support* in your country, instead of adding to the detriment that ALL breastmilk substitutes have on infants who consume them. Disappointed beyond words in Montréal, -Emma KwasnicaDr Mercola's site has been publishing articles to educate his readers about the dangerous levels of Manganese in soy-based infant formula. In his article "Warning: Please Avoid Feeding This To Your Child" (10-18-10) he states thatchildren exposed to high concentrations of manganese in drinking water performed worse on tests of intellectual functioning than children with lower exposures.and later, that:Studies on miners and steelworkers, for example, have shown that excessive exposure to manganese can cause manganese poisoning, Parkinson's disease, and Wilson's diseaseMercola points out that manganese exists in groundwater, and points out that some areas are now filtering manganese out of their water.In third world countries, and areas where water contamination is likely, powdered infant formula can be deadly for babies. Polluted water, fed to infants, often results in deadly infections. The World Health organization works very hard to educate women in third world countries about the benefits of breastfeeding.Mercola's article states that his company is "in the process of producing the finest infant formula on the market" Those 12 words were the impetus of outrage. Nakai Rupp, a former fan of Dr Mercola, questions his stance on male genital mutilation as well, stating:I pulled my support of you earlier this year when I found out that you delete questions about circumcision from your page and you do not answer them. Which makes one think that you are possibly FOR infant genital mutilation. And now you are developing formula?! WOW! What a disgrace! If you can line your pockets at the expense of a baby's health, you do not deserve MY support. I will be spreading the word about you, so that others may see what you are truly about!! I am once again removing myself from ALL of your mailing lists.Unable to find a specific statement regarding his stance on circumcision, an article from April of 2000 states that Mercola was "impressed with the evidence supporting circumcision" while another article on the site, written by Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, PhD, listed circumcision as an event that can "Leave Behind an Unresolved Psycho-Emotional Conflict" which, if left unresolved, can create a significant bioelectrical disturbance in conflict-specific areas of the brain. The abnormal signals produce abnormal neuropeptides and abnormal electrical currents that reach the hypothalamus. From here, the signals travel in the autonomic nervous system to distinct target organs, which are - again - conflict specific"In other articles on the site, Mercola's [...]

Joyfully Kissing her beautiful baby boy: The girl branded too stupid to be a mother

2010-10-18T07:07:45.719-07:00 kissing her beautiful baby boy - the girl branded too stupid to be a wife or a motherBy Alison Smith Squire Laughing in the autumn sunshine, a baby boy takes his first wobbly steps along a sandy beach. His delighted and attentive mother offers a safe pair of arms as his proud father captures the moment with his camera. It is a touching scene that any parent would recognise. But it is particularly precious for Kerry Robertson and her new husband Mark McDougall. Kerry, you may remember, is the slender brunette whose wedding was dramatically halted a year ago by Fife social services because they judged her too ‘stupid’ to understand the vows. Four months later, the social services struck again. As Kerry breast-fed her three-day-old son Ben, council officials who feared she lacked the intelligence to be a good mother came into the maternity ward and took the child into care. Already banned from marrying, Kerry, 18, and Mark, 26, were forced to leave the hospital without their newborn son. Today, however, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that they have been reunited with their little boy and are now both living with him for the first time since he was born. The authorities in Ireland, where they fled before the birth in the hope that they could keep their baby, have agreed that Ben can indeed stay with his parents. This is not their only piece of happy news. Earlier this month, Mark and Kerry finally married in a tender ceremony at a hotel in County Waterford, defying those who said their relationship could never last. ‘All I ever wanted was to be married to Mark and to live a normal life with our son,’ said Kerry yesterday. ‘Now I just feel so contented and happy to be a proper family at last. I love being with Ben and being his mum. I have cried a lot over the past year but it’s only brought Mark and me closer.’ The couple’s resilience and the resourcefulness they have shown in fighting for the right to bring up their son together seems to make a mockery of the view that Kerry was too weak-minded to be a wife and mother. Some would say it is difficult to see why Fife social services came to that conclusion in the first place. Kerry’s friends accept that she was in the remedial class of her local state school, but point out that her educational difficulties were caused, in part, because she missed a lot of school time through treatment for a cleft palate. They say she is chatty – indeed her new husband describes her as ‘bossy’ – and claim the root of the problem was that she found Scottish social workers so patronising that she refused to co-operate with them, often meeting their questions with silence. Only in Ireland, where the professionals seemed more understanding, did she open up and talk about her situation, say her friends. When the couple’s plight first came to public attention last year, there was a huge outcry at what seemed to be a monstrous abuse of power. Social workers had descended upon Kerry and Mark just 48 hours before they were due to get married, telling them their wedding would be unlawful. In a highly unusual step, Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife council wrote a letter of objection. The removal of their child a few months was even more heart-wrenching and sparked a major campaign of protest on the internet. Mark says he is still struggling to come to terms with the ‘nightmare’ they were put through. A gentle, mild-mannered young man, he says quietly: ‘I will never forget the day we were forced to hand Ben over. Kerry had just finished breast-feeding and both of us were in pieces. We were totally helpless to do anything about it. ‘To say we have been on a rollercoaster over the past year would be an understatement. It has been traumatic. And although now we are married and have Ben with us at last, I can’t help but feel bitter that we have had to go through all this.’ Ma[...]

