PREVIOUS NEWS - 2010

US Breastfeeding Committee facilitates successful breastfeeding coalitions conference

The third National Conference of State/Territory/Tribal Breastfeeding Coalitions was held January 23-25, 2010 in Washington, DC. This approach to grassroots leadership education is the only event of its kind in the breastfeeding field.

The United States Breastfeeding Committee has taken the initiative of presenting a conference every two years designed to enhance the leadership capacity of the states in developing initiatives to promote breastfeeding. This approach to grassroots leadership education is the only event of its kind in the breastfeeding field. Both new and experienced state breastfeeding coalition leaders are drawn to this event because they know they will learn from the best experts of all—their peers—as well as from nationally recognized experts in the fields of communication. The NCSBC brings together coalition leaders from every U.S. state and territory—including representatives from relevant government departments, nongovernmental organizations, and health professional associations. The conference provides them with an opportunity to further their knowledge and hone skills necessary to more effectively build and manage coalitions within their states.

Handouts of session can be obtained from:
http://www.usbreastfeeding.org/Coalitions/NationalConference/2010Conference/
2010NCSBCPresentationHandouts/tabid/163/Default.aspx

###

“Surgeon General’s Vision for a Health and Fit Nation” contains breastfeeding recommendations

The new Surgeon General’s report on obesity contains multiple references to breastfeeding as a primary preventive strategy in reducing overweight and obesity.

The report is broken into sections which include breastfeeding as an important obesity prevention strategy. Exclusive breastfeeding for six months is identified as one of the healthy choices for obesity prevention. Breastfeeding is addressed in the child care, worksite, medical providers, and community support sections. “Hospitals, work sites, and communities should make it easy for mothers to initiate and sustain breastfeeding as this practice has been shown to prevent childhood obesity.” Breastfeeding advocates may wish to use this document as a resource when applying for obesity grant money to facilitate community breastfeeding improvement efforts. To read the entire report see:

###

Hospital data collection guidelines for new Joint Commission Perinatal Core Measure

New guidelines from the US Breastfeeding Committee have just been published to assist hospitals and maternity facilities in accurately collecting data needed to comply with the exclusive breast milk feeding requirement in the perinatal core measure set from the Joint Commission.

###

Formula companies sue each other

PBM Products, maker of store brand infant formula, was awarded $13.5 million in damages in a lawsuit filed against Mead Johnson for false and misleading advertising. Mead Johnson sent an ad to 1.6 million parents with a blurry picture of a toy duck next to a clear picture with the claim that use of any formula other than Mead Johnson’s Enfamil Lipil would result in blurred vision and suboptimal brain development. What the Federal Trade Commission won’t do is done by formula companies to each other.

See http://www.food-business-review.com/news/pbm_wins_false_advertisement_case_against_mead_johnson_091202 for more details.

###

Breastfeeding reduces the risk of maternal cardiovascular disease, stroke and heart attack

Researchers have found that mothers who do not breastfeed their infants experience an increased risk of vascular changes associated with future cardiovascular disease. In a study of 297 women, mothers who had never breastfed were five times more likely to have artery calcifications than were women who had breastfed. Read more…
In a study of nearly 300 women, researchers found that 32% of the women who had not breastfed had coronary artery calcification, compared with 17% of the breastfeeding moms. The researchers found calcifications in 39% of the aortas of women who hadn't breastfed, versus 17% of the women who had. They also found plaque deposits in the carotid artery of 18% of the women who had not breastfed and 10% of those who had.  After adjusting for variables such as socioeconomic status, family history, lifestyle factors, risk factors and body mass, researchers concluded that women who had never breastfed were five times more likely to have artery calcifications than were women who had breastfed. After adjustment for age, parity, and study site, significant protective relationships were seen between lactation and multiple markers of subclinical cardiovascular disease, including aortic calcification, coronary calcification, and adventitial diameter. However, after adjustment for other lifestyle and family history variables, a significant association was only seen between aortic and coronary calcification and consistent lactation for 3 months or more postpartum. Calcifications or plaque deposits can build up over time and restrict blood flow, cause stroke or heart attack. This study is consistent with a number of other pieces of research verifying that women who do not breastfeed are at greater risk of clinical cardiovascular disease.

Schwarz, EB, McClure CK, Tepper, PG, et al. Lactation and maternal measures of subclinical cardiovascular disease. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2010; 115:41-48.

###

Local governments urged to support breastfeeding

The Institute of Medicine’s Committee on Childhood Obesity Prevention Actions for Local Governments was convened to identify promising actions that local governments can take to curb obesity among children. The 2009 report Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity presents the committee’s menu of recommended action steps for local government officials to consider in their efforts to prevent childhood obesity in their community. Strategy number six is to encourage breastfeeding and promote breastfeeding-friendly communities.

