Tag: breastfeeding

Guest Post – Facts Not Fear: Protecting the One Place Where Fear Does Not Belong

We live in a world of fear. From the recent terrorist attacks in England to last year’s Orlando nightclub massacre. We have seen how the fear of outsiders has sparked powerful political movements around the world. As a frequent business traveler I sense my own anxiety as I sit on planes and trains, and as a mother I know the feeling that sweeps over me whenever I receive an incoming phone call from my children’s school.

Yes, we live in times of fear and anxiety—much of which is beyond our control.

But there is one place where fear should not exist. There is one area, where, as women and mothers, that we should insist that fear not enter—that is in the precious act of feeding our babies. From the time they are first placed in our arms, we are anxious that we will do our best. Yes, we are nervous that we will make mistakes. But we should not be made to dread our ability to mother—particularly when it comes to feeding our infants—one of our very first tasks.

That’s why a recent spate of fear-based marketing, particularly from the Fed Is Best Foundation, stoking fears that exclusive breastfeeding kills babies is both erroneous and irresponsible. But it is also the type of insidious marketing that preys on a mother’s existing insecurities that should make all women concerned. If the only way Fed Is Best can make its point is by sensationalizing infant deaths and undermining our confidence in our bodies—then maybe their point needs to be carefully considered.

Or, as women, we insist that they make it with valid facts and sans the fear mongering.

Let’s face it, women are sold fear and anxiety as a marketing tool every day. In fact, the strategy, officially known in business circles as FUD—fear, uncertainty and doubt—was designed by an IBM executive decades ago to persuade buyers to feel “safe” with IBM products rather than risk a crash, virus or server disruption. By the early 90’s it was generalized to refer to any kind of misinformation used as a competitive weapon.

Today, weaponizing fear takes many forms. We fear our faces aren’t pretty enough, so we buy cosmetics. We worry that our body isn’t the right “type” so we are sold diet plans and surgical procedures. We are told our hair isn’t shiny, bouncy or thick enough so we are sold multitudinous hair products. And then we are told to fear that our bodies may not properly do what they are biologically made to do, and we are sold infant formula.

The truth is, our bodies were uniquely made to feed the infants we create. Decades of scientific research proves that formula is nutritionally inferior to breastmilk. Admittedly, societal pressures, structural barriers such as a lack of paid maternity leave, and physicians who receive little to no training in lactation science in medical school, make it very difficult for some women to fulfill their biological norm. Many women who want to breastfeed find undereducated physicians and nurses and limited post-natal support—particularly in the early days after discharge. We have much to overcome.

To be clear, infant formula is necessary. When a mother’s own breastmilk or human donor milk is not available, then infant formula is an important third option that can, at times, save lives. However, women should come to that decision fully informed, not because of marketing efforts designed to incite distrust in their own bodies or threatened with the fear of the death of their infant.

It’s no secret that, especially in the Western world, women already fear they will have insufficient milk. For some, this fear can become a self-fulfilling prophecy because fear and anxiety can literally limit lactation by stifling the letdown reflux that stimulates the milk glands. Feeding into this insecurity by promoting early formula supplementation “just in case” has been a go-to move by the formula industry for years.

As far back as the 1940s, the manufacturers of Borden KLIM evaporated milk ran a radio jingle in the Congo that stoked mother’s fears over insufficient milk. The song went:

The Child is going to die
Because the mother’s milk has given out
Mama o Mama the child cries
If you want your child to get well
Give it KLIM milk

So when Fed Is Best frequently promotes eerily similar headlines claiming, “One bottle would have saved my baby”—it seems to make early supplementation innocuous, while deploying a similar tactic used to spur sales of infant formula. The insidious message is that your breast cannot be trusted but a bottle can—this type of marketing should concern all women.

Instead of fear, we should demand the facts about why physicians and nurses don’t have more education to properly identify lactation dysfunction or failure. We should demand knowledge about other options to increase milk output such as hand expression, which can extract more milk than a pump. If formula must be used, it should be administered as a temporary bridge until a mother’s supply is established, not a breastfeeding killer for mothers who want to nurse. And we should demand standard home visitation immediately after discharge, as is the practice in the UK and other European countries.