Kerry and Ben Reunited!






Ten Things You May Not Know About Baby Formula

2010-09-23T11:07:27.610-07:00 use of baby formula as the primary method of infant feeding has exploded in popularity over the past few decades. Formula has become increasingly healthier in recent years with the addition of chemicals like DHA and lutein, both of which are naturally found in human milk. In spite of these advancements, there is some information that the manufacturers aren't advertising. Take a look at these ten little-known facts about infant formula.1. The linings of formula cans contain bisphenol-A, or BPA, a plastics chemical which mimics the female hormone estrogen. Exposure to BPA can potentially cause reproductive problems and early puberty. Experts are concerned that the chemical may leach into the formula and be ingested by infants, who are far more vulnerable to adverse effects from contaminants than adults. Liquid and ready-to-feed formulas are more susceptible to this leaching than powdered formulas. The FDA reports that they are currently accepting applications for alternative substances with which to line formula cans; however, they do not recommend changing a child's feeding habits based solely on this concern.2. Feeding an infant formula can increase the child's risk of developing food allergies and inflammatory bowel disease, a disease which encompasses the chronic conditions ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, according to new research performed by nutritionist Sharon Donovan at the University of Illinois. The study also shows an increased risk for asthma in formula-fed infants. These conditions result from the formula's inability to activate the appropriate immune system genes within the digestive tract. Without the activation of these genes, a child's digestive system is left vulnerable to a lifetime of adverse effects.3. It is impossible to produce sterile powdered infant formula. According to the World Health Organization, current technology does not allow for powdered formula to be manufactured in such a way that it is sterile, even when it is produced within current hygienic guidelines.4. Baby formula may be contaminated with the harmful bacteria enterobacter sakazakii and salmonella enterica. Since powdered formula cannot be manufactured to be sterile, these bacteria can be present and cause severe illness in children. The WHO reports that, although these organisms cannot thrive in dry formula, they can survive in it for up to and possibly exceeding one year. Once the formula is mixed, it provides an ideal habitat for the growth of these illness-causing bacteria. In rare cases, infection with these pathogens can even cause a child's death.5. Formula feeding increases a child's risk of childhood obesity and of developing diabetes. A White House study, released by first lady Michelle Obama in May 2010, explains that babies who are formula-fed are 22 percent more likely to be obese. Formula derived from cow's milk contains about twice as much protein as human milk. This excess protein results in excess insulin production and prolonged insulin response. Even well into childhood, children who were formula-fed as infants show low levels of the hormon leptin, which is known to "inhibit appetite and control body fatness."6. Soy-based formulas contain plant estrogens which can cause a variety of reproductive issues. Soy formulas are an alternative for children with cow's milk allergies and for vegan families. While studies have shown that obesity and diabetes risks are lower for children who consume soy-based formulas, they are not without their own set of dangers. A study published by The Society for the Study of Reproduction in March 2010 found that newborn mice who were fed a formula containing the soy plant estrogen genistein once daily developed various reproductive problems, as well as abnormalities of the thymus gland. The study mimicked the level of genistein that would be found in a human infant who was[...]