In the United States, 16.3 percent of children and adolescents between the ages of two and 19 are obese. The prevalence of obesity is so high that it may reduce the life expectancy of today’s generation of children and diminish the overall quality of their lives. While parents and other adult caregivers play a fundamental role in teaching children about healthy behaviors, those positive efforts can be undermined by local environments that are poorly suited to supporting healthy behaviors—and may even promote unhealthy behaviors. Local governments can play a crucial role in creating environments that make it easier for children to eat healthy diets and move more.

The Institute of Medicine’s Committee on Childhood Obesity Prevention Actions for Local Governments was convened to identify promising actions that local governments can take to curb obesity among children. The committee sought action steps that are within the jurisdiction of local governments; likely to directly affect children; based on the experience of local governments or sources that work with local governments; take place outside of the school day; and have the potential to promote healthy eating and adequate physical activity. The 2009 report Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity presents the committee’s menu of recommended action steps for local government officials to consider in their efforts to prevent childhood obesity in their community. Strategy Number Six is ‘Breastfeeding,’ and specifically recommends the following action steps:

• Adopt practices in city and county hospitals that are consistent with the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative USA (United Nations Children’s Fund/World Health Organization). This initiative pro­motes, protects, and supports breastfeeding through ten steps to successful breastfeeding for hospitals.
• Permit breastfeeding in public places and rescind any laws or regulations that discourage or do not allow breastfeeding in public places and encourage the creation of lactation rooms in public places.
• Develop incentive programs to encourage government agencies to ensure breastfeeding-friendly worksites, including providing lactation rooms.
• Allocate funding to WIC clinics to acquire breast pumps to loan to participants.

The entire report can be downloaded at www.iom.edu/CMS/3788/59845/72798.aspx.

###

Nestle bribes bloggers to promote a more positive image

Aware of its poor image in many parenting circles, Nestlé went to the blogosphere to create a more positive image by inviting 20 top mommybloggers to attend a two-day all-expense-paid trip to California to meet with its U.S. CEO, a Nestlé chef, and a fitness expert. If that weren't enough, apparently they sent Omaha steaks to the husbands back home to keep them happy while their wives were away on this "Nestlé Family Blogger Event" junket.

Hoping to use the social media to whitewash its poor behavior, Nestlé’s damage control junket backfired when a storm was ignited on Twitter. Some women, aware of Nestlé's history, declined the trip. But many others accepted, including some breastfeeding advocates. And once the bloggers began posting on their blogs during the trip—and going on Twitter with the hashtag #nestlefamily for others to follow their tweets—the Twittersphere exploded in an hours-long heated debate, with some getting angry, some going on the defensive, and some oblivious to the larger issues. In the end, Nestlé may have created more bad press for itself than good. Hoping to convince 20 mommybloggers to say nice things about their products, they've inadvertently opened the floodgates for hundreds of bloggers and thousands of readers (unfamiliar with Nestlé's formula sales in the developing world or the Boycott Nestlé movement) to learn more about the company's unsavory marketing practices.

In trying to wine and dine the moms and feed steaks to the dads, they've drawn attention to the undisputable fact that by fostering an environment that promotes the use of infant formula, Nestlé is selling preventable illness and death to the millions of babies who could be breastfed but aren't because their mothers have been deceived by slick marketing and empty promises.

For a thorough look at the Nestlé Family event, the Twitter brouhaha, the reactions of some of the leading "responsible motherhood" bloggers—and an examination of the larger issues— there's a detailed recap from Best for Babes at http://www.bestforbabes.org/2009/10/nestle-twitter-firestorm-list-of-blogs-and-twitter-name/. The entire thread of this Twitter Firestorm can be traced through the following:

The blog www.phdinparenting.com has played a very significant role in educating moms on the internet about the WHO code, breastfeeding, and attachment parenting. The author of this blog started the Twitter Firestorm about Nestle inviting bloggers as reported by the Huffington Post, which breathed new life into the Nestle Boycott. See:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joellen-raderstorf/nestl-and-the-mommy-wars_b_312703.html. She also succeeded in persuading the BlogHer Ad Network to allow bloggers to opt-out of not only formula, but bottle advertisements so that these unwanted ads do not appear on blogs dedicated to supporting breastfeeding and the Code. See http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/10/02/blogher-listens-and-acts-check-out-my-who-international-code-compliant-ads/  

The original post on the Nestle issue is here: An open letter to the attendees of the Nestle Family Blogger Event.

