Breast Feeding - It's the best, but...

[Gaby]

http://www.ewg.org/reports/mothersmilk/

Toxic Fire Retardants (PBDEs) in Human Breast Milk

By Sonya, Renee, Amy, Caroline, September 2003

Study Finds Record High Levels of Toxic Fire Retardants in Breast Milk from American Mothers

In the first nationwide tests for chemical fire retardants in the breast milk of American women, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found unexpectedly high levels of these little-known neurotoxic chemicals in every participant tested.

The average level of bromine-based fire retardants in the milk of 20 first-time mothers was 75 times the average found in recent European studies. Milk from two study participants contained the highest levels of fire retardants ever reported in the United States, and milk from several of the mothers in EWG's study had among the highest levels of these chemicals yet detected worldwide.

These results confirm recently published findings from University of Texas researchers, as well as other U.S. studies, that American babies are exposed to far higher amounts of fire retardants than babies in Europe, where some of these chemicals have already been banned. In the United States, only California and Maine have acted to restrict the use of these chemicals.

Like PCBs, their long-banned chemical relatives, brominated fire retardants are persistent in the environment and bioaccumulative, building up in people’s bodies over a lifetime. Brominated fire retardants impair attention, learning, memory, and behavior in laboratory animals at surprisingly low levels. The most sensitive time for toxic effects is during periods of rapid brain development. Fire retardants in breast milk are one measure of the chemicals that a mother passes on not only to her nursing infant, but more importantly, to the unborn fetus, which is most vulnerable to impacts from neurotoxic chemicals.

Brominated fire retardants are in hundreds of everyday products, including furniture, computers, TV sets and automobiles. Studies worldwide have found them to be building up rapidly in people, animals and the environment, where they persist for decades. Research on animals shows that fetal exposure to minute doses of brominated fire retardants at critical points in development can cause deficits in sensory and motor skills, learning, memory and hearing. Levels of particularly toxic and bioaccumulative types of brominated fire retardants, known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are by far highest in the United States and Canada compared to levels in any other country. Together, the US and Canada account for almost half of global PBDE use.

Chemical fire retardants are not necessary for fire safety: Some manufacturers, from furniture makers to computer companies, have achieved the same level of safety by redesigning their products to be inherently less flammable without chemical treatments. The European Union has banned the most toxic forms of PBDEs beginning next year, and some Asian countries are close behind. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set no safety standards or other regulations for their manufacture, use or disposal. Only one state, California, has banned some chemical fire retardants, with the phase-out to be complete by 2008. By then, if fire retardants continue to be used at the present level, another 365 million pounds of these toxicants will be in Americans' homes, schools, offices, and bodies.

Most brominated fire retardants used in North America are made by two companies, Great Lakes Chemical Corp. of West Lafayette, IN, and Albemarle Corp. of Richmond, VA. While preparing to comply with the EU ban, these companies are spending millions of dollars in Congress and state legislatures lobbying against domestic protections — even working against consumers' right to know what they're buying so they can choose PBDE-free products. Through their dominance of the world market in brominated chemicals, the two corporations are hindering the efforts of other companies to provide customers with safer alternatives.

These results confirm the need for prompt action to reduce American children’s exposures to toxic fire retardants.

* The EPA should phase out all of these toxic fire retardants as quickly as possible. In the interim, all products containing PBDEs should be labeled so that consumers have the option of choosing products without them.
* EPA must screen new and existing chemicals for their health effects. In particular, potential replacement fire retardants must be adequately tested to ensure that they are not persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic. Testing must include the outcomes most relevant to children’s health. Changes in product design that decrease the need for chemical fire retardants should be encouraged over simply switching to different, less studied chemicals.
* The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should expand its fledgling national biomonitoring program to include a greater number of chemicals and people. The study provides critical data in identifying chemicals that are accumulating in our bodies and in the environment; tracking trends in exposure; providing data needed to more fully understand human health risks; and helping EPA and other agencies effectively transition businesses to safer, less persistent chemicals than those in current common use.
* Congress should increase funding for urgently needed research on toxic fire retardants, including their health effects, how they get into the human body, and current levels of accumulation in people, animals and the environment.

 

[Helle]

Very interesting, and abit disturbing also for me personally. I breastfed 3 children, and they all had problem with my milk.[..]
I have no doubt, that I've been loaded with toxins since I never detoxed at all until after I had my babies.

or, they could have been allergic to something you were eating. I think that happens often enough. A friend had to go on a strict diet (first elimination diet, and then no corn, no soy, no cruciferous vegetables) to continue breastfeeding her daughter who was extremely colicky and had other digestion problems. The other option the doctors have given her were to transfer her onto the hypo-allergenic formula. She was able to solve the issue by figuring out the allergens and following the diet. The other friend's baby had intestinal blockage and even needed surgery. Turned out, she was allergic to some components of breast milk itself, which is very rare. She did well on a hypo-allergenic formula.

I always suspected it was something I ate they didn't tolerate. I confronted doctors and childnurses, and they all basically told me I was way off. If onl someone had told me to cut out dairy and gluten, maybe things would have been different. I recently discovered, that after I stopped eating dairy completely, my chronic kidneypain/bladderinfection has disappeared.

