I thought the CPS was supposed to promote child health and safety. How you can claim to promote child health and safety and align yourself with formula manufacturers that have been actively undermining the health of infants and children with deceptive marketing practices for decades?

Read the release form INFACT and write the CPS!

May 26, 2009

Canadian Paediatric Society allies with formula companies

The upcoming CPS annual conference is being sponsored in part by some of the world’s biggest formula companies. Abbot Nutrition, Mead Johnson and Wyeth are listed as sponsors of the event, and all three companies, along with Nestlé, will be exhibitors at the event.

These four companies have been aggressively marketing infant formula for decades, and have actively undermined child health. For a group claiming to be Canada’s foremost child health organization to enter into a relationship with them is highly inappropriate. Clearly this sponsorship compromises the CPS’s ability to promote breastfeeding and advance the health of children.

According to its own Code of Ethics, the CPS desires to “put the needs of children above all else.” It is difficult to see how forming partnerships with formula companies serves the needs of children. On the other hand, the formula companies will benefit from the PR of being allied with paediatricians, and the CPS will receive financial support to stage its conference. It is children that will lose out.

As long as Canada’s health organizations are not fully committed to supporting breastfeeding, infant health in this country will remain far from optimal. Please write to the CPS and ask them to reconsider their relationship with the formula companies. Write your own letter or copy INFACT Canada’s below.

Direct your letters to:

Marie Adèle Davis, Executive Director madavis@cps.ca

Wendy Eligh, Annual Conference Manager wendye@cps.ca

******

Marie Adèle Davis and Wendy Eligh

Executive Director

Canadian Paediatric Society

2305 St. Laurent Blvd.

Ottawa, ON K1G 4J8

Dear Ms. Davis and Ms. Eligh

It has come to our attention that the upcoming CPS annual conference is accepting sponsorship from Abbot Nutrition, Mead Johnson and Wyeth. Along with Nestlé Nutrition, all three companies are also listed as exhibitors. As an organization that is dedicated to advocating for the health needs of children, I would ask that you reconsider the appropriateness of allowing these companies to promote themselves at your conference.

Abbott, Nestlé, Mead Johnson and Wyeth are four of the biggest companies in the infant formula industry. For years the industry, and these companies specifically, have been marketing their products in violation of international guidelines. Their aggressive promotion of infant formula has undermined breastfeeding rates in Canada and abroad. They have refused to abide by the terms of the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, a measure endorsed by the international community and UNICEF to protect breastfeeding and reduce infant and young child mortality and morbidity.

These companies’ marketing malpractice is ongoing. Nestlé has just launched a formula brand in Canada that the company says can provide infants with the same protection against disease as breastmilk. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim, and yet massive advertising campaigns have been launched to convince Canadian mothers that Nestlé’s formula contains the same vital ingredients as breastmilk.

That the CPS forms partnerships with these companies even while they are actively engaged in undermining breastfeeding does not further the society’s goal of improving child health. Instead, it lends credibility to dishonest companies and presents a blatant conflict of interest to Canadian paediatricians. The CPS cannot accept sponsorship from formula companies on one hand and then expect to effectively promote breastfeeding on the other.

The CPS Code of Ethics says that the society has always worked to “put the needs of children above all else.” Allowing these companies to participate in your conference serves the needs of the infant formula industry, not the needs of children.

We respectfully request that the CPS not form any partnerships with formula companies and suggest that the CPS familiarize itself with its own obligations under the Code, specifically WHA Resolution 49.15 which states “financial support for professionals working in infant and young child health [should] not create conflicts of interest.”

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth Sterken

National Director

INFACT Canada

My eldest daughter breastfed until she was 2.5 yrs old. At that point I really needed my body back and I gently weaned her from the breast. If I would have let her, I’m sure she would have nursed until she was 4, if not 5, but I was ready for some “alone” time.

My daughter missed her boobie during the day, and the first thing she did after the hello hug was to demand a nurse before we leave. Everyday I sat down with her on my lap, nursed and talked to her teacher. We would nurse even as the internet video rolled. I often wondered if any of the parents who subscribed to the internet video to watch their wee ones play, ever happened to catch a glimpse of our end-of-day nursing moments.

When she was around 4, I had pleasant news awaiting me one evening. My daughter’s teacher was excitedly awaiting my arrival to tell me about my daughter’s day, or rather, her free play time. She proceeded to tell me that during free play time that afternoon, my daughter and two of her friends were playing “mommy.” Each girl had a baby doll, and it was time for them to feed their babies. The other two girls found a bottle to feed their babies. My daughter, whom I love and adore, my daughter, the one I couldn’t have been more proud of at that moment but who managed to squeeze an extra bit of proud out of me, my daughter lifted her shirt and breastfed her baby. Breastfed her baby doll like it was the most natural thing to do. When her teacher asked her what she was doing, she proudly looked up at her and said “I’m breastfeeding my baby.” Her teacher thought I would be proud, and she was right. I was so proud my lactating breasts almost squirted breastmilk across the room in celebration and joy!

It is with this fond memory, I had to scoff at the naysayers and members of the ignorant public when I saw this article in the UK paper, Telegraph.

“Poster of toddler breastfeeding doll sparks criticism. ” “Critics say that the picture is ‘distasteful, inappropriate and crude’.” Are they kidding? Critics ”also claimed new mums are being made to feel like ‘aliens’ if they are unable to breastfeed.”

Seriously, this is absurd. By that logic, we shouldn’t put up posters of women in natural labour or advertise childbirth education classes, as not to offend those who are undergoing a ceasarean. Think of the ways that type of argument can be extrapolated to the world and how it would limit our every basic action. A poster is not pressure, a poster is a poster, an advertisement. Is that poster grabbing you by the breast and forcing you to breastfed your bottle fed baby? Seriously!

