About a year ago I posted about the Vatican and their plea to uncover the images of Mary breastfeeding the infant Jesus. Hallelujah, it’s about time! Only about four centuries! I suppose if it took 4 centuries for the Vatican to accept images of Mary breastfeeding, it may take a little while longer for the general public of Eureka Springs, Arkansas?

It seems there is an uproar about an image in a local mural on display in Eureka Springs. Local artist Michelle Levy, painted a lovely image of the Divine Mother breastfeeding an infant for the 2007 Atery Exhibit in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. The Artery is a not-for-profit artist trust whose theme for the 2007 exhibit was Icons. The piece is now on display in an outdoor exhibit and is twisting some nipples.  

Michelle’s work has hit the news as locals misunderstand and complain about the provocative nature of the art, as her piece is considered one of the most controversial. The controversy has been picked up by numerous papers, including the Arkansas Times, Fox News, and AOL News. All because of an image of a woman people are misinterpreting to be the Virgin Mary. Please people, ONCE AGAIN see this post and this statement, FROM THE VATICAN.

You can follow the story at Michelle’s blog, The Divine Mother Mural Controversy or join her Facebook group, We Support “The Divine Mother” Mural.

Really, I wonder what part of this piece is really twisting their nipples in a knot, the image of breastfeeding, or that the painting asks the question “Does this halo make my face look fat?”

The news is out, Cambridge Memorial is going to lose their breastfeeding support services July 3, 2009. The Waterloo Region is already lacking in supports for breastfeeding moms, and the Cambridge hospital in-patient and out-patient services is the only service of its kind in the region. Losing a valued service in this region means moms will either go without support and risk turning to breastmilk substitutes for the lack of help and support, or they will have to leave the region to find help. In a region that averages over 5000 births per year, this is unacceptable.

According to an 2006 study by UNICEF, breastfed babies cost the system $1,500 less per year than babies that are not breastfed. Medicine should be preventative, not maintenance. If our healthcare system is already stretched to the limit, doesn’t it make sense to keep those preventative services in place with the hope that they reduce our health maintenance costs in the long run?  

Tania Heinemann, Chair of the Cambridge Community Breastfeeding Group, wrote a call to action to petition against the decision to cut lactation support services.

If you live in Cambridge, or the Waterloo Region, please read her call to action, then write letters of protest and opinion about this decision and send them to the Operations Review Committee at Cambridge Memorial Hospital via Medical Administration.

Yes, it is. Some may say we have come a long way, but really? When only 14% of mothers are still exclusively breastfeeding by 6 months, and all over the world we are still fighting for the right to breastfeed in public without being harassed, when services like Facebook still refer to the image of a baby on the breast as obscene and link it to porn, have we really come a long way?

When I read articles like this article in the Toronto Sun, I really have to wonder.

I do think there is a place in the world for pictures of over-sized breasts, I really do. Breasts are lovely. I also think there is a place in the world for pictures of breasts fulfilling their feeding purpose. They are just as lovely when they are functioning, if not more so.

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

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.

I was reading this notice from INFACT Canada this morning. The claims of formula marketers make my blood boil.

From INFACT Canada:
Nestlé has introduced a new line of formulas which it claims mimics the protective properties of breastmilk. The new prebiotic brand, called Nestlé Good Start Natural Cultures, contains Bifidobacteria, a bacteria species that is also found in breastmilk. Nestlé is making the vague claim that this added ingredient will help protect babies.

The new brand is only the latest attempt by the company to equate its formula with breastmilk. While the ad contains the requisite “breast is best” statement, the advertising tagline strongly suggests that Nestlé’s formula is roughly equivalent to breastmilk. “There are only two places your baby can get natural cultures,” reads the ad, “The first is you. The other is from Nestlé Good Start Natural Cultures.” No scientific study is cited as proof that the bacterial cultures in this formula have the same effect on infants as breastmilk. The repeated use of the word “natural” obscures the fact that there is nothing natural about feeding an infant a manufactured substance from a plastic bottle and artificial nipple. To equate this with the naturally-occurring protective bacterial cultures found in breastmilk is deceptive to say the least.