 

[JEEP]

An amended version of a post I made on the Cinderella story thread before being advised that this new thread had been started:

I would like to comment on the breastfeeding issue. I guess I have to look at it from an earlier perspective. Neither I or my brother was breastfeed nor my husband or his 3 siblings (totally different state/socio-economic class), or probably most of us 'babyboomers' (late 40's/early 50's) as breastfeeding had fallen out of favor and was replaced by the idea that formula was the superior feeding method! Hard to believe, isn't it?!! By the time I had my first child (1981), the pendulum had started swinging back the other way and both my children were breastfeed. My first pediatrician said only breastmilk (he recommended) or forumula for first 6 months - no cereal or other foods and no need to breastfeed beyond the 6 months. I chose to do both, breastfeed and formula, as I didn't want to be the only one who could feed the baby (expressing milk wasn't really on the table then). I did give some rice cereal around 4 months because of the 'sleep through the night' contention and at 6 months began introducing solid foods one at a time to watch for allergic reactions. First tooth came in at 5 months and you better believe breastfeeding stopped at 6 months!!!

Four years later when child no. two came along, different city and different pediatrician also made a difference. By then I had learned that conventional wisdom dictated breastfeeding should be minimum 9 months, but one year plus was even better. (This was not exclusive breast feeding, but in addition to some solid food being introduced no sooner than 4 months. I again did both, bottle and breast, some cereal begun at 4 months and other solids introduced at 6 months.) I toughed it out till 9 months on the breastfeeding and that was that! The one thing I will say about breastfeeding, I certainly preferred just plunking my child to my chest in the middle of the night as opposed to retrieving and heating bottles, all while the baby is screaming to be fed!!! I could also semi-snooze while nursing whether in the rocker or propped up with pillows in my bed. Really, no muss, no fuss! Just for the record, neither child had colic and no allergy issues until adulthood for my son - nasal allergies that seem to be associated with the area he is currently living in. No food allergies for either that we're aware of.

Much later on I read, in the case of premature babies, that the mother's body will produce the exact formulation of nutrients that the baby needs. I was born 1 month premature, weighting 4 lbs. 6 oz. No way my mother was going to breastfeed even though my dad let me know he tried his best to convince her to breastfeed both of us. So no colostrum, no passed immunity, and for me, no specially formulated mother's milk for preemie. It just so happened, I didn't like the formula being given and was not eating - I lost the 6 oz's. Somehow, I was given Carnation evaporated milk and that is what I started eating! I can't help but wonder what the difference would have been had I been breastfeed?! Higher IQ - other possible problems avoided? No way to ever know.

I guess I was unaware that the prevailing wisdom these days is to breastfeed exclusively to one year and beyond. I can't even imagine doing that! I was aware that some cultures continued breastfeeding at least partially to 2 - 7 years. No way did I think that some mothers continue this even beyond that!!! What are these people thinking?!! How can this not be considered unseemly at the very least!

I recall reading the statistic recently that a newborn baby's cord blood contained 287 contaminants, but did not know about this fire retardant contamination. I was vaguely aware that there were government requirements regarding fire retardant children's sleepwear. I googled and came across this information:

Not Suitable For Children's Sleepwear

What does that mean?
People have become increasingly concerned about safety, especially when it regards our children. In the 70's a new flammability ruling was created, stating that fabric sold for children's sleepwear and children's clothing sold as sleepwear must meet flammability standards, or be clearly marked as "not suitable for children's sleepwear" (if it appeared to be a sleepwear type item). If the fabric did not pass flammability tests, it would need to be treated with fire retardant.

Many people were unhappy with these standards because they preferred natural fibers such as cotton, to polyester (chemically treated or not) and they did not like the idea of adding chemicals to clothing their children would be wearing to bed. Due to public pressure, the standards have been changed from the original rules. As of this writing (2005), these rules apply to sleepwear sizes 9 months to 14.

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) now states (as of this writing, 2005):
1. The fabric and garments must pass certain flammability tests, or
2. be "tight fitting" as defined by certain dimensions.

The reason for "tight fitting" is that loose garments are more likely to come into contact with a flame.

cpsc.gov: Consumer Product Safety Commission requirements for sleepwear (pdf file)

Fire Retardants In Breast Milk?

Environmental and Health Hazards
Like other chemicals, certain fire retardant chemicals are said to be building up in our environment and food chain. Are they a health risk? We aren't scientists, so we can't answer that question. However, we encourage you to become informed and make up your own mind. The following articles are very informative:

abc.net.au: Fire Retardant Chemicals Found In Breast Milk


ScienceDaily.com: Household Dust Is Main Source of Flame Retardants In Humans There is also excellent information about these fire retardants being found in the food we eat.

Is Chemical Treatment Permanent?