Out of the event came an invitation to ask Nestle questions. She sent them 17 questions to follow up on statements they had made during the event and associated twitter storm. The questions, as well as links to all of the posts with their answers and an analysis of the answers, can be found here: Follow-up questions for Nestle. The posts analyzing their answers are as follows:

• Nestle Answers: Can a formula company support breastfeeding?
• Nestle Answers: Canada being a signatory to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes means nothing
• Nestle answers: Lobbying for weak laws? Nestle says no, evidence says yes
• Nestle Answers: The International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes and the Developing World
• Nestle Answers: Don’t mind the small print about breast being best
• Nestle Answers: Using health care professionals as intermediaries
• Nestle Answers: Auditing obscurity
• Nestle Answers: Introducing solids – maybe, kind of, sort of at 6 months
• Nestle Answers: Shifting Blame for Infant Deaths
• Nestle Answers: Help rejuvenate the boycott they wish ended 25 years ago
• Nestle Answers: Outsourcing Accountability in the Chocolate Industry
• Nestle Answers: Preservatives, Sodium and Stouffer’s
• Nestle Answers: How Nestle uses social media
  

In addition to the posts, there was also a guest blogger who wrote a post about Nestle's online breastfeeding advice:

• Helping Themselves: Breastfeeding Advice Nestle-Style

PREVIOUS NEWS - 2009

All infant formula contains fluoride at tooth-discoloring levels

All infant formulas, whether ready-to-feed, concentrated or organic, contain fluoride at levels which can discolor developing teeth, reports the October 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA). Researchers measured fluoride content of 49 infant formulas.
See: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/infantformulafluoride.htm

The research team concluded that, "Most infants from birth to age 12 months who consume predominantly powdered and liquid concentrate formula are likely to exceed the upper tolerable limit [of fluoride] if the formula is reconstituted with optimally fluoridated water (0.7 - 1.2 ppm)." All 6-month-olds and younger will also exceed the lower "adequate intake" (0.01 mg/day) from all formulas (concentrated or not) risking moderate dental fluorosis from formula, alone.

See http://tinyurl.com/AllFormulaContainsFluoride

###

Children who suck their fingers or use a pacifier for more than three years are three times more likely to develop speech impediments

Researchers from the United States and Chile studied 128 three- to five-year-olds. They compared the children's history of thumb and finger sucking, breastfeeding and use of pacifiers with evaluations of children's speech. They found that the use of bottles, pacifiers and other sucking behavior apart from breastfeeding could increase the risk of speech disorders in young children. The study appears in BMC Pediatrics which is an open access journal.

The entire study can be accessed at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2431-9-66.pdf

###

Breastfeeding cuts breast cancer in high risk women by 59 percent

The new study, published in The Archives of Internal Medicine, used information from 60,075 participants in the second Harvard Nurses’ Health Study. Among women whose mother or sister had breast cancer, having ever breastfed was associated with a 59% reduction in incidence of premenopausal breast cancer (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.75). Lactation was not related to incident premenopausal breast cancer among women without a family history of breast cancer.

See: Alison M. Stuebe; Walter C. Willett; Fei Xue; Karin B. Michels. Lactation and Incidence of Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Longitudinal Study Arch Intern Med, Aug 10/24, 2009; 169: 1364 - 1371. http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/search?fulltext=breastfeeding

###

Nighttime formula-Enfamil RestFull: help or hazard

Mead Johnson is marketing a “new” infant formula called RestFull as an alternative to adding rice cereal to formula bottles to make babies sleep longer at night. From the Mead Johnson website, “For moms and healthcare professionals who recommend adding rice cereal to infant formula to keep babies feeling full longer, Enfamil has a nutritionally balanced alternative, Enfamil RestFull.” The formula maker states that, “Enfamil RestFull is designed to help babies feel full longer and sleep better.” This effect is due to rice starch that has been added to the formula. What parents and clinicians may not know is that Enfamil RestFull is the exact same formula as Enfamil AR (used for reflux) with a different label and different indication for use.

Does the formula actually work? There are 52 reviews of this formula on the Mead Johnson website. Twenty-three of the reviews say that the formula did not improve their baby’s sleep and others actually complained that the formula upset the infant’s stomach, gave him more gas, and kept him up longer from the GI distress.

Is the formula safe? There is a demonstrated relationship between SIDS and an infant not rousing to breathe at night. Would a formula designed to keep a baby asleep longer increase the risk for SIDS? Will this formula cause sleep-deprived breastfeeding mothers to supplement with RestFull in hopes of capturing a few more hours of sleep? Since there is a paucity of any data on the side-effects of this formula which have been noted as constipation, gas, spitting up, wakefulness and since there is no data regarding its possible relationship to the increased risk of SIDS, clinicians may wish to approach this formula with caution.

The marketing text implies the promise that parents will sleep longer at night because their infant will not wake to feed. The formula is the exact same composition as Enfamil AR. Does this qualify as false, misleading, and deceptive advertising? Sounds like it. Write to the Federal Trade Commission at www.ftc.gov and complain that parents may be deceived into purchasing this product—a product whose claims that may not be grounded in fact, a product that may not actually work and is unable to deliver what it claims, a product that may be potentially hazardous, and a product with advertising that may cause consumers to purchase it without knowing that it is the same composition as Enfamil AR.