Similac Recall: Beetles Concern Prompts Infant Formula To Be Recalled


WASHINGTON — Drugmaker Abbott Laboratories said Wednesday it is recalling millions of containers of its best-selling Similac infant formula that may be contaminated with insect parts.

The voluntary action affects up to 5 million Similac-brand powder formulas sold in the U.S., Puerto Rico, Guam and some Caribbean countries. The company said the products may contain a small beetle or larvae, which could cause stomach ache and digestion problems.

The recall does not affect any liquid formulas or other Abbott-brand products.

A company spokeswoman said Abbott uncovered the insects last week in one section of a manufacturing plant in Sturgis, Michigan.

"We immediately shut down that one area and began an investigation," said Abbott's Melissa Brotz. "We're in the process of resolving it now." Abbott manufactures Similac at several U.S. sites.

Brotz said the company has been consulting with the Food and Drug Administration, which determined there was no "immediate health risk" from the contamination.

Consumers can enter the lot number on their containers online to determine if they are subject to the recall. The products should be returned to Abbott for a full refund.

"Delivering anything less than the highest quality infant formula is unacceptable to us," said Brotz. "We will do whatever is necessary to maintain the trust of parents in the coming weeks."

The affected products were sold in plastic containers and various can sizes, including 8-ounce (227-gram), 12.4-ounce (352-gram) and 12.9-ounce (366-gram).

Babywearing and Breastfeeding Triplets!



My wonderful friend Nicole, mother of NINE children, including triplets, whom she is breastfeeding.

You can read Nicole's blog here:




Report Finds that Using Formula Doubles the Death Rate for U.S. Infants


Report Finds that Using Formula Doubles the Death Rate for U.S. Infants
[Press Release]
© 2004 Midwifery Today, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Editor's note: This article first appeared in Midwifery Today Issue 69, Spring 2004.]

The December issue of Natural Family Online magazine ( features a new analysis which finds that formula feeding doubles infant death rates for babies in the United States. Health educator and author Dr. Linda Folden Palmer's report, based on several decades of research from the U.S. and across the world, reveals that the use of infant formula costs the lives of an estimated 9,335 U.S. babies each year.

According to the report, formula feeding costs U.S. babies more than four additional lives per thousand. The final relative risk for formula feeding comes to double the risk of death for U.S. infants who are fed with formula, compared with babies who are fed naturally.

Based on the current U.S. infant death rate of 6.7 and an average breastfeeding rate of 50 percent, the report shows that the U.S. infant mortality rate would climb to 9.4 if all infants were formula-fed and would drop to 4.7 if all were breastfed.

"Infant formula was designed to be a medical nutritional tool for babies who are unable to breastfeed," Palmer said. "Formula does not fully meet the nutritional and immunity needs of infants. It leaves their immune systems flailing."

The report's conclusions are derived from an examination of the available scientific research on infant mortality in the U.S. and across the world. Research included in Palmer's report includes studies showing artificial feeding's impact on overall infant death rates in developing and undeveloped countries; studies providing comparative illness occurrence rates for many illnesses and disorders in the U.S. and other industrialized nations; and reports examining superior survival rates and decreased illness rates among breastfed infants. The report assembles these statistics to build a firm picture of the ratio of infant deaths for U.S. formula-fed babies against those who are breastfed.

The report cites results from numerous studies illustrating the negative impact of formula feeding on the health and survival of infants with various illnesses and health problems, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS); heart, circulatory and respiratory failure; diarrhea; respiratory illnesses; cancer; and low birth-weight and preterm babies.

Illness and death rates of breastfed babies who receive formula supplementation are much closer to those of fully formula-fed babies, Palmer's report notes. Numerous studies referenced in the report reveal conclusively that the longer breastfeeding lasts, the greater the measurable difference in illness and death rates.

Available evidence strongly contradicts commonly made assertions that formula feeding does not risk lives in industrialized nations where education and medical advances prevent increased deaths, Palmer said.

"Some insist that the blame for the United States' relatively high infant death rate lies with underprivileged communities," Palmer said. "But after examining the available research, we see that elevated death rates among U.S. blacks cannot be attributed to poverty. Hispanic Americans rank similarly to African American populations for socioeconomic factors, but they match non-Hispanic whites in their lower infant mortality rates. The difference is not socioeconomic; the difference is in rates of formula use versus breastfeeding."