Ultimately, women deserve facts not fear. Women have a right to guilt-free, confidence-building information and support. And it’s time that we demand it of everyone—including, and especially, from those claiming to support mothers. We cannot stand by while Fed Is Best insists that fear is best.

Kimberly Seals Allers is an award-winning journalist and nationally recognized infant health advocate. Her fifth book, The Big Letdown—How Medicine, Big Business and Feminism Undermine Breastfeeding was released in January by St. Martin’s Press. Learn more at www.KimberlySealsAllers.com and follow her on Twitter @iamKSealsAllers.

Babies Health or Corporate Bottom Lines

Every day, a billion-dollar battle is waged for a baby’s first food. It takes place the world over, from maternity wards in Uganda to OBGYN offices in Manhattan, from corner stores in Detroit to market stalls in Thailand. And it is fueled by a handful of large and powerful multinational food and drug companies that manufacture the bulk of the world’s infant formula and pour hundreds of millions of dollars each year into marketing their products.

As many of us know, the infant formula marketing onslaught begins before baby is born—sometimes, as soon as a few weeks after we find out we’re pregnant. Free samples, cute gifts branded with formula company logos, clever commercials, and coupons galore are all harmless right? Not quite. All this marketing is designed to do one thing and one thing only—to get you to start using infant formula, as soon as possible and as much as possible.

And while formula itself is a necessity for many babies, the marketing of it is not. For starters, marketing drives up the cost of formula. It is one of the industry’s dirty little secrets: free samples aren’t really free. Formula-feeding families end up paying dearly for these so-called free samples because the cost of making and distributing the samples (often in hospitals and doctors’ offices) is baked into the high price of name-brand formula. It is important to remember that for many parents in the U.S and throughout the world, infant formula is a costly but necessary expense that strains the family budget. The high cost of the product is one reason why financially-strapped parents sometimes end up diluting formula to make it last longer, inadvertently putting their babies at risk for malnutrition. The marketing of formula is also engineered to undermine women’s confidence to breastfeed. Infant formula companies very often employ messaging and tactics (and even messengers such as health care workers and pediatricians) that prey upon nursing mothers’ fears and anxieties—am I making enough milk? is my baby getting fed enough? is my baby getting all the nutrition he needs? This kind of marketing is not only predatory and unethical, it is also detrimental to the well-being of women and children. The more formula companies push their products, the less moms and babies benefit from breastfeeding and the more their health suffers. For mom, longer durations of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of heart disease, ovarian cancer and breast cancer. For baby, breastfeeding protects against illnesses and infections and offers unparalleled brain-boosting benefits.

While the aggressive marketing of formula does little to help families, it does a lot to drive profits for infant formula companies and Wall Street. Make no mistake, infant formula is big business. Globally, annual sales of formula are projected to grow from about $45 billion to almost $71 billion in the next two years. Most of this growth is expected to come from emerging economies in Asia and Africa where high rates of child mortality and malnutrition persist. This global growth has meant huge profits for companies and has made formula company executives very wealthy. In fact, one of the highest paid chief executives in American business is the CEO of Abbott Labs, the maker of Similac. The U.S. accounts for about $4 billion in sales each year for formula makers, though sales here have been stagnant as breastfeeding rates have been inching upward. Even the slightest increase in breastfeeding rates can spell trouble because every breastfed baby is a lost sale for formula companies. Pressure by Wall Street investors to boost profits have led formula companies to spend big on promoting their brands and pushing new “super premium” (i.e. high-priced and heavily marketed) product offerings. It has also led companies to be even more aggressive in their promotion of formula: marketing their products as “closer than ever to breast milk”, making bogus and misleading health claims on product packaging, and pushing supplementation for breastfed babies by stoking parents’ fears about underfeeding.

As many families struggle with the high cost of formula-feeding and mothers deal with confusing and conflicting messages on how and what to feed their babies, it is time we take a stand against the aggressive promotion of infant formula. Expensive advertising and marketing tactics and bogus product claims benefit no one except the big formula companies and Wall Street investors.

If you agree, join us in taking action. On Thursday, May 18th, we’re teaming up with Public Citizen, Best for Babes and ROSE for a day of action to send a message to infant formula companies that it’s time to put #HealthOverProfit. You can get involved in this day of action here. We hope you’ll join us in standing up for formula-feeding and breastfeeding families the world over and let formula companies know that our babies’ health is more important than their bottom lines.