Chemicals can wash out over time
Various chemicals are used in making items more fire resistant and many wash out over time. I looked up one such chemical and the company stated that it lasted for 50 washings. How many people actually count the number of washings and then throw away the garment when it reaches that number? According to the government document in the first section above (CPSC), three different areas are tested (fabric, prototype trim and seam areas and production garment trim and seam areas), and they are tested at production (or after one washing) and again after 50 washings. One maker of fire retardant stated on their website that their fire retardant was "non-toxic" but it also stated that "treated fabric is permanently fire resistant provided the goods are not laundered." Obviously, this type of fire retardant could not be used on fabric that will go into children's sleepwear.

What Should You Do?

Learn the facts
For further questions, contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Learn the benefits and risks regarding the use of various fabrics. Do you feel safer using a fabric that passes flammability tests, or would you prefer to use natural fibers and follow "tight fitting" standards?

From the article above:

Flame retardants found in breast milk
Anna Salleh
ABC Science Online

Tuesday, 28 June 2005

Flame retardants used in consumer goods from TVs to fridges, which could pose a risk to health and the environment, are being found in breast milk, house dust and fish in Australia.

Analytical chemist Dr Robert Symons of the National Measurement Institute will report findings on the chemicals, known as halogenated or brominated flame retardants, at the Connect 2005 conference of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, to be held in Sydney next month.

Flame retardants are used to reduce the flammability of everything from computers to foam mattresses but some of these chemicals have been under scrutiny because of their ability to spread in the environment, and potential health and environmental effects.

"They're not only in the food we eat, they are also in the air we breathe," says Symons. "We're getting a daily dose."

One flame retardant, pentabromodiphenyl ether (known as 'penta'), has recently been nominated for restriction under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (previously known as the Dirty Dozen list).

It was nominated because of its ability to persist, disperse and accumulate in the environment, and for its dioxin-like activity and potential negative impacts on the liver, endocrine and nervous systems.

In house dust and at the tip
Symons and team found penta, and other common flame retardants octabromodiphenyl ether ('octa') and decabromodiphenyl ether ('deca'), in house dust, leachate from rubbish tips, and biosolids.

They also found penta and octa in Atlantic salmon from two major supermarket chains in Sydney.

Symons says overall, the levels were higher than in Europe, where some of the chemicals have been banned, and the same or a little bit lower than in the US, where they have been restricted in some states.

He says the high levels in Australia may be due to high use of the chemical in Asia.

In breastmilk too
Earlier this year, Symons was also involved in a Department of the Environment and Heritage-funded study that he says found the top six environmentally persistent flame retardants in Australian breast milk.

The levels were much lower than those found in the US but again, higher than in Europe.

"In Sweden where they've banned the penta and the octa, they've actually found a decrease in these [chemicals] in human breast milk," says Symons.

In other previous research Symons has also shown high levels of flame retardants in pig fat.

He says the sample sizes of studies so far have been small and more work is needed.

"We are really only just scratching the surface."

Industry substitutes chemicals
Australia's industrial chemicals regulator, the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), says it asked industry to phase out some flame retardants after examining the ability of these chemicals to cause reproductive problems and cancer.

"We've confirmed that they're phasing out the penta and octa by December this 2005," says NICNAS director, Dr Margaret Hartley.

The regulator is now looking at the alternative brominated flame retardants used by industry: deca, hexabromocyclododecane and tetrabromobisphenol A.

"We make a final recommendation about the future of all those chemicals," says Hartley, who expects to complete the review early next year. "We think it is a public health and public concern issue."

Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith of the National Toxics Network, an expert in chemical regulation who was involved in the Stockholm Convention negotiations, is concerned about use of any form of brominated chemical.

"To us it is just moving the deck chairs," she says.

Lloyd-Smith says as well as the breast milk and pork, brominated flame retardants have been found in Australian blood samples.

She says one Norwegian study found the level of the chemicals was much higher in children under 4 years old than in the rest of the population.

Lloyd-Smith believes there is enough evidence now for NICNAS to recommend an outright ban on penta and octa, and to recommend a phase-out of deca.

"The problem about brominated chemicals because of their incredible persistence is once we find out there's something wrong, it's too late," she says. "You already have chemicals right through the environment, right through people's bodies which you can't retrieve."

Lloyd-Smith says there is evidence that deca bioaccumulates and it breaks down to penta.

Hartley of NICNAS says she will look at breakdown products of deca, which include penta and octa, but she does not agree that deca bioaccumulates.

Symons says little is known about levels of replacement brominated flame retardants in Australia but there are concerns in Europe and the US that these are also behaving like persistent organic pollutants.

The second linked article:

Household Dust Is Main Source Of Flame Retardants In Humans

ScienceDaily (July 7, 2005) — Household dust is the main route of exposure to flame retardants for people — from toddlers to adults — followed by eating animal and dairy products, according to a report in the July 15 issue of the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science & Technology. ACS is the world’s largest scientific society. Until this study, which is based on a computer model developed by Canadian researchers, scientists have been unsure exactly how people are being exposed.

PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) — used widely as flame-retardant additives in electronics and furniture — have been detected in humans across the globe, with especially high levels in North America. Little is known about the specific toxic effects of brominated flame retardants, but some researchers say that the increasing presence of the compounds in human tissue is cause for concern because they have been associated with cancer and other health problems in animal studies.