For both condensed and full, referenced versions of Dr. Palmer's report, visit

Sugar for Newborns Does Not Relieve Pain



Sugar for newborns does not relieve pain: study
Buzz up!0 votes Share
EmailPrint.. AFP/File – A nurse attending to newborn infants in a maternity ward of a hospital. Contrary to international guidelines, … .– Wed Sep 1, 7:04 pm ET
PARIS (AFP) – Contrary to international guidelines, sugar given to newborn babies does not ease pain, according to a study published on Thursday by The Lancet.

In 2001, doctors published recommendations, based on a series of trials, that oral sucrose be administered to newborns to help relieve pain from invasive procedures.

But a new look suggests that sucrose does not reduce pain signals in the brain or spinal cord, but merely changes the babies' facial expression, which gives a false impression that pain is being relieved.

Rebeccah Slater of University College London and colleagues pricked the heels of 59 newborns with a small blade -- a procedure that was required anyway to draw a blood sample -- and monitored pain activity in the brain and spine using electrode caps.

The infants were assigned either sterile water or a sucrose solution, placed on the tongue by a tiny syringe.

Pain activity did not differ significantly between the two groups.

"The absence of evidence for an analgesic action of sucrose in this study, together with uncertainty over the long-term benefits of repeated sucrose administration, suggest that sucrose should not be used routinely for procedural pain in infants without further investigation," Slater's team said.

Low Milk Supply


Check out this blog!

Early Weaning Linked to Chronic Disease


Early weaning linked to chronic disease
Updated Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:31am AEST

The universal health recommendation is around six months of exclusive breast feeding (AFP: Romeo Gacad)
New research has linked the nation's chronic disease burden with the absence of breastfeeding.

Thirty per cent of people aged between 35 and 40 were not breastfed as babies.

The Australian National University research assessed the outcomes of dozens of existing studies, with the aim of explaining what factors trigger chronic diseases such as diabetes, digestive diseases and heart problems.

Researcher Dr Julie Smith says she found adults who were prematurely weaned as infants are more likely to suffer in the long term, compared to those who were breastfed.

"The risk associated with lack of breastfeeding in infancy was 30 per higher for many conditions compared to breastfed infants," she said.

Dr Smith says mothers need more support in hospital and the community.

She is challenging federal, state and territory governments to do more to ensure breastfeeding is a realistic choice for mothers.

"The universal health recommendation is around six months of exclusive breast feeding," she said.

"With only half of women in Australia even making six months of breastfeeding, we have got a considerable way to go to make it possible for many women. Sometimes that is about parental leave."

Moms Who Breastfeed Less Likely to Develop Heart Attacks or Strokes


PITTSBURGH, April 21 – The longer women breastfeed, the lower their risk of heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular disease, report University of Pittsburgh researchers in a study published in the May issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Heart disease is the leading cause of death for women, so it’s vitally important for us to know what we can do to protect ourselves,” said Eleanor Bimla Schwarz, M.D., M.S., assistant professor of medicine, epidemiology, and obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. “We have known for years that breastfeeding is important for babies’ health; we now know that it is important for mothers’ health as well.”

According to the study, postmenopausal women who breastfed for at least one month had lower rates of diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, all known to cause heart disease. Women who had breastfed their babies for more than a year were 10 percent less likely to have had a heart attack, stroke, or developed heart disease than women who had never breastfed.

Dr. Schwarz and colleagues found that the benefits from breastfeeding were long-term ? an average of 35 years had passed since women enrolled in the study had last breastfed an infant.

“The longer a mother nurses her baby, the better for both of them,” Dr. Schwarz pointed out. “Our study provides another good reason for workplace policies to encourage women to breastfeed their infants.”

The findings are based on 139,681 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative study of chronic disease, initiated in 1994

Stressed out: Studies show babies become anxious if ignored for even two minutes by mother


Stressed out: Studies show babies become anxious if ignored for even two minutes by mother
By Fiona Macrae

Stressed: Babies deprived of attention become worried and anxious, says new Canadian research

They may have barely mastered sitting up by themselves.