Take a look at the poster and tell me, do you think the poster is distasteful, inappropriate or crude? Do you think I’m crazy and inappropriate for taking joy in my daughter breastfeeding her baby, rather than bottlefeeding it?

If you are part of the Facebook group Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding is not obscene! (Official petition to Facebook) you may have read the request for info; if you are not on FB, you can still help!

There have been some rumours that more hospitals in Ontario are planning on cancelling their breastfeeding support programs. Cambridge Memorial Hospital may cut their in-patient/out-patient breastfeeding services and multiple hospitals in Ottawa are cutting funding to their breastfeeding clinics.

Some hospitals that do still offer breastfeeding services, only help mothers who gave birth in the hospital. Where does that leave the breastfeeding moms who had a home birth or had their babies at a hospital out-of-town for personal or medical reasons?

Do you know of any cuts to the breastfeeding services in your area? If you do, let me know, or log in to FB, join the Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding is not obscene! (Official petition to Facebook) group and let the group know!

…for the incredible ignorance. I think this woman needs a boob; she was obviously weaned too early.

 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/05/07/laura-rosen-cohen-breast-is-best.aspx

I love the word tits. I love the way those hard edges hit your tongue. I love its succinct, sharpness. I really am just quite fond of the word. I am terribly amused by the reactions of others when I say tits out loud. They run the gamut from the wide eyed surprise (you just said that in public with no shame?!) to the noticeable cringe to the outright shush.

Seriously, do they not use the word in Britain all the time?!?! Trinny and Susannah and Gok throw it around in general conversation like it’s nothing. And isn’t it really nothing?

I find it the word amusing. Now I tend to alternate between tits and boob when offering up the boob bar/titty bar to my daughter. My husband nevers bats an eyelash when I say boob, but his ears perk up when I say tit. Funny man.

Many moms have gone through this; you bring in your strictly breastfed baby in for a checkup at 5 months and the doctor says baby is deviating from the growth chart, aka, not gaining enough weight according to the chart and you should start supplementing with formula. Been there? Next time you go in for a check-up to see if baby has jumped back on the growth chart curve, ask your doctor if he/she is using the WHO growth charts based on the average weight gain of BREASTFED babies.

The growth charts used by many doctors and pediatricians are based on a sample of Caucasian babies from before 1975, all formula-fed, who were often started on cereal before four months. There were new charts released in 2000 that came from a mixed sample of breastfed and formula-fed infants, but it still created problems with diagnosing healthy weight.

The problem is that breastfed and formula-fed babies have different growth patterns; breastfed babies tend to grow faster than formula-fed babies in the first few months, and then slow down and “slim down” when compared to formula-fed babies between 3 and 12 months. Both of my babies did this and my doctor noted it both times as well. The second time he sent me and the girl to a pediatrician because of her lack of weight gain. The charts he was using were the typical charts distributed by the formula companies covered in ads. No wonder my girl was falling off the chart, that chart wasn’t for her, a strictly breastfed baby, it was for a formula fed baby. If you chart a breastfed baby’s growth using the formula-fed charts, baby may be documented as falling off of the curve by 4 months!

The WHO charts, released in 2006, tested 9,000 babies who were exclusively breastfed for the first six months. Did you know about this?!? If you are a breastfeeder, you need to know about this! Now, these charts are not just for breastfed babies, they are just as applicable to formula-fed babies. They can also serve as an early warning for formula-fed babies experiencing excessive weight gain which can be a side-effect of formula - formula introduces an increased risk of obesity. 

If you want to take a look at the charts and compare your baby, take a look at what the WHO charts have to say:

• Chart for girls, birth to two years, showing percentiles (pdf)
• Chart for boys, birth to two years, showing percentiles (pdf)
• Frequently asked questions about the new charts (particularly helpful if your pediatrician has questions)

Now, if your baby is not gaining well and you are worried, it is important to consult with your doctor just to make sure everything is ok. But do bring these in with you at your next check-up, just in case.

There has been a breastfeeding action against Facebook for quite some time now. The updates keep coming every month or so, and although it appears to disappear from the media at times, the issue still remains and the media coverage continues at intervals. If you have been following the story (and if you are a breastfeeding mama, I’m sure you have at least heard a bit about it), you may be interested in the recent article at Newsweek about Facebook’s policy on obscenity and censorship.

I thought the issue was with nipples, NIPPLES IN GENERAL. The issue is with women’s nipples, only women’s nipples. It appears in many ways that Facebook’s censorship is random and subjective to the ‘porn cop’ judging the picture. A man wearing nothing but a thong and angel wings is deemed appropriate, but a woman nursing her baby is inappropriate? Is facebook reliving the NYC club kid heyday with Angel Melendez as their leader? That couldn’t be because Angel was murdered and Limelight closed its doors. So why in the world are a man’s naked nipples more acceptable than a womans? Aren’t they just as sexual?

I must admint, there are many, many other pictures on Facebook that I find offensive, a breastfeeding picture is not one of them. Is that because I am a breastfeeding mama and not a porn star? If I was porn star would I find the pictures of women wearing nothing but a thong less offensive? The creators of those grous would say to me, “if you don’t like it, don’t look at it”. Sure, I won’t look at it, but then don’t you look at our breastfeeding photos!

This issue just gets more annoying as each days passes. Facebook needs to wake up and revise their censorship policies and MAKE THEM CLEAR so the results aren’t so subjective.

So, if I put up a breastfeeding picture that doesn’t show areola, will they take it down? I don’t know, but you can be sure that I am going to flag every freaking picture I see of a man’s nipples until they revise their policies. If nipples are the problem, then it has to be all nipples, not just women’s nipples.