“Our work is good news and bad news,” says the study’s lead author, Miriam Diamond, Ph.D., an environmental chemist at the University of Toronto. “Good news because we’ve identified the main route of exposure to PBDEs — house dust; bad news because we need more action to remove PBDEs from household products and replace them with alternatives that are effective in reducing hazards related to fires and that do not accumulate in the environment.”

PBDEs are released into the environment at their manufacturing sources and also through everyday product wear and tear, which is the presumed source of the chemicals in house dust, according to Diamond. Asked if drinking water could be a possible source, Diamond said: “No, it’s not a significant route of exposure.”

A small study published earlier this year in ES&T found PBDEs in the dust of 16 homes tested in the Washington, D.C., area and one home in Charleston, S.C. The work of Diamond and her co-authors builds on that research with a more complete analysis of all potential exposure pathways, including food, soil, dust and inhalation of indoor and outdoor air. Using a combination of measured concentrations and computer modeling, she and her coworkers estimated the emissions and fate of PBDEs in the Toronto area.

Toddlers tend to have high levels of PBDEs, which is most likely because they are frequently bringing toys and other objects from the floor to their mouths, the researchers suggest. Breast-feeding infants have higher levels of PBDEs than all other ages, which is consistent with earlier research revealing high levels of PBDEs in the breast milk of women across North America.

“We hypothesize that women with very high PBDE concentrations in breast milk may be super-exposed,” Diamond says. “Given evidence from the literature, it seems likely that if one reduces one’s exposure, then presumably the breast milk concentrations will fall.”

Diamond suggests a number of steps that people can take to minimize exposure, such as frequent house cleaning and improved ventilation. “It seems to me that any measures one takes to minimize dust will reduce exposures,” she says.

Officials in the United States and Canada are still debating the fate of flame retardants, although the main U.S. manufacturer has discontinued production of two types of PBDEs — the penta and octa formulations — as part of a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The European Union has banned the penta and octa formulations and is currently considering a voluntary phase-out and further study on a third type, the deca formulation.

The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization, chartered by the U.S. Congress, with an interdisciplinary membership of more than 158,000 chemists and chemical engineers. It publishes numerous scientific journals and databases, convenes major research conferences and provides educational, science policy and career programs in chemistry. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

So, household dust is the main source for fire retardant chemicals followed by eating animal and dairy products, based on a computer model. Of course, it doesn't help to clothe your children in sleepwear infused with so much of these chemicals that it takes 50 washes to completely leach them out. Very possibly, a breastfed baby wearing fire retardant pj's can crawl across the floor and effectively get a triple whammy of toxic exposure!

Based on what has been presented on this thread so far, it would seem breast feeding the most minimal time possible to provide the baby with the positive benefits of breast feeding is the wisest thing to do. Breast feeding children well into their school age years? That's just nuts even if no toxicity existed!!! My 2 cents.

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

As Hildegarda has said, it is difficult to find data about long-term breastfeeding in Western countries, most of the data concern developing countries. While reading literature on the subject (which of course could be biased), my understanding has always been that the concern about toxins in human milk is outweighed by the benefits.

"Breast milk continues to provide substantial amounts of key nutrients well beyond the first year of life, especially protein, fat, and most vitamins."
-- Dewey 2001
In the second year (12-23 months), 448 mL of breastmilk provides:
29% of energy requirements
43% of protein requirements
36% of calcium requirements
75% of vitamin A requirements
76% of folate requirements
94% of vitamin B12 requirements
60% of vitamin C requirements
Dewey 2001

The American Academy of Family Physicians notes that children weaned before two years of age are at increased risk of illness (AAFP 2001).
Nursing toddlers between the ages of 16 and 30 months have been found to have fewer illnesses and illnesses of shorter duration than their non-nursing peers (Gulick 1986).
"Antibodies are abundant in human milk throughout lactation" (Nutrition During Lactation 1991; p. 134). In fact, some of the immune factors in breastmilk increase in concentration during the second year and also during the weaning process. (Goldman 1983, Goldman & Goldblum 1983, Institute of Medicine 1991).
Per the World Health Organization, "a modest increase in breastfeeding rates could prevent up to 10% of all deaths of children under five: Breastfeeding plays an essential and sometimes underestimated role in the treatment and prevention of childhood illness."

Extensive research on the relationship between cognitive achievement (IQ scores, grades in school) and breastfeeding has shown the greatest gains for those children breastfed the longest.

According to Sally Kneidel in "Nursing Beyond One Year" (New Beginnings, Vol. 6 No. 4, July-August 1990, pp. 99-103.):

"Research reports on the psychological aspects of nursing are scarce. One study that dealt specifically with babies nursed longer than a year showed a significant link between the duration of nursing and mothers' and teachers' ratings of social adjustment in six- to eight-year-old children (Ferguson et al, 1987). In the words of the researchers, 'There are statistically significant tendencies for conduct disorder scores to decline with increasing duration of breastfeeding.'"

I think it is very puzzling that almost no data is to be found on Western extended breastfeeding.

