by phdinparenting on July 5, 2008
Intuitively and instinctively, the cry it out (CIO) method (also known as sleep training or ferberizing or controlled crying) of getting a baby to sleep is not something I ever felt comfortable with. And as I did research on infant sleep, I learned about what normal infant sleep is and I also learned more about the reasons why the CIO method is harmful. There are numerous scientific and emotional reasons why we have chosen not to let our babies cry it out, which I have summarized below.
1. Cry it out can cause harmful changes to babies’ brains
Babies cry. They cry to let us know that they need something. And when we don’t respond to those cries, it causes them undue amounts of stress. Science has shown that stress in infancy can result in enduring negative impacts on the brain. Prolonged cries in infants causes increased blood pressure in the brain, elevates stress hormones, obstructs blood from draining out of the brain, and decreases oxygenation to the brain. Excessive crying results in an oversensitive stress system (likened to a faulty burglar alarm in one book) that can lead to a fear of being alone, separation anxiety, panic attacks and addictions. Harvard researchers found that it makes them more susceptible to stress as adults and changes the nervous system so that they are overly sensitive to future trauma. Chronic stress in infancy can also lead to an over-active adrenaline system, which results in the child using increased aggression, impulsivity, and violence. Another study showed that persistent crying episodes in infancy led to a 10 times greater chance of the child having ADHD, resulting in poor school performance and antisocial behaviour. However, if you consistently soothe your child’s distress and take any anguished crying seriously, highly effective stress response systems are established in the brain that allow your child to cope with stress later in life.
2. Cry it out can result in decreased intellectual, emotional and social development
At an American Academy of Pediatrics meeting, infant developmental specialist Dr. Michael Lewis presented research findings demonstrating that “the single most important influence of a child’s intellectual development is the responsiveness of the mother to the cues of her baby.” More specifically, other studies have found that babies whose cries are ignored do not develop healthy intellectual and social skills, that they have an average IQ 9 points lower at age 5, they show poor fine motor development, show more difficulty controlling their emotions, and take longer to become independent as children (stay clingy for longer).
3. Cry it out can result in a detached baby
Researchers have shown that although leaving a baby to cry it out does often lead to the cries eventually stopping, the cries do not stop because the child is content or the problem has been alleviated. Rather, they stop because the baby has given up hope that a caregiver will respond and provide comfort. This results in a detached baby. Detached children are less responsive, appear to be depressed or “not there” and often lack empathy.
4. Cry it out is harmful to the parent-child relationship
A child that is left to cry it out is less likely to turn to the parents in times of need. Being attended to as a baby is the most basic of needs and if a child learns at that point that she can count on her parents to respond to her needs, then she will also turn to them later in life when she needs their support. But I worry that if I leave my children to cry it out, then they will not see the point in reaching out to us if they have problems later in life and could try to deal with serious issues like bullying, drug addictions, teenage pregnancy, gambling problems, or flunking out of school on their own or turn to peers. Unfortunately, those problems are often too big for a teenager to be left to deal with alone or with peers and it can have disastrous results ranging from making poor decisions all the way to committing suicide out of a feeling of hopelessness.
5. Cry it out can make children insecure
Children whose caregivers are not consistently responsive and sensitive, often become insecure. Long-term studies have shown that secure individuals are more likely to be outgoing, popular, well-adjusted, compassionate, and altruistic. As adults, secure individuals are likely to be comfortable depending on others, can develop close attachments, and trust their partners. Insecure individuals, on the other hand, tend to be unsettled in their relationships, displaying anxiety (manifesting as possessiveness, jealousy, and clinginess) or avoidance (manifesting as mistrust and a reluctance to depend on others). Parents that use the cry it out method often do so because they are afraid that their children are becoming too dependent. However, an abundance of research shows that regular physical contact, reassurance, and prompt responses to distress in infancy and childhood results in secure and confident adults who are better able to form functional relationships.