But six-month-old babies become stressed out when they don't get the attention they feel they deserve.

Levels of the stress hormone cortisol soar when they are ignored by their mother, and even a day later they are worried about the same thing happening again.

A baby who is deprived of its mother's love for just two minutes is anxious about being ignored again the next day, a study found.
Experts in child development said that repeated episodes of stress could have a huge effect on a youngster's health and on his or her course in life.

To investigate whether six-month-olds are capable of anticipating trouble, the Canadian researchers invited 30 mothers and babies into their laboratory and divided them into two groups.

Babies were placed in car seats and their mothers played with them and talked to them as normal.

The play was then interspersed with two-minute periods in which the mother simply stared over her child's head, keeping her face free of emotion.

The next day, she took her child back to the laboratory. Levels of cortisol were measured several times on both days. Amounts of cortisol shot up when the babies were ignored.

They then fell off, before rising again when the youngsters were taken back into the laboratory, despite them not being ignored on the second day.

A second group of babies went through the same process, but without being ignored at any time, and their hormone levels barely changed.

The findings suggest that being taken back into the laboratory led the youngsters who had been ignored to anticipate there being more trouble ahead, the journal Biology Letters reports.

Researcher Dr David Haley, of the University of Toronto, said: 'The results suggest that human infants have the capacity to produce an anticipatory stress response that is based on expectations about how their parents will treat them in a specific context.'

Professor Jay Belsky, of Birbeck College, University of London, said factors such as depression could affect a mother's relationship with her baby and send cortisol levels soaring time and time again.

This could lower a baby's immune system, while a troubled upbringing may also mean the child going on to become a less than perfect parent itself.

Read more:

Mother donated breastmilk to premature baby after her child died


Mother donated breastmilk to premature baby after her child diedAugust 24, 2010 By Alan Bavley KANSAS CITY, Mo.—As she was getting ready to leave the hospital last week with her baby, a tearful Jennifer Robinson knew how to measure generosity.All she had to do was turn and look at Nicole Hendrix, the woman who had helped the premature baby, Max, to thrive against the odds.Hendrix had donated her breast milk—gallons of it—to Max after his mother couldn’t make any more.It was a personal gift the hospital had never seen before.Hendrix had been saving frozen milk for her own preemie daughter, Lillian. Lilli, as she was called, died before she could get much more than a little of it.After multiple surgeries and four anxious months in intensive care, Max finally was healthy enough to leave Overland Park Regional Medical Center in Overland Park, Kan. He weighed in at a substantial 8 pounds, 13 ounces.Hendrix was there to see him off.“It makes me feel that something good can come out of something bad,” she said.Robinson said she was overwhelmed by Hendrix’s generosity.“With so much going on with their lives they would think of us,” the Olathe, Kan., woman said. “It was like they gave him an organ, something that could save his life.”Overland Park Regional neonatologist Kathleen Weatherstone said the donation played a role in keeping Max alive.Max was born on April 16, four months premature. Lillian was born March 4, also four months early.Both babies suffered from a condition called necrotizing enterocolitis, where blood circulation was cut off to portions of their bowel. It occurs most commonly among extremely premature infants.Breast milk is believed to be protective against necrotizing enterocolitis, Weatherstone said. And it’s the best-tolerated milk for infants recovering from the condition.Often it’s difficult, though, for mothers of preemies to give their babies milk. Either their body isn’t ready to produce milk or the stress of dealing with a critically ill child keeps the milk from flowing.At first, Robinson, 41, was able to provide Max with breast milk. She had breast-fed her two other children. But she soon began to run dry.“It was really frustrating,” Robinson said. “As a mom, breast milk was one of the only things I could give him to help him.”Robinson searched for breast milk banks that provide babies with milk from donor mothers. But insurance plans don’t always cover the charges. She calculated that it could cost thousands of dollars per month.That’s when Robinson and Hendrix’s stories began to intertwine.Every three hours every day—at home, at work, even at church—Hendrix had been faithfully pumping her breast milk and freezing it, anticipating the day when Lillian would need it.“The nurses every day said keep going,” Hendrix, 29, said. “It wasn’t fun, but I did it.”For 10 weeks, she saved her milk. So much milk that the Hendrixes had to buy a freezer to keep in the garage of their Kansas City home.But Lillian’s persistent medical problems gave her few opportunities to take any of her mother’s milk. Her condition became so serious she had to be transferred to the University of Kansas Hospital in Kansas City, Kan., where she died in May.After Lillian’s death, Hendrix went back to Overland Park Regional to pick up things left behind. She thought of the breast milk at home in the freezer.“It would have made me sick to throw it out,” she said.Hendrix asked a nurse in the intensive care unit if she could donate her milk. Word got back to the nurse that Robinson’s baby needed breast milk, and the nurse told Hendrix.“This was a no-brainer,” Hendrix said. “I feel I would[...]