About my personal experience:

I only have one child, so my first-hand experience is limited. I breastfed my daughter for two years and a half. I was careful about what I was eating, but of course, we are all exposed to chemicals.
I started solids when she became interested in them (i.e. around 6 months), for seeing them in our plate. Slowly, I introduced different foods and finally, she was eating everything. I continued to breastfeed the whole time, in part because I was vegetarian at the time. I wanted to be sure that she had enough. Moreover, my line of thought was ''why give her animal milk when I can give her mine, which is tailor-made to her needs?'

During the last year/year and a half, she was breastfed once or twice a day. I never proposed and seldom refused. She weaned herself. I understand that the sucking needs dissipate between the age of nine months and three and a half, so I guess she was ready then.

As far as breastfeeding and sleeping are concerned, I personally started enjoying full night’s sleep when she was 4 days old. I don’t think I was lucky, I think that babies have a lot to process because of the traumas (of separation, of birth, etc.) and that they need to release them. I did kinesiology on her, I never prevented her from releasing her emotions (with a pacifier, etc.) and that helped. She would of course wake up at night from time to time but at 4 months old, she was consistant in her full night sleep. She was breastfed enough through the day and especially just before bed, she didn't need to wake up at night. When she did wake up and I saw that no amount of milk would calm her, I knew she needed emotional release. She was using breastfeeding as a means to avoid crying. Adults do that as well: an emotion rises, they are scared, they reach for their favourite buffer (sugar, alcohol, etc.). Then I allowed her to release during the day while holding her and she would sleep through the night again. That helped a lot of my friends with their babies as well.

Extended breastfeeding is, IMO, more about bonding than about feeding. I guess that cuddling could do the trick as well. My daughter and I had that little moment just to ourselves and we enjoyed it while it lasted. None of us miss it today. I'm happy I did not force her to wean before she was ready.

When they get teeth, it is time to wean them.

My daughter grew her first two teeth when she was just under five months old and the others followed rapidly. She was about 8 months old or so when she had 8 teeth. To me that was too young to wean, she was still adapting to some solids.





Reading the articles about toxins in breast milk, I got scared: all these toxins, wow... But I was also puzzled: after two years and a half of such toxins in my milk, shouldn't she show some signs of health or mental problems? Babies and children's bodies cannot defend themselves against chemicals the way adult bodies do. So, how come she is almost never sick? When she is sick, it is mild (when she began nursery school, she got chicken pox and she got like 8 pocs while other children were full of them). Intellectually and emotionally, she develops normally. So, how is that possible? She should be in really bad shape, should’nt she? (Not that I regret it, don’t’ get me wrong!)

Some subtle things, when attachment\aware parenting practices are taken too far and skewed and a sort of a line is crossed. .

About attachment parenting: my way of seeing parenting is to follow the child's needs while remembering that parents are the ones in charge. Attachment parenting is an interesting approach but some people tend to confuse that with 'my kid can do anything he likes'. This is not attachment parenting, this is narcissistic parenting. Attachment parenting is strict with discipline (parents decide, not the child), but it's a discipline where parents are externally considered to their child (For example, if my daughter has to go to the doctor's, I explain to her in advance what she can expect, what will happen, how the doctor is like, etc. It seems obvious, but i see/hear many parents not caring about that at all. I see that when my daughter is explained something, she tends to participate willingly and does not fuss).
And when she really fusses and is difficult despite the explanation, we let her know that she does not get to decide just yet. We are the ones in charge and that’s that.

I've observed quite a few people doing the whole "co-sleeping" and "extended nursing" thing and frankly, the kids I've seen raised this way are little hedonists. It frightens me to think of them as adults.

Weren’t these people hedonists themselves?

I agree that some parents who are into co-sleeping and extended breastfeeding are just in a narcissitic trip. I know one person like that. Her child is her god, he cannot do anything wrong. He’s always hanging from her (he is 4 years old) and she considers that bonding.
As in everything I guess, moderation is key. Motivations also need to be carefully observed.

 

[Adaryn]

Reading the articles about toxins in breast milk, I got scared: all these toxins, wow... But I was also puzzled: after two years and a half of such toxins in my milk, shouldn't she show some signs of health or mental problems? Babies and children's bodies cannot defend themselves against chemicals the way adult bodies do. So, how come she is almost never sick? When she is sick, it is mild (when she began nursery school, she got chicken pox and she got like 8 pocs while other children were full of them). Intellectually and emotionally, she develops normally. So, how is that possible? She should be in really bad shape, should’nt she? (Not that I regret it, don’t’ get me wrong!).

This is only my personal experience as well and I don't know if that should be attributed to prolonged breastfeeding either: I breastfed my 2 children till about 3 (for my son) and 4 (for my daughter - which was not really breastfeeding, more cuddling: she saw her brother breastfed so she wanted to do the same).
They're very rarely sick. They hardly ever get a cold and when they do, it's very mild. They never had otitis, flu or throat infections. My daughter did have urinary infections a couple of times when she was younger and they both had chicken pox last year (my daughter a milder form, but my son a stronger form though nothing severe). Other than that, as I said, they rarely get sick and hardly go to the doctor. They have periodic checkings with a naturopath but that is that.
Now, I'm pretty sure breastfeeding played a positive part in that - but I woulnd't know if *prolonged* breastfeeding had a role too and if it did, if that role is more negative than positive. And if negative, how long does it take for the negative effects to "manifest".
That's just my experience.

