Best for Babes

CBS News did a wonderful segment that shows just how critical human milk is to premature infants.  Kudos to CBS for raising awareness of this important issue.  The video and accompanying article explain that only “45% of premature babies are going home on breastmilk, as compared to 74% of full-term babies”, marvel at the unknown powers of human milk, and emphasize the increased risk of deadly necrotizing enterocolitis in babies that are not breastfed.   At the UC Medical Center in San Diego, rates of necrotizing enterocolitis dropped from 5.8% to less than 1% after preemies started routinely receiving human milk. 

First, let me argue with the statistic a little bit.   While 74% of babies initiate breastfeeding in the hospital, it is not true that 74% go home on breastmilk. In fact, because hospitals have been shown to perform poorly on breastfeeding support, at some hospitals, only half that number is still breastfeeding at all at discharge, and the percentage that is exclusively breastfeeding is much lower.   So, along with great media coverage of hospitals that are moving in the right direction,  we need more media coverage of the hospital practices that are still sabotaging breastfeeding. 

It would also be great if the media could shed some light on why the March of Dimes’ March for Babies, whose mission is to improve the health of babies by preventing birth defects, premature births, and infant mortality, is being sponsored by Mead Johnson Nutritionals, makers of Enfamil, a brand of infant formula.   Doesn’t this seem like a horrible conflict of interest?  What message does that send?

And don’t tell me that March of Dimes is not aware.   Promom.org organized a letter-writing campaign back in 2005.    If CBS News or 60 minutes could do a little story on that, then I’d be really impressed!

By now you may have seen (and commented on) various responses to “The Case Against Breastfeeding” by Hannah Rosin in the April 2009 issue of Atlantic Monthly.  

You can read Best for Babes’ response on the Moms Rising website, and for a very good scientific rebuttal of Rosin’s article, read the blog by Tanya Lieberman, IBCLC.  Andi Silverman makes some good points, as do the Editors of a new book, “Unbuttoned,” that is coming out in April, and I’ve heard that several prominent M.D.s are working on responses as well.

Here is the American Academy of Pediatrics’ response:    

Letter to the Editor of The Atlantic (Submitted via email)

In the article, “The Case Against Breast-Feeding” by Hanna Rosin, the author skims the literature and has omitted many recent statements including the 2005 statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics which supports the value of breastfeeding for most infants. This policy references every statement with
scientific evidence from over 200 articles which meet scientific standards for accuracy and rigor. The statement was meticulously reviewed by the Section on Breastfeeding, the Committee on Nutrition and numerous other committees and approved by the Board of Directors of the Academy. Breastfeeding and Maternal and Infant Health Outcomes in Developed Countries, a study released by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (the AHRQ Report) strongly supports the evidence of benefits demonstrated in the breastfeeding research. The evidence for the value of breastfeeding is scientific, it is strong, and it is
continually being reaffirmed by new research work.

The American Academy of Pediatrics encourages women to make an informed decision about feeding their infants based on scientifically established information from credible resources.

David T. Tayloe, Jr., MD, FAAP
President
American Academy of Pediatrics

As we mentioned in the blog on MomsRising, the AAP has no financial incentive to promote breastfeeding, the only motives that I can see here are to adhere to their mission and moral obligation, and retain the respect of the international medical, scientific and public health communities.   So I was thrilled when I heard that they wrote a letter to the Atlantic Monthly, and I am posting it so you can link to it easily as you respond to the different articles.   Go, AAP!

We also wish Rosin had seriously regarded this sentence from the AAP Policy Statement on Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk:

“Before advising against breastfeeding or recommending premature weaning, weigh the
benefits of breastfeeding against the risks of not receiving human milk.”

Let me just reiterate that Best for Babes believes no woman should be judged for her decision on how to feed her baby, and she deserves to have the best, evidence-based information to make and carry out that decision, free of undermining influences.