Baby Renee Grows Up



Soy Formula Unsafe for Babies


Soy Formula Unsafe for Babies: Myths and Truths About SoyJuly 16, 2010By Augie Avoid Soy Prod­ucts– Espe­cially Baby FormulaUPDATE: Did you know that Health Depart­ments all over the nation are now pro­mot­ing raw milk. I have seen bill­boards about the ben­e­fits? The raw milk I am refer­ring to is human breast milk! When breast­feed­ing is not pos­si­ble, health care folks rec­om­mend formula–including soy for­mula. The Amer­i­can Den­tal Asso­ci­a­tion warns NOT to mix flu­o­ri­dated city water with dehy­drated for­mula mix due to the toxic effects of the flu­o­ride. But Ger­ber con­tin­ues to add flu­o­ride to bot­tled water for babies as par­ents erro­neously believe it pre­vents cav­i­ties. But when it comes to soy for­mu­las, I wanted to rerun this arti­cle tonight.– Augie____________I don’t know about you, but I like most Myths and Truths arti­cles. They are easy to read and sets things in con­trast to what we have been told. I just hope the attor­neys at the ADM cor­po­ra­tion does not sic their PR staff on me. I don’t think the nasty soy car­tel will appre­ci­ate this arti­cle, espe­cially the part that soy for­mula for babies is not safe.Oh. I almost for­got. Most soy beans are genet­i­cally mod­i­fied. (Arti­cle cour­tesy of The Weston A. Price Foun­da­tion– a fab­u­lous site on nutrition)Myths & Truths About SoyNOTE: These Myths & Truths as well as our sum­mary of soy dan­gers are pro­vided on our Soy Alert! tri­fold brochure (PDF). You may print this at home or at a copy store for mass dis­tri­b­u­tion. If you wish, you can order quan­ti­ties of pro­fes­sion­ally printed two-color tri­fold brochures for 25 cents each by using the Order Form.Myth: Use of soy as a food dates back many thou­sands of years.Truth: Soy was first used as a food dur­ing the late Chou dynasty (1134–246 BC), only after the Chi­nese learned to fer­ment soy beans to make foods like tem­peh, natto and tamari.Myth: Asians con­sume large amounts of soy foods.Truth: Aver­age con­sump­tion of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 tea­spoons) per day. Asians con­sume soy foods in small amounts as a condi­ment, and not as a replace­ment for ani­mal foods.Myth: Mod­ern soy foods con­fer the same health ben­e­fits as tra­di­tion­ally fer­mented soy foods.Truth: Most mod­ern soy foods are not fer­mented to neu­tral­ize tox­ins in soy­beans, and are processed in a way that dena­tures pro­teins and increases lev­els of carcinogens.Myth: Soy foods pro­vide com­plete protein.Truth: Like all legumes, soy beans are defi­cient in sulfur-containing amino acids methio­n­ine and cys­tine. In addi­tion, mod­ern pro­cess­ing dena­tures frag­ile lysine.Myth: Fer­mented soy foods can pro­vide vit­a­min B12 in veg­e­tar­ian diets.Truth: The com­pound that resem­bles vit­a­min B12 in soy can­not be used by the human body; in fact, soy foods cause the body to require more B12Myth: Soy for­mula is safe for infants.Truth: Soy foods con­tain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit pro­tein diges­tion and affect pan­cre­atic func­tion. In test ani­mals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pan­cre­atic dis­or­ders. Soy foods increase the body’s require­ment for vit­a­min D, needed for strong bones and nor­mal growth. Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavail­abilty of iron and zinc which are required for the health and devel­op­ment of the brain and ner­vous sys­tem. Soy also lacks cho­les­terol, like­wise essen­tial for the dev[...]