 

[The Mechanic]

About attachment parenting: my way of seeing parenting is to follow the child's needs while remembering that parents are the ones in charge. Attachment parenting is an interesting approach but some people tend to confuse that with 'my kid can do anything he likes'. This is not attachment parenting, this is narcissistic parenting. Attachment parenting is strict with discipline (parents decide, not the child), but it's a discipline where parents are externally considered to their child (For example, if my daughter has to go to the doctor's, I explain to her in advance what she can expect, what will happen, how the doctor is like, etc. It seems obvious, but i see/hear many parents not caring about that at all. I see that when my daughter is explained something, she tends to participate willingly and does not fuss).
And when she really fusses and is difficult despite the explanation, we let her know that she does not get to decide just yet. We are the ones in charge and that’s that.

I agree. This is also about trying to see the world through the eyes of your child and comparing it to your own view of the world. I went to a lecture last year by a woman, about parenting, called Confining with Love or something like that (my rough translation from Dutch) in which she had a great example of this. Parents often want to give their child what it needs and in the process come up with a lot of stuff the child doesn't actually need. For instance, if I want to give my four year old daughter the freedom to choose what shoes to wear when dressing in the morning, I'm giving her something that she actually likes, however, she's a little bit too young to make that decision. Because, when I choose what shoes to wear, I almost unconsciously consider a lot of things to come to the correct decision. I think about what the weather is like, if it's going to rain that day, what activities I will do that will require something different on my feet, for instance will I be running later or working in the garden, all of this flashes through my head really fast before I make a decision. My child however isn't capable yet of doing that. She just picks the ones she likes most at that moment, and before you know it I'm having the problem of trying to dissuade a four year old out of her pick of shoes using arguments like the weather. This just isn't really constructive. Better I say "It's rainy today, so you should wear your boots so your socks don't get wet when we get to school. So, put your boots on and let's go."
This is actually more 'giving' to your child than to give it a choice it cannot really make. And of course there's a lots of stuff left that can involve your child making its own free choices. I don't think 'mommy and daddy make all the decisions!' is really the way to go either, but there's room for middle ground.

 

[Laura]

When my kids were little, I tried to give them as many choices as possible, considering their ages. For example, at bedtime, the fact that they had to go to bed was NOT negotiable but I did ask them "what pajamas do you want to wear?" and "which of your toys do you want to sleep with you?" and "what song do you want me to sing to you?" So, they had several selections right there and didn't usually give me any problem about going to bed at all.

With food there was usually more than one vegetable so I wouldn't say "you have to eat vegetables" I would ask: "which one do you want?" Then, of course, having chosen one, they ate it happily.

 

[The Mechanic]

When my kids were little, I tried to give them as many choices as possible, considering their ages. For example, at bedtime, the fact that they had to go to bed was NOT negotiable but I did ask them "what pajamas do you want to wear?" and "which of your toys do you want to sleep with you?" and "what song do you want me to sing to you?" So, they had several selections right there and didn't usually give me any problem about going to bed at all.

With food there was usually more than one vegetable so I wouldn't say "you have to eat vegetables" I would ask: "which one do you want?" Then, of course, having chosen one, they ate it happily.

Thanks for those suggestions. I do things like that too, but... I think I could do more to give my little one more to choose from, considering her age of course. And indeed, given a couple of choices, kids naturally don't mind the ones taken for them.

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

Insert Quote
When my kids were little, I tried to give them as many choices as possible, considering their ages. For example, at bedtime, the fact that they had to go to bed was NOT negotiable but I did ask them "what pajamas do you want to wear?" and "which of your toys do you want to sleep with you?" and "what song do you want me to sing to you?" So, they had several selections right there and didn't usually give me any problem about going to bed at all.

With food there was usually more than one vegetable so I wouldn't say "you have to eat vegetables" I would ask: "which one do you want?" Then, of course, having chosen one, they ate it happily.

I totally agree with that. It not only promotes 'good behaviour' in children (which is a nice perk in itself!), but it also reinforces the child's self-esteem.
'I can choose', 'My parents trust my judgment', 'I have an influence on my environment and on my life' are all positive messages that are tacitly conveyed by this way of parenting.
To me, that's attachment parenting and positive discipline. As I said, it's just common sense and respect.

As adults, people tend to forget that babies and children are persons, that they are not their parents' property. People often address/consider their children in ways they would never dream of addressing/considering adults (People tell their child: 'Put that away!' but when the child does the same by asking 'give me water!', they answer: ' what about saying 'please'?'. But they never even say 'please' to their child!