6. Cry it out often doesn’t work at all
Some babies will not give in. They are resilient or stubborn enough that they refuse to believe that their parents could be so cruel as to leave them to cry to sleep. So instead of whimpering a bit and then drifting off to sleep as some supposed sleep experts would have you believe happens, they end up sobbing and sobbing and sobbing for hours on end. Some end up vomiting. Many end up shaking so hard and become so distraught that once their parents realize that CIO is not going to work, the baby is shaking uncontrollably and hiccuping, too distressed to sleep and too distraught to be calmed down even by a loving parent.
7. Even if cry it out does “work”, parents often have to do it over and over again
I can’t imagine putting my child through one or several nights of inconsolable crying to get her to go to sleep and I certainly can’t imagine having to do it over and over again. However, that is the reality for many parents. I hear people tell me that they always let their child cry for thirty minutes to go to sleep. Or that they have to start the CIO sleep training process all over again after each round of teething, each growth spurt, each developmental milestone.
8. Cry it out is disrespectful of my child’s needs
So-called sleep trainers will tell you that after a certain age, babies do not have any more needs at night. Some claim this is after a few short weeks, others after a few months, others after a year. Regardless of the age that is assigned to that message, to me it seems wrong. I’m an adult and yet there are days when I need someone else to comfort me. If I’ve had a really stressful week at work, if I’ve had a fight with someone that is important to me, if I’ve lost a loved one, then I need to be comforted. But how would I feel and what would it do to our relationship if my husband closed the door and walked out of the room and let me “cry it out” myself? I’m an adult and yet there are nights when I am so parched that I need a glass of water or I am so hungry that I need a snack. I’m not going to die if those needs are not met, but I am going to physically uncomfortable and unable to sleep soundly. If I were to let my child CIO, it would be like saying that his needs are not important and that to me is disrespectful. To quote Dr. William Sears on the sleep trainers, “Parents let me caution you. Difficult problems in child rearing do not have easy answers. Children are too valuable and their needs too important to be made victims of cheap, shallow advice“.
9. Deep sleep from cry it out is often a result of trauma
Babies who are left to cry it out do sometimes fall into a deep sleep after they finally drop off. And their parents and sleep trainers will hail this as a success of the CIO method. However, babies and young children often sleep deeply after experiencing trauma. Therefore, the deep sleep that follows CIO shouldn’t be seen as proof that it works. Rather, it should be seen as a disturbing shortcoming.
10. Our World Needs More Love
Rates of depression are skyrocketing. Violent and senseless crimes are on the rise. As human beings, we need to spend more time being there for each other, showing compassion, nurturing our children. Learning that you can’t count on your parents to be there when you need them is a tough lesson to learn that early in life and can be a root of many of the social problems we are facing today. I want to give my kids every chance possible of escaping depression and staying away from violence. And I’m convinced that nurturing them and responding to their needs at night, as I do during the day, is the first step in the right direction.
Those are our reasons for not using the cry it out method. What are yours?
Do you need some gentle sleep tips? See Gentle Baby and Toddler Sleep Tips
Sources:
The following sources were used in the development of this post:
Dr. Sears – Science Says: Excessive Crying Could be Harmful to Babies
Margaret Chuong-Kim – Cry It Out: The Potential Dangers of Leaving Your Baby to Cry
Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., M.P.H, F.A.A.P – Mistaken Approaches to Night Waking
Australian Association for Infant Mental Health – Position Paper 1: Controlled Crying
Alvin Powell – Children Need Touching and Attention, Harvard Researchers Say
Pinky McKay – The Con of Controlled Crying
Linda Folden Palmer – Stress in Infancy
Gayle E. McKinnon – CIO? No! The case for not using “cry-it-out” with your children
Macall Gordon – Is “crying it out” appropriate for infants? A review of the literature on the use of extinction in the first year
Elizabeth Pantley – The No Cry Sleep Solution (book)
Katie Allison Granju – Attachment Parenting (book)
Dr. William Sears – Nighttime Parenting (book)
Margot Sunderland – The Science of Parenting (book)
Friday, September 18, 2009
FDA Warning on Shock Risk of Breast Pumps
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574415441993714918.html
By JENNIFER CORBETT DOOREN
The Food and Drug Administration said baby-products maker Evenflo Co. failed to properly investigate some complaints involving women who reported receiving electrical shocks while using the company's breast pumps. In an Aug. 25 warning letter released by the agency Tuesday, the FDA said it found manufacturing violations at two Ohio plants that make pumps used by women to express breast milk. The breast pumps are sold nationwide under the "Comfort Select" brand name. Evenflo, of Miamisburg, Ohio, is private firm that makes a variety of baby products including toys, high chairs, car seats and strollers.