Why Support for Breastfeeding Moms Matters

The evidence is clear – breastfeeding saves lives. It protects babies from life-threatening infections and illnesses as well as conditions such as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)—one of the leading causes of infant deaths in the U.S.

Yet recent stories in the news and articles spreading through social media are telling a much different story—that breastfeeding is potentially dangerous and that the “pressure to breastfeed” is leading to babies getting sick or even, in some cases, dying. This is false and misleading.

The truth is that many of these tragic deaths are sadly caused by the lack of support moms receive in this country to breastfeed and properly care for their children. Simply put, we are failing our nation’s babies because we are failing our nation’s mothers.

In this post-truth world, it is more important than ever to set the record straight with facts and evidence.

That’s why I just published a new piece on Huffington Post on the tragic consequences of our nation’s lack of support and what we can do to help moms properly, confidently and successfully breastfeed their babies.

In our society, many moms have to balance their desire to breastfeed with a lack of support and resources to do so. Unfairly, breastfeeding moms are expected to be their baby’s sole source of nutrition while also working, running their household, and somehow finding time for rest and selfcare — all with little to no societal support.

1,000 Days will continue its work to ensure the facts about breastfeeding win-out over misinformation.

Guest Post – Setting the Record Straight on Breastfeeding

Losing a child is a tragedy. As the Internet buzzed recently with the story of Jillian Johnson and the death of her son Landon, our hearts ached. Every mother, every human, feels her pain. Often, the best you can glean from any tragedy are important lessons learned. While it may seem easiest to blame breastfeeding or the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, as the click-generating headlines and story promoters simplistically suggest, that would not give the issue proper justice. If the true end goal is to ensure that no mother has a similar experience to what the Johnson family endured, then it is important to consider all the factors that contributed to that tragic loss and how we respond to that loss. We owe baby Landon that much.

Most importantly, we must not allow the media or any organization’s desire to sensationalize a rare occurrence turn into a dangerous, broad-based message that exclusive breastfeeding kills. That is categorically untrue and extremely irresponsible. In fact, decades of global research proves that exclusive breastfeeding consistently saves lives. The World Health Organization reports that over 800,000 babies could be saved worldwide by increasing breastfeeding rates, preventing 13% of all deaths under age five. The Baby Friendly Hospital initiative served over 788,000 births in 2016 alone, providing evidence-based care with positive outcomes. (Note: The Johnson family has not revealed the name of the hospital so it cannot be confirmed that it was indeed a BFHI certified hospital).

Take for example, seat belts. We know seat belts save lives, by and large, yet we also know that people can still die in a car accident while wearing a seat belt. But it would be short sighted to demonize seat belts in general for the specific incidences where unique circumstances meant a seat belt failed to prevent death. We would not condemn all seat belt use, attack seat belt users or criticize all public health campaigns designed to encourage their use, would we?

Yes, Jillian’s story as a rare occurrence must be told. These stories shock us to see the gaps and do better. But we can’t just stand by while sensational headlines and questionable motives trap us into an equally dangerous matrix of fear, divisiveness and emotional manipulation that foolishly paints a broad stroke over an acute complication when decades of scientific evidence proves that breastfeeding—when properly supported—saves countless babies and improves infant and maternal health.

Now for two important acknowledgments: First, we must acknowledge that not all mothers can successfully exclusively breastfeed. While the percent of women who cannot breastfeed due to biological factors is rather small, lactation is impacted by psychological factors such as anxiety and stress and these are mounting in our society leading to increases in incidences of insufficient milk supply.

Second, we have to acknowledge that most physicians simply do not know enough about lactation medicine and we have to start facilitating and demanding that they receive more evidence-based education about a biological norm. Again, we don’t know for sure that Landon was deliv-ered at a certified Baby Friendly Hospital (although that hasn’t stopped the story promoters from blaming BFHI). But perhaps that is more to the point—that all families, regardless of where they deliver deserve physicians and nurses, who are properly trained and certified in lactation science, so they can effectively educate parents to manage breastfeeding, particularly in the early days and weeks after birth. This includes avoiding “one size fits all” breastfeeding advice and being sure to educate parents on the warning signs of a sick infant, beyond counting diapers. That knowledge also includes understanding medical conditions that can impact milk supply including having a C-section, as Jillian did, and certain health conditions such as the hormonal disorder that Jillian had. Physicians need to better understand lactation and lactation failures.