 

[Laura]

Another thing: when my children would get a new toy or game, I didn't like to interfere with their exploration and discovery UNLESS they asked me to. This drove my mother nuts. She would say "aren't you going to show them how it works?" or "aren't you going to show them how to play that?" or something like that. I said "no, I'm more interested to see what THEY will come up with... who knows, their ideas might be better than the "official" purpose."

As a result, all of my kids are great puzzle solvers and can assemble any toy or appliance that arrives at the house - usually without even reading the instructions! There was method in my madness!

 

[Kila]

I just wanted to quickly offer a few sources worth reading and deciding whether they are disinfo or not:

Milk, Money, and Madness: The Culture and Politics of Breastfeeding by Naomi Baumslag

The Politics of Breastfeeding, 3rd Edition: When Breasts are Bad for Business

Mother's Milk: Breastfeeding Controversies in American Culture

Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives

I agree that there is a problem with chemical contaminants in animal fats, both human and other animals. But since infants require animal fats in fairly large amounts I'm not sure how replacing the fat in breast milk with the fat in other animal milks is that helpful across the board. Certainly, in specific cases where the mother is carrying a large chemical or heavy metal load then this would be appropriate. I read a while back that women in the Arctic Circle were being counciled to formula feed rather than breast feed as their babies were developing kidney and liver lesions due to the high chemical content of their milk as well as heavy metal poisonsing. Don't have time to track that down right now but maybe someone else can.

ALso one other note in terms of the recommendation from WHO on nursing for two years. THat may be Disinfo ..it's worth looking in to

but let's also consider that in terms of extended nursing in this country it is more or less demographically confined to white, upper middle class women with college educations. So, a little like Laura said in another thread, that she found in real life it was for rich women with nothing else to do. Unfortuanately that is mostly the case. So a little bit like organic foods...they are available.. but certainly not available to all. We can recommend quality organic meats and fresh vegetables but the reality is that many if not most are rapidly finding themselves unable to afford them. SO it's a two tiered system,
In terms of nursing the reality is unless you are a stay at home mom, which means someone is around to support you, you are not going to be nursing. If you have a white collar job you may be able to pump for a while but the fact is without the constant stimulation the baby supplies your milk supply is going to diminish and very few last a year pumping. So it would seem to me that even if the recommendation was two years only the elite few would find themselves in the circumstances to accomplish that. And what do you know, at least in this country they are rich and white for the most part. I don't know if there is any rhyme or reason to those pieces of the puzzle but it's something to chew on.

just a few thoughts.

I'm off to work

 

[Rick]

I just wanted to quickly offer a few sources worth reading and deciding whether they are disinfo or not:

Milk, Money, and Madness: The Culture and Politics of Breastfeeding by Naomi Baumslag

The Politics of Breastfeeding, 3rd Edition: When Breasts are Bad for Business

Mother's Milk: Breastfeeding Controversies in American Culture

Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives

I agree that there is a problem with chemical contaminants in animal fats, both human and other animals. But since infants require animal fats in fairly large amounts I'm not sure how replacing the fat in breast milk with the fat in other animal milks is that helpful across the board. Certainly, in specific cases where the mother is carrying a large chemical or heavy metal load then this would be appropriate. I read a while back that women in the Arctic Circle were being counciled to formula feed rather than breast feed as their babies were developing kidney and liver lesions due to the high chemical content of their milk as well as heavy metal poisonsing. Don't have time to track that down right now but maybe someone else can.

Here's a story from the Washington Post in 2004:

Poisons From Afar Threaten Arctic Mothers, Traditions

The dark season had ended, and a fierce Arctic wind was howling across the icy sea as Lucy Qavavauq finished a supper of caribou soup. After dishes were put away at her friend's home, she sat down to nurse her firstborn child. As the baby fed, the mother wondered whether her 9-month-old boy was drinking poison -- contaminants found in tests of Inuit who eat caribou and other Arctic animals.

"The idea scares me. The more I think about it, the more scared I get," Qavavauq said. Her baby pulled at her breast and grinned; milk slid down his fat cheek. "I know there is a possibility of passing on contaminants to him. But then I still know breast-feeding is best. I can't imagine not breast-feeding my baby."

It is a dilemma confronted by many Inuit mothers. Scientists say the Arctic, once considered pristine and unspoiled, has become a sinkhole for pollutants. The contaminants -- including heavy metals, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, DDT and other pesticides -- come north by air and water.

"Northerners suffer the public health and environmental consequences of trans-boundary contaminants brought to the Arctic by winds and currents from tropical and temperate countries," said Terry Fenge, strategic counsel for the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, an advocacy group that represents Inuit in Greenland, Canada, Russia and Alaska. He said that many toxins enter the food chain and accumulate in human tissue. "They have a high lipid solubility, which means they concentrate in the fatty tissue of animals, particularly those in the marine environment."

"On a human level, we are being poisoned from afar," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chairman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.

Canadian government studies have found that many Inuit have dangerously high levels of PCBs, DDT and mercury in their blood, fatty tissue and breast milk. A 1997 government study found that 65 percent of women in the Baffin region of Nunavut had levels of PCBs in their blood that were five times higher than the safety threshold set by the Canadian Health Ministry. The study found that women in Broughton Island off the southeastern shore of Baffin Island had more than five times the levels of PCBs in their breast milk than women in other parts of Canada.