The FDA warning letter stemmed from inspections of two Evenflo facilities in January and February. Since then, the FDA and the company have worked to address violations of FDA manufacturing rules, with Evenflo providing monthly updates to the agency.
During the inspections, the FDA found Evenflo wasn't in compliance with the agency's manufacturing practice rules, including "failure to review and evaluate all complaints" and for failing "to establish medical device reporting procedures for your breast pumps." Companies are required to report problems with devices to the FDA.
The agency said it reviewed 37 complaints and, of those, 18 weren't investigated by the company, including at least three reports of women receiving an electrical shock when using the breast pumps. The FDA said companies are required to investigate complaints that involve "the possible failure of a device to meet any of its specifications."
Amy Neff, Evenflo's associate general counsel, said the company does investigate its consumer complaints but said the problem was a "documentation issue." In its letter, the FDA said the company's response to the complaint-investigation problem is now "adequate." However, on the medical-device reporting problem, the FDA said the company has yet to fully address the agency's concerns.
Lindsay Harris, Evenflo's vice president of quality and product integrity, said, "We are working cooperatively with the FDA" to address the agency's concerns. He said the company reports all device complaints to the agency.
Write to Jennifer Corbett Dooren at jennifer.corbett-dooren@dowjones.com
By JENNIFER CORBETT DOOREN
The Food and Drug Administration said baby-products maker Evenflo Co. failed to properly investigate some complaints involving women who reported receiving electrical shocks while using the company's breast pumps. In an Aug. 25 warning letter released by the agency Tuesday, the FDA said it found manufacturing violations at two Ohio plants that make pumps used by women to express breast milk. The breast pumps are sold nationwide under the "Comfort Select" brand name. Evenflo, of Miamisburg, Ohio, is private firm that makes a variety of baby products including toys, high chairs, car seats and strollers.
The FDA warning letter stemmed from inspections of two Evenflo facilities in January and February. Since then, the FDA and the company have worked to address violations of FDA manufacturing rules, with Evenflo providing monthly updates to the agency.
During the inspections, the FDA found Evenflo wasn't in compliance with the agency's manufacturing practice rules, including "failure to review and evaluate all complaints" and for failing "to establish medical device reporting procedures for your breast pumps." Companies are required to report problems with devices to the FDA.
The agency said it reviewed 37 complaints and, of those, 18 weren't investigated by the company, including at least three reports of women receiving an electrical shock when using the breast pumps. The FDA said companies are required to investigate complaints that involve "the possible failure of a device to meet any of its specifications."
Amy Neff, Evenflo's associate general counsel, said the company does investigate its consumer complaints but said the problem was a "documentation issue." In its letter, the FDA said the company's response to the complaint-investigation problem is now "adequate." However, on the medical-device reporting problem, the FDA said the company has yet to fully address the agency's concerns.
Lindsay Harris, Evenflo's vice president of quality and product integrity, said, "We are working cooperatively with the FDA" to address the agency's concerns. He said the company reports all device complaints to the agency.