This new additive to formula is simply a marketing ploy. All formulas are composed of virtually the same ingredients, and as such, formula companies have a difficult time distinguishing their brands from others on the market. In the past, companies have introduced new formulas based on claims about additives DHA and ARA, added iron, and whey protein. Now that all formula companies have brands with these additives, Nestlé has decided to add another substance for marketing purposes. It can be expected that other companies will soon follow suit and release their own so-called prebiotic formulas.

The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes specifically prohibits health claims for formula under World Health Assembly resolution 58.32. This has not stopped formula companies from making outrageous claims about the properties of their products, without providing any evidence to back them up. As with those before it, this latest additive will do little for the health of infants, but will certainly help line the pockets of one of the world’s wealthiest corporations.

Nestlé has been planning to release this formula for some time, and as such has been resisting the new international standards for the preparation of powdered infant formula. Powdered infant formula has been found to be intrinsically contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii, a potentially deadly bacteria that has been linked to infant deaths around the world. Because of this, international food standards authorities recently released new recommendations on the preparation of powdered formula to reduce the risk of infection from E. sakazakii by stating that when preparing powdered formula, parents should boil water, cool it to 70 degrees and then add the powder. However, Nestlé strongly opposed this policy change because it knew that such high temperatures would also destroy the so-called “natural cultures” as well.

Ads for its new formula contain special instructions that temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius will compromise the Bifidobacteria, advising that mothers should cool water to this lower temperature before adding the powder. So not only does Nestlé’s Natural Culture brand falsely claim to protect infants, it can only be prepared in a way that contravenes international guidelines and exposes babies to the potentially deadly threat of Enterobacter sakazakii.

There are times when I wake up and look out my window at another grey and gloomy day and wonder “why do we live in such a cold climate?” Every winter I think this is the year we should move to Florida or the Turks and Caicos or Mexico. I am really not a fan of the cold and often pine for better climes. Most of the time I feel very fortunate to be living in Canada. So when I came across this article in my daily meanderings around the internet, I had one of those moments where I felt very lucky to be living in a country that has a maternity policy.

In Canada, we are fortunate to receive 17 weeks maternity leave and 35 weeks of parental leave, totaling one full year off after having a baby. Still, I remember how difficult it was going to back to work, even after a year. I missed my daughter dreadfully. If I couldn’t bring her to work with me in the flesh, I was going to bring her in spirit and I have to say, my office became a shrine to her. I was a breastfeeding mom as well. So along with the pictures and art work came my breast pump. I proudly displayed that pump on my shelf and scheduled my pumping time in my calendar so everyone could see I was busy for the next 20 minutes, come back later thank you! And no, I did not pump in the bathroom, I pumped right in my office. There were days when I needed my shrine to encourage let-down. When anyone asked what I was doing, I proudly announced that I was pumping milk for my daughter and pointed to the pump full of breastmilk sitting on my desk. Some people never asked again.

At the time, I would have loved to bring my daughter to work, or at the very least, I would have appreciated the option of on-site daycare. Once my daughter got a little older, I leaned more towards the on-site daycare. It can be hard focusing on work when you are caring for an infant. If you have an infant who suffers from colic, it can be terribly distressing and disracting for a parent, nevermind your co-workers! And seriously, I love to ooh and aah over new babies in the office, maybe more than the next person, but even I might find it disrupting when the baby next door hasn’t stopped crying for the past 30 minutes. You can only keep your boob in their mouth for so long.

The article highlights the findings from a US study about the practice of bringing your baby to work. It notes that more than 100 companies in the US allow women to bring their babies to work AND return to a flexible schedule. In a country with a maternity policy barely worth mentioning, this would be very beneficial for women (and employers) on so many levels and it would allow women to continue to breastfeed. Beneficial yes, but would it really work?

Carla Moquin, the author of Babies at Work: Bringing New Life to the Workplace, says that people are fairly skeptical until they try it. Once mom and baby get used to the new arrangement, it works out quite nicely for all involved, even those without children seem to enjoy the presence of babies in the workplace. If you are curious about which US companies are providing this option to their employees, check out the Babies At Work website. It lists the companies presently offering the program and notes how many babies are currently in the office. If you are interested in trying to convince your employer to implement the program, the website also offers tips for implementation and links to sample agreements.

Would you want to bring yor baby to work? Do you think you could implement a program like this in your place of work?