Brazil's new Breastfeeding Ad


Look closely, it may not be what is seems......




Breastfeeding is 'creepy' says parenting magazine


An article in Mother & Baby magazine that described breastfeeding as “creepy” has prompted a backlash among mothers and midwives on the internet. By Alastair JamiesonPublished: 10:43AM BST 27 Jun 2010 The Department of Health recommends breastfeeding Photo: In a candid discussion about the decision to use milk formula, deputy editor Kathryn Blundell said she bottle fed her children because "I wanted my body back. (And some wine) …” She added: “I also wanted to give my boobs at least a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach." The article – which appeared under the headline "I formula fed. So what?" – has reignited the often ferocious debate about the choice between breastfeeding or using powdered milk. It has already prompted a Facebook campaign supported by about 600 users of the social media site, and at least six complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. The Department of Health recommends that babies are fed only breast milk for the first six months of life but many women are unable to do so or opt for formula milk out of choice in the case of an outspoken pro-breastfeeding lobby. The article said: “The Milk Mafia can keep their guilt trips. Bullying other mums about something as special and nurturing as feeding their babies (and yes, bottle feeding can be lovely and intimate) is a depth that even Vicky Pollard wouldn’t sink to. “So, let’s hear it, ladies, for modern nutritional science, but most of all for our freedom of choice.” Describing her own feelings about using her breasts for feeding, the author wrote: "They're part of my sexuality, too – not just breasts, but fun bags. And when you have that attitude (and I admit I made no attempt to change it), seeing your teeny, tiny, innocent baby latching on where only a lover has been before feels, well, a little creepy.” The article did concede that " are all the studies that show [breastfeeding] reduces the risk of breast cancer for you, and stomach upsets and allergies for your baby.” Among those to complain through Facebook were bottle-feeding mothers who objected to the tone of the article, which pondered whether formula users “just couldn’t be fagged or felt like getting tipsy once in awhile”. On the Mumsnet website, the article was the subject of hundreds of comments. One contributor said: “People pay attention to these sorts of articles and if anyone who is having any wobbles about [breastfeeding] this may be the one article which steers them away from it, if they think that being seen to [breastfeeding] is in any way 'creepy'.” However, other contributors welcomed the article as “tongue-in-cheek” and for dealing with a “taboo” subject. Miranda Levy, the editor of the magazine, said the publication was “a constant and vocal supporter of breastfeeding” and that the article was reflected “personal experience” and had been praised by some bottle-feeding readers for making them “feel 'normal' and less of a 'failure' for not managing to breastfeed”. For the full article and comments, visit:[...]

Changes to Guidelines for Contraceptive Use Could Compromise a Woman's Ability to Breastfeed