Write to Jennifer Corbett Dooren at jennifer.corbett-dooren@dowjones.com
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Lactate on your own time, lady
Friday, Aug. 28, 2009 11:29 PDT
Lactate on your own time, lady
On Thursday, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that Totes/Isotoner had the right to fire breastfeeding mother LaNisa Allen for taking breaks to pump milk. Yeah, you read that right. Timothy P. Reilly, attorney for Totes/Isotoner, told the Columbus Dispatch, "Totes has taken the position since the beginning of this case that it terminated the plaintiff (Allen) for a proper reason, and that's that she took unauthorized work breaks, regardless of her sex or condition." Because unauthorized pumping, clearly, can be divorced from one's "sex or condition." This would be the rare instance in which I find myself tempted to type "LOL," except the Supreme Court used essentially the same reasoning: It was on Allen to prove that the stated cause for her dismissal (failure to follow directions) was a pretext for discrimination, and technically, she didn't. Ergo, the court decided not to bother addressing the thornier question of whether lactation counts as a pregnancy-related condition, which would be protected under the state's anti-discrimination laws.
In the strictest legal sense, the ruling is logical: Allen admitted she took unauthorized breaks, and that's a firing offense. If she can't prove that someone said, "Ha! Now's our chance to get rid of her for being a woman!" then apparently, she can't prove discrimination. But it's manifestly weaselly to suggest that her "insubordination" can somehow be separated from the fact that she was lactating, especially since they were responding to a decision that included this colossal eye-roller:
Allen gave birth over five months prior to her termination from [Isotoner]. Pregnant [women] who give birth and choose not to breastfeed or pump their breasts do not continue to lactate for five months. Thus, Allen's condition of lactating was not a condition relating to pregnancy but rather a condition related to breastfeeding. Breastfeeding discrimination does not constitute gender discrimination.
Of course not.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and one of the court's three women, Justice Maureen O'Connor, at least had the decency to "concur in judgment only," meaning they agreed that Allen hadn't technically proved discrimination but believe lactation should, in fact, be covered under the law against pregnancy discrimination. Yet the only straight-up dissenting opinion came from Justice Paul Pfeifer, who wrote, "Seriously? Are you kidding me with this?"
OK, no he didn't. But he did say that even if you insist on separating Allen's extra breaks from her condition as a lactating mother, then they should be regarded no differently than unscheduled pee breaks. "There is no evidence in the record about any limit on the length of unscheduled restroom breaks and no evidence that employees had to seek permission from a supervisor to take an unscheduled restroom break. There is evidence only that unscheduled bathroom breaks were allowed and that LaNisa Allen was fired for taking them. What made her breaks different?" Ding ding ding!
More importantly, Pfeifer gets to the heart of why the court's refusal to address whether lactation counts as "a condition related to pregnancy" is so incredibly disappointing:
We accept cases not necessarily because of how the result might affect the parties in the individual case, but because of how a holding might affect other persons similarly situated. Ohio's working mothers who endure the uncomfortable sacrifice of privacy that almost necessarily accompanies their attempt to remain on the job and nourish their children deserve to know whether Ohio's pregnancy-discrimination laws protect them.
Yeah, they do. And furthermore, LaNisa Allen deserved not to be fired because her employer expected a lactating mother to go five hours without expressing milk. Totes/Isotoner may have the law on their side by a hair, but that doesn't change the facts. LaNisa Allen was terminated for taking 15 minutes a day to relieve a painful and distracting condition that arose because she believed breastfeeding was best for her child and thus chose to maintain her body's natural post-pregnancy state. Lactation is, in fact, related to pregnancy, even if some women halt it earlier than Allen did. And breastfeeding discrimination is, in fact, gender discrimination, unless I missed the news that men can breastfeed now. That anyone could argue otherwise with a straight face only highlights how absurdly reluctant some people are to acknowledge and oppose blatant sexism.