It is also important to note that the Johnson family tragedy happened five years ago. And much has changed in five years. Think of how far we’ve come in cancer treatment, mobile phone technology and even food labeling transparency in the past five years. Meanwhile, contrary to some published reports, BFHI guidelines have always allowed for supplementation when medically justifiable, such as with an infant like Landon who was in distress prior to the emergency C-section. BFHI guidelines also stipulate that a mother’s educated, informed choice for supplementation will not be denied. [See: Baby-Friendly USA. “Guidelines and Evaluation Criteria for Facilities Seeking Baby-Friendly Designation.” Guideline 6.1, p 18-19, Albany, NY: Baby-Friendly USA, 2016]. In other words, no mother who takes in all the facts and still chooses formula will be denied formula. Period. Point blank.

But there is a critical difference between supporting formula use when medically necessary and undermining breastfeeding among all women, all the time, with insidious marketing schemes including back-door, multi-million dollar payments to hospitals for formula marketing rights. The former requires physician knowledge and close monitoring of a specific infant to recommend supplementation as needed. The latter attempts to broadly trip up all mothers before they even start. One requires surgical skill and precision the other just swings a machete. Similarly, using broad-based scare tactics, horror stories and media manipulation to frighten all mothers is equally reckless. The health of mothers and babies is at stake.

However, one of the most painful parts of reading Jillian’s story, for me, is the sense of responsibility that weighed heavy upon her shoulders. Too often in these experiences we hear of mothers who said they read everything, went to classes, etc, only to be let down by the enormity of motherhood and the realities of breastfeeding. This perpetuates the dangerous thinking that it is up to mothers alone to successfully breastfeed or self-diagnose breastfeeding problems. It’s so terribly easy for a patriarchal culture to put all the responsibility on mothers and not chase the real culprits behind why breastfeeding is often so difficult, particularly in the early days. No holding hospital physicians to task for missing early warning signs. No question of how many International Board Certified Lactation Consultants were employed by the hospital to provide sufficient support. No mention of federal and state laws that allow for a 96-hour minimum stay after a C-section birth. No asking about the importance of prompt follow-up home visits (a standard in the UK and most European countries) or where was the social support of other mothers or relatives who could possibly raise alarms. This is what is most dangerous to us all—the isolation of breast-feeding and the burden mothers are told they must bear alone. It is absolutely unacceptable.

But so is fear mongering.

And parading horror stories and graphic images of sick infants to market your agenda.

Which brings me to a very brief word about The Fed is Best Foundation. I’m all in for sharing stories—even at times, tragic ones— they jar us into seeing how we fail mothers so we can ensure it doesn’t happen again. I am opposed to shaming formula feeders. As a first time mom, my baby was given formula in the NICU. And I refuse to subscribe to the breast vs. bottle wars—that’s a concept pushed by marketing propaganda because it drives profits. All mothers simply want the best for their baby. But I’m deeply concerned by the aggressive and mean-spirited com-ments posted by the founders on blogs and social media. People are being viciously attacked or blocked simply for expressing counter opinions and sharing important facts. There’s high school-ish name calling that’s downright nasty (please stand by and watch this comments section) and other tactics clearly designed to silence and control women. Is this the best way forward? Adopting tactics of aggression and using cyber bullying is not the modus operandi of a well-intentioned education campaign that merely seeks to caution mothers. With so much at stake, we owe it to our babies and ourselves to question the true intent here.

Succumbing to scare-tactics without carefully considering the systemic failures and all the facts, including examining those who are peddling it, won’t get any of us anywhere in making true changes to the system that failed the Johnson family. That would simply be yet another tragedy.

Kimberly Seals Allers is an award-winning journalist and nationally recognized infant health advocate. Her fifth book, The Big Letdown—How Medicine, Big Business and Feminism Undermine Breastfeeding was released in January by St. Martin’s Press. Learn more at www.KimberlySealsAllers.com and follow her on Twitter @iamKSealsAllers.