New Rochelle, NY, June 24, 2010 - New birth control guidelines released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could undermine mothers who want to breastfeed by sanctioning the use of progesterone injections, progestin-only pills, as well as combined (progestin-estrogen) oral contraceptives within the first month after giving birth.“The new guidelines ignore basic facts about how breastfeeding works," says Dr. Gerald Calnen, President of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM). "Mothers start making milk due to the natural fall in progesterone after birth. An injection of artificial progesterone could completely derail this process.”The CDC report, “U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010,” released in the May 28 issue of Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), contains important changes in what constitutes acceptable contraceptive use by breastfeeding women. The criteria advise that by 1 month postpartum the benefits of progesterone contraception (in the form of progestin-only pills, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DPMA) injection, or implants), as well as the use of combined (progestin-estrogen) oral contraceptives outweigh the risk of reducing breastfeeding rates. Previously, progesterone birth control was not recommended for nursing mothers until at least 6 weeks after giving birth, and combined hormonal methods were not recommended before 6 months.Based on clinical experience, breastfeeding support providers report a negative impact on breastfeeding when contraceptive methods are introduced too early. One preliminary study demonstrated dramatically lower breastfeeding rates at 6 months among mothers who underwent early insertion of progesterone-containing IUDs, compared with breastfeeding rates of mothers who underwent insertion at 6-8 weeks postpartum.“The data are limited,” says Calnen, “but for now, the state of the science suggests that early progesterone exposure undermines breastfeeding.”Family planning specialists argue that early hormonal birth control is needed to reduce unplanned pregnancies. However, the most commonly used early contraceptive method, a DPMA injection, prevents pregnancy for only 12 weeks at a time. “There is no evidence that immediate postpartum injections delay the next pregnancy beyond the first 3 months,” says Calnen.Dr. Miriam Labbok, Director of the Carolina Global Breastfeeding Institute and an expert on the interface between breastfeeding and fertility, notes, “The mother should have the final decision on her birth control method, with full information. Unfortunately, these methods are often given to women with little counseling. Women deserve to know that there is a potential risk.”ABM wrote to CDC Director Thomas Frieden in January urging reconsideration of the guidelines. In his reply, Dr. Frieden described the new recommendations as “the best interpretation of the existing evidence.”Calnen is less confident. “Physicians and mothers should proceed with caution," he says. "There are plenty of birth control methods that are proven to be safe for breastfeeding. Early progesterone is not one of them.”The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is a global organization of physicians dedicated to the promotion, protection and support of breastfeeding and human lactation through education, research, and advocacy. An independent, self-sustaining, international physician organization and the only organization of its kind, ABM 's mission is to unite members of various medi[...]

Photos from a doctor's office



A series of Kijiji ads


First this one:

Similac Advance Formula

TWO cans of Similac Advance 365g

Breast is best and I won't sell it to you if you're pregnant. Regular formula users, only, please.
Pick up in North Edmonton or I can meet you somewhere central.

Then, this ad in response:

to the person selling formula but refuses sell to pregnant moms
Why won't you sell to pregnant women?? who gives you the right to judge a mother based on how they feed their child?? So what if a mother gives her baby formula, did you know that there are several factors as to why a mother CANNOT breastfeed? it ISN"T always a PERSONAL CHOICE! It's a shame that there are people like you out there, considering it's already the year 2010, not 1963! What about moms whose babies are born premature and sick and are spending weeks and months in the NICU?? I was one of those mothers.. in those cases, expressing breastmilk and giving it to babies EXCLUSIVELY doesn't always help them gain the weight they need to sustain on their own, in many cases, they supplement with formula. Before you judge, maybe try getting informed. I hope you DON"T sell your formula based on your assumptions and judgments. And I hope that people who read this decided against purchasing from you!

And thirdly, this ad in response to that response:

To the woman who is angry about discretionary sellers
I think you need reconsider who is judging who. I think the woman who is selling the formula has every right not to sell to a pregnant lady.
1. Kijiji is a forum for selling, not for your opinion
2. The seller has the right to choose who they sell to.
3. Exclusive breastfeeding is the default (read: only recommended!) food for all humans for the first 6 months of life (unless medical formula is needed and thus prescribed by a doctor) and should be continued until the age of 2 along with complimentary foods.
4. If you are pregnant and stocking up on formula, then you haven't tried to breastfeed. Each pregnancy is different and even if you weren't successful with the first baby, you may be successful with others.
5. not being able to breastfeed is actually a rarity. Consultation with a good lactation consultant and seeking breastfeeding support can resolve most issues. Formula will make most issues worse.
6. Babies that are premature and in the NICU need formula that is much different than the stuff you buy in the store.

Photos from the Halifax Family Expo


I aplogize for the blurry photos, I was trying to be discreet while taking them


Has now been changed to......The 9 commandments of dining with little kids


The 9 commandments of dining with little kids

by Heather W. at Better Homes and Gardens, on Wed May 19, 2010 1:34pm

Editor's Note: We sincerely apologize that this blog was posted! It was not vetted by our editors, and it reflects poor parenting advice and an offensive tone. We have removed the most patently inappropriate sections. We support breastfeeding moms -- and all moms -- in their desire to include their children in their public lives.

We pledge to do better in the future in both the tone and content of our posts. We will be posting our positive parenting tips for eating out soon. Send us yours at

--The editorial team at Better Homes and Gardens