― Kate Harding
Lactate on your own time, lady
On Thursday, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that Totes/Isotoner had the right to fire breastfeeding mother LaNisa Allen for taking breaks to pump milk. Yeah, you read that right. Timothy P. Reilly, attorney for Totes/Isotoner, told the Columbus Dispatch, "Totes has taken the position since the beginning of this case that it terminated the plaintiff (Allen) for a proper reason, and that's that she took unauthorized work breaks, regardless of her sex or condition." Because unauthorized pumping, clearly, can be divorced from one's "sex or condition." This would be the rare instance in which I find myself tempted to type "LOL," except the Supreme Court used essentially the same reasoning: It was on Allen to prove that the stated cause for her dismissal (failure to follow directions) was a pretext for discrimination, and technically, she didn't. Ergo, the court decided not to bother addressing the thornier question of whether lactation counts as a pregnancy-related condition, which would be protected under the state's anti-discrimination laws.
In the strictest legal sense, the ruling is logical: Allen admitted she took unauthorized breaks, and that's a firing offense. If she can't prove that someone said, "Ha! Now's our chance to get rid of her for being a woman!" then apparently, she can't prove discrimination. But it's manifestly weaselly to suggest that her "insubordination" can somehow be separated from the fact that she was lactating, especially since they were responding to a decision that included this colossal eye-roller:
Allen gave birth over five months prior to her termination from [Isotoner]. Pregnant [women] who give birth and choose not to breastfeed or pump their breasts do not continue to lactate for five months. Thus, Allen's condition of lactating was not a condition relating to pregnancy but rather a condition related to breastfeeding. Breastfeeding discrimination does not constitute gender discrimination.
Of course not.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and one of the court's three women, Justice Maureen O'Connor, at least had the decency to "concur in judgment only," meaning they agreed that Allen hadn't technically proved discrimination but believe lactation should, in fact, be covered under the law against pregnancy discrimination. Yet the only straight-up dissenting opinion came from Justice Paul Pfeifer, who wrote, "Seriously? Are you kidding me with this?"
OK, no he didn't. But he did say that even if you insist on separating Allen's extra breaks from her condition as a lactating mother, then they should be regarded no differently than unscheduled pee breaks. "There is no evidence in the record about any limit on the length of unscheduled restroom breaks and no evidence that employees had to seek permission from a supervisor to take an unscheduled restroom break. There is evidence only that unscheduled bathroom breaks were allowed and that LaNisa Allen was fired for taking them. What made her breaks different?" Ding ding ding!
More importantly, Pfeifer gets to the heart of why the court's refusal to address whether lactation counts as "a condition related to pregnancy" is so incredibly disappointing:
We accept cases not necessarily because of how the result might affect the parties in the individual case, but because of how a holding might affect other persons similarly situated. Ohio's working mothers who endure the uncomfortable sacrifice of privacy that almost necessarily accompanies their attempt to remain on the job and nourish their children deserve to know whether Ohio's pregnancy-discrimination laws protect them.
Yeah, they do. And furthermore, LaNisa Allen deserved not to be fired because her employer expected a lactating mother to go five hours without expressing milk. Totes/Isotoner may have the law on their side by a hair, but that doesn't change the facts. LaNisa Allen was terminated for taking 15 minutes a day to relieve a painful and distracting condition that arose because she believed breastfeeding was best for her child and thus chose to maintain her body's natural post-pregnancy state. Lactation is, in fact, related to pregnancy, even if some women halt it earlier than Allen did. And breastfeeding discrimination is, in fact, gender discrimination, unless I missed the news that men can breastfeed now. That anyone could argue otherwise with a straight face only highlights how absurdly reluctant some people are to acknowledge and oppose blatant sexism.
― Kate Harding
Friday, August 28, 2009
Jeannie Babb Taylor: The problem with breastfeeding
Here's a great read that has a lot of info. Jeannie did a great job with it!
(To read the article in it's entirety, click on this link or the one below.)