By now you may have heard about the huge flap over Facebook removing photos of women nursing, the ensuing online protest on December 27th (Reuters) as it is being debated throughout the media, i.e. the Times, ABC News, the NY Times and lots and lots of blogs.  Discussions center on the issue of public breastfeeding, and whether Facebook can control social media information (SF Gate).  

Facebook is not budging on the issue but let’s look at the very fat silver lining.   In serving the interests of a few squeamish about nursing, Facebook’s tactic has backfired and breastfeeding is unexpectedly back in the limelight.   In the past few days, groups and causes have been sprouting up on Facebook like weeds—some nasty, but many very nice—in support of breastfeeding.  

Expecting Models Jessica Hebert

 By the way, the glam photo of Best for Babes’   breastfeeding cover girl has not been taken down from Facebook, but it doesn’t violate their terms either, as far as we can tell!

If we get lucky, and breastfeeding gets a Bono, there is a chance that the media will shift the spotlight away from the Facebook/public nursing debate (is it just another “mommy war”?), to the insidious barriers that are clouding the breastfeeding experience and success of so many women.  The media has done a fantastic job covering new scientific studies about the benefits of breastfeeding, and we’re certainly glad that they have been covering the Facebook controversy, and mostly siding with breastfeeding moms.

We just wish they’d take start asking questions, like “why is breastfeeding more difficult in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations?”   Same species, same boobs, right?  The answer is a different culture. 

The sad fact is that that most U.S. women quit breastfeeding exclusively–despite their best intentions–long before they can even try nursing in public, or are even thinking about taking a photo of themselves and posting it on Facebook.   Many women throw in the towel within days or weeks of giving birth.   The social and cultural obstacles to breastfeeding are huge:  the disapproval of family and friends, the shocking fact that only 3% of U.S. maternity centers follow a protocol proven to result in breastfeeding success, the worst maternity leave policies of any industrialized nation, and workplace and health care discrimination, to name just a few.   Some doctors make herculean efforts to support their patients to breastfeed (despite being squeezed between health care paperwork and malpractice lawsuits); many doctors give it lip service (pun!) at best.   Despite clear evidence that the first few hours and days in the hospital can make or break breastfeeding, news that most hospitals perform poorly on breastfeeding support barely makes it across the mainstream radar, and is quickly forgotten if it does. 

In the meantime, we’re happy to have Facebook give breastfeeding moms all the face time in the media that we can get.

An intriguing new study,  as posted on Yahoo! today, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20081029/hl_hsn/breastfedbabymaymeanbetterbehavedchild): “Parents of youngsters who were breast-fed as infants were less likely to report that their child had a behavior problem or psychiatric illness during the first five years of life, a new study found.

 And the likelihood of mental health issues decreased in proportion to the duration of breast-feeding, meaning that a child who had been breast-fed for a year was less likely to have behavior problems than a child who had been breast-fed for just two months.

 ”This is an early finding, but it suggests that breast-feeding during infancy could have an effect on behavior during childhood,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Katherine Hobbs Knutson, a resident in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.  . . . The new study reviewed more than 100,000 interviews of parents and guardians of children between the ages of 10 months and 18 years who participated in the National Survey of Children’s Health.”

We’re not surprised by this finding, as other studies suggest that breastfed children weather stress better, for example divorce.   It also makes sense when considering that breastfeeding protects the mother against post-partum depression, and that breastfeeding mothers report feeling more rested and getting an average of 45 minutes more sleep a night.   (See the amazing and lesser-known facts on our home page).  The fact is, that breastfeeding, especially when it is adequately supported and moms can get off to a good start, is tremendously soothing and balancing for both babes, i.e. mom and baby.  

Is this a cause for guilt if you did not want to or could not breastfeed?   No, but it is an opportunity to explore what the obstacles were that kept you trying or succeeding.  It is an opportunity to fight the barriers that trip moms up, like insufficient maternity leave, hospitals that give ”breast is best” lip service but don’t follow through, and discrimination and disapproval everywhere a new mom turns.   It is an opportunity to help other mothers so they would not have to suffer through a rocky start like I did.  

And that is a behavior worth applauding.