Couldn’t have done it without ACA

My son Diego surprised us all when he was born in April 2015, seven weeks before his due date.

After an otherwise uneventful pregnancy, during which I was fortunate to receive top rate prenatal care, his pre-term delivery came quickly and unexpectedly, without much warning.

My husband and I weren’t ready for his arrival, simply because we thought we had more time. We didn’t have a car seat, Diego’s crib was still in a box, and my husband and I spent the minutes between contractions searching the internet as we tried to decide on a middle name.

As parents, it was one thing that we were not prepared. But more importantly, Diego wasn’t ready for his own arrival. Born at 33 weeks, weighing just over five pounds, his lungs were not fully matured and he did not understand the basic survival technique of how to eat on his own, a skill developed in the third trimester.

Diego spent 17 days in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Our family is thankful for the care he received there and the support that we were given as new (and scared) parents.

Although his care was invaluable to us, it did come with a specific price tag: Diego’s two-week hospital stay approached $300,000.

We were lucky that Diego didn’t suffer from any enduring health problems – he was simply born too early. But many infants who spend time in the NICU require more intensive procedures or longer hospital stays.

Their hospital bills can quickly add up to well over a million dollars.

In 2009, before the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 59 percent of all workers (and their families) covered by employer health plans had a lifetime limit on their health insurance benefits. This means that there was a maximum dollar amount health insurance companies agreed to pay. If you surpassed that amount, then the cost for health services came out of your own pocket.

While those limits varied (and sometimes were as low as $1 million), many infants with NICU stays reached their lifetime limits on health insurance before they even left the hospital.

With the passage of the ACA, lifetime limits were prohibited, alleviating that concern for families of pre-term infants and others facing medical complications.

Because Diego was born before he learned how to eat on his own, he spent the first week of his life being fed through a feeding tube. As I knew the benefits of breast milk, particularly for a pre-term infant, I was intent on breastfeeding Diego.

While some moms who experience pre-term labor have difficulty producing breast milk, I was relieved that my hospital was supportive of my goal to breastfeed, lending me a breast pump to use in the hospital within an hour of delivery.

Outside of the hospital, I was also fortunate to benefit from the ACA provision that requires health insurers to cover the costs of a breast pump for new moms. Without this support, many new moms are unable to purchase effective breast pumps, making it impossible for them to meet their own breastfeeding goals.

When Diego was released from the hospital, he was able to effectively feed from a bottle but we still struggled during our many attempted breastfeeding sessions.

Discouraged, I was thankful to find out from a friend that the ACA also required health insurers to provide access to lactation support services. I credit the supportive and skilled assistance of a local lactation consultant for saving my breastfeeding relationship.

When I returned to work after my paid maternity leave, I was also provided time to pump during the work day – a right protected under the ACA. These key provisions allowed me to meet – and even exceed – my initial breastfeeding goals.

Our family felt lucky to have the support and care that both Diego and I needed during such a vulnerable period in our lives. But it shouldn’t be left to luck.

As the healthcare debate continues in the halls of Congress and beyond, it is critical that the United States maintains health coverage for all, regardless of employment or income, and that that health insurance is affordable and comprehensive, providing the coverage needed for children and their families to thrive.

Any effort to eliminate the protections I benefitted from would have detrimental effects for moms and babies everywhere.

And that is why I added my name to the petition: Don’t Let Congress Take Away Your Healthcare.

Statement on the Reintroduction of the FAMILY Act

In the United States, too many parents are forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love.

Without guaranteed paid time off from work, 1 in 4 women return to work just 10 days after giving birth and 40% of women do not reach their breastfeeding goals. Yet evidence shows that paid leave contributes to healthier outcomes for children and their families.

Parents need time to bond with their babies. Moms need time to recover from childbirth. And mom and baby need time to establish breastfeeding, which is proven to have significant health benefits for both women and children.

The United States is the only industrialized country in the world without a national paid leave policy. America’s families deserve better and our children deserve the strongest start to life.

We applaud Representative DeLauro and Senator Gillibrand, along with their Congressional colleagues, for standing up for the health and economic security of all American families by introducing the FAMILY Act.