What if doctors discovered a substance so potent, it could prevent dozens of diseases and even reduce the risk of cancer? What if these benefits extended not only to those who partake of this amazing substance, but also those who serve it? If a pharmaceutical company had developed it, it would be a billion-dollar industry. Breast milk, though, is free. Without a visible profit stream, it also lacks a marketing team.
Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both givers and receivers — yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no campaign statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study (147,000 participants) found that American women could cut their breast cancer risk by 33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding from three months to thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The ACS concluded that significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was “unrealistic” and instead continues to focus on mammograms, cancer prevention drugs and other methods that put money in the pockets of physician groups and pharmaceutical companies.
Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education. Instead, the NICH organized the “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor of the Back to Sleep campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food manufacturer. Is it any surprise there is no financial backing to promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention tool?
Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is “as important to preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat use, and proper infant sleep position.” Yet a recent AAP survey found that 45 percent of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and breast-feeding as equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the money to understand this phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples, perks, and gifts from formula companies — a practice condemned by the World Health Organization (WHO.)
Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year tripping up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician’s office, the hospitals where babies are born, and the pediatrician’s office. Formula makers ensure that every mother goes home with a couple of cans of formula, so it will be available in the middle of the night when the baby is crying, she is exhausted from lack of sleep and she is vulnerable to the insecurities American society has pressed on her day after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers start breastfeeding, within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 11.3% of babies are still exclusively breastfed at six months.
It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed, when everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women in most other developed countries, American women receive no paid maternity leave. Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them through the first months of mothering. Women who support themselves are forced to return to work, where it is often impossible to bring an infant, and pumping opportunities may be few and far between, with unsanitary conditions.
Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives employers a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees with equipment, dedicated space and consultation for pumping breast milk. The bill establishes standards for breast pumps, and creates tax breaks for women who purchase breast pumps in order to maintain employment.
Maloney says, “I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired for trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding under federal civil rights law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or breastfeeding during breaks or lunch time.”
At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed — after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of infants in terms of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and learning disabilities. Yet the formula-makers find these mothers, too. Government programs take away one of the incentives for breastfeeding by shelling out $600 million per year to put low-income infants on the bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased healthcare cost of these children.... Click here to read more
(To read the article in it's entirety, click on this link or the one below.)
What if doctors discovered a substance so potent, it could prevent dozens of diseases and even reduce the risk of cancer? What if these benefits extended not only to those who partake of this amazing substance, but also those who serve it? If a pharmaceutical company had developed it, it would be a billion-dollar industry. Breast milk, though, is free. Without a visible profit stream, it also lacks a marketing team.
Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both givers and receivers — yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no campaign statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study (147,000 participants) found that American women could cut their breast cancer risk by 33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding from three months to thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The ACS concluded that significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was “unrealistic” and instead continues to focus on mammograms, cancer prevention drugs and other methods that put money in the pockets of physician groups and pharmaceutical companies.
Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education. Instead, the NICH organized the “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor of the Back to Sleep campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food manufacturer. Is it any surprise there is no financial backing to promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention tool?
Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is “as important to preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat use, and proper infant sleep position.” Yet a recent AAP survey found that 45 percent of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and breast-feeding as equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the money to understand this phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples, perks, and gifts from formula companies — a practice condemned by the World Health Organization (WHO.)
Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year tripping up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician’s office, the hospitals where babies are born, and the pediatrician’s office. Formula makers ensure that every mother goes home with a couple of cans of formula, so it will be available in the middle of the night when the baby is crying, she is exhausted from lack of sleep and she is vulnerable to the insecurities American society has pressed on her day after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers start breastfeeding, within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 11.3% of babies are still exclusively breastfed at six months.
It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed, when everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women in most other developed countries, American women receive no paid maternity leave. Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them through the first months of mothering. Women who support themselves are forced to return to work, where it is often impossible to bring an infant, and pumping opportunities may be few and far between, with unsanitary conditions.
Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives employers a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees with equipment, dedicated space and consultation for pumping breast milk. The bill establishes standards for breast pumps, and creates tax breaks for women who purchase breast pumps in order to maintain employment.
Maloney says, “I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired for trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding under federal civil rights law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or breastfeeding during breaks or lunch time.”
At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed — after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of infants in terms of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and learning disabilities. Yet the formula-makers find these mothers, too. Government programs take away one of the incentives for breastfeeding by shelling out $600 million per year to put low-income infants on the bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased healthcare cost of these children.... Click here to read more
Media Release:La Leche League International Encourages Mothers to Recognize Importance of Vitamin D
(October 16, 2008) Schaumburg, IL - La Leche League International encourages all mothers to recognize the importance of vitamin D to the health of their children. Recent research shows that due to current lifestyles, breastfeeding mothers may not have enough vitamin D in their own bodies to pass to their infants through breastmilk.
In October 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that infants receive 400 IU a day of vitamin D, beginning in the first few days of life. Children who do not receive enough vitamin D are at risk for rickets and increased risk for infections, autoimmune diseases, cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis.
Vitamin D is mainly acquired through exposure to sunlight and secondarily through food. Research shows that the adoption of indoor lifestyles and the use of sunscreen have seriously depleted vitamin D in most women. The ability to acquire adequate amounts of vitamin D through sunlight depends on skin color and geographic location. Dark-skinned people can require up to six times the amount of sunlight as light-skinned people. People living near the equator can obtain vitamin D for 12 months of the year while those living in northern and southern climates may only absorb vitamin D for six or fewer months of the year.
For many years, La Leche League International has offered the research-based recommendation that exclusively breastfed babies received all the vitamin D necessary through mother’s milk. Health care professionals now have a better understanding of the function of vitamin D and the amounts required, and the newest research shows this is only true when mothers themselves have enough vitamin D. Statistics indicate that a large percentage of women do not have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their bodies.
La Leche League International acknowledges that breastfeeding mothers who have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their bodies can successfully provide enough vitamin D to their children through breastmilk. It is recommended that pregnant and nursing mothers obtain adequate vitamin D or supplement as necessary. Health care providers may recommend that women who are unsure of their vitamin D status undergo a simple blood test before choosing not to supplement.
Parents or health care providers who want more information on rickets, vitamin D in human milk, or other information on breastfeeding issues may call La Leche League International at (847) 519-7730 or visit our Web site at www.llli.org.
In October 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that infants receive 400 IU a day of vitamin D, beginning in the first few days of life. Children who do not receive enough vitamin D are at risk for rickets and increased risk for infections, autoimmune diseases, cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis.
Vitamin D is mainly acquired through exposure to sunlight and secondarily through food. Research shows that the adoption of indoor lifestyles and the use of sunscreen have seriously depleted vitamin D in most women. The ability to acquire adequate amounts of vitamin D through sunlight depends on skin color and geographic location. Dark-skinned people can require up to six times the amount of sunlight as light-skinned people. People living near the equator can obtain vitamin D for 12 months of the year while those living in northern and southern climates may only absorb vitamin D for six or fewer months of the year.
For many years, La Leche League International has offered the research-based recommendation that exclusively breastfed babies received all the vitamin D necessary through mother’s milk. Health care professionals now have a better understanding of the function of vitamin D and the amounts required, and the newest research shows this is only true when mothers themselves have enough vitamin D. Statistics indicate that a large percentage of women do not have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their bodies.
La Leche League International acknowledges that breastfeeding mothers who have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their bodies can successfully provide enough vitamin D to their children through breastmilk. It is recommended that pregnant and nursing mothers obtain adequate vitamin D or supplement as necessary. Health care providers may recommend that women who are unsure of their vitamin D status undergo a simple blood test before choosing not to supplement.
Parents or health care providers who want more information on rickets, vitamin D in human milk, or other information on breastfeeding issues may call La Leche League International at (847) 519-7730 or visit our Web site at www.llli.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