The report found that 80 percent of mothers in Nunavik, in northern Quebec, and 68 percent of mothers in Baffin had unsafe levels of mercury in their blood.

"The northern women had the highest levels of PCBs ever found in people, except in victims of industrial accidents," according to a report by Heather Myers, an assistant professor at the University of Northern British Columbia. "The fundamental injustice is that virtually no industrial development exists in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. These new environmental threats, which could completely undercut the traditional and land-based lifestyle of the northern native peoples, come from other, more developed areas," the report said.

...

In terms of nursing the reality is unless you are a stay at home mom, which means someone is around to support you, you are not going to be nursing. If you have a white collar job you may be able to pump for a while but the fact is without the constant stimulation the baby supplies your milk supply is going to diminish and very few last a year pumping. So it would seem to me that even if the recommendation was two years only the elite few would find themselves in the circumstances to accomplish that. And what do you know, at least in this country they are rich and white for the most part. I don't know if there is any rhyme or reason to those pieces of the puzzle but it's something to chew on.

When my wife and I were having a baby I tried to get my employer to allow me to work from home. But my boss was hesitant (I had a computer related job that could mostly be done over the internet). Well, I decided he was too slow in responding to my pleas so I called up my former employer and they had a job for me that would allow me to work from out of state at home full time. It payed less, but it allowed me to stay with the baby (a boy, now 14 months) and bring him to school during the day while my wife (a teacher) was on break to nurse him. Then she comes home at 2:30 and I go to work. It's a long week and I'm exhausted by Friday, but you're right that most people don't have this option and the one's that do are usually the professionals with careers that allow one of the parents to stay home, which is perhaps 2% of the population.

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

So, a little like Laura said in another thread, that she found in real life it was for rich women with nothing else to do. Unfortuanately that is mostly the case. So a little bit like organic foods...they are available.. but certainly not available to all. We can recommend quality organic meats and fresh vegetables but the reality is that many if not most are rapidly finding themselves unable to afford them. SO it's a two tiered system,
In terms of nursing the reality is unless you are a stay at home mom, which means someone is around to support you, you are not going to be nursing. If you have a white collar job you may be able to pump for a while but the fact is without the constant stimulation the baby supplies your milk supply is going to diminish and very few last a year pumping. So it would seem to me that even if the recommendation was two years only the elite few would find themselves in the circumstances to accomplish that. And what do you know, at least in this country they are rich and white for the most part. I don't know if there is any rhyme or reason to those pieces of the puzzle but it's something to chew on.

Hi Kila

As I said, I breastfed for more than two years, but believe me I'm really far from being rich.

To be able to raise my child at home instead of putting her in a (Belgian) system that forces mothers to put their 4 months old (fully vaccinated, i.e. 6 different vaccines) alone in understaffed day care centers, I refused a contract renewal and instead used up our savings (from my husband's redundancy, not from heritage!), gave odd kinesiology sessions and sold a lot of our stuff on ebay and in flea markets. And even with that, we had to manage on a shoestring. My husband, being an illustrator, has a very fluctuating income.
A friend of mine, who had the same concerns about her child, and who was executive assistant, quit her job when she saw what day care was doing to her 5 months old and after being without a job for a few months, 'redirected' her career to work at a local German organic baby shop (as a clerk) where the boss was a breastfeeding enthusiast who let her take her baby and breastfeed on the job!

These examples may seem extreme to you and, granted, these 'solutions' may not be available for everyone but whatever their situations, most women are victims of a system that does not allow for proper childcare because it benefits the PTB, if only by guaranteeing narcissism and violence (as shown in James Prescott studies) at the end of the line. But not only the idle rich can try and find ways out of this system IMO.

FWIW

 

[Hildegarda]

In terms of nursing the reality is unless you are a stay at home mom, which means someone is around to support you, you are not going to be nursing. [..] So it would seem to me that even if the recommendation was two years only the elite few would find themselves in the circumstances to accomplish that.

Hi Kila

As I said, I breastfed for more than two years, but believe me I'm really far from being rich. [..] whatever their situations, most women are victims of a system that does not allow for proper childcare because it benefits the PTB

From what I observe in the local community, Mrs. Tigersoap's experience is more typical. Women who breastfeed for a long time here are on average educated, from middle or lower middle class, and are willing to downshift their family's income and lifestyle, sometimes significantly, in order to accommodate closer parenting. The upper middle class and the elites are much more likely to arrange for both a nanny and a fancy nursing school, and to stop breastfeeding early in order to move on with their high-profile lives. Overall the push is still to quit nursing earlier rather than later. OSIT.

 

[Kila]

From what I observe in the local community, Mrs. Tigersoap's experience is more typical. Women who breastfeed for a long time here are on average educated, from middle or lower middle class, and are willing to downshift their family's income and lifestyle, sometimes significantly, in order to accommodate closer parenting. The upper middle class and the elites are much more likely to arrange for both a nanny and a fancy nursing school, and to stop breastfeeding early in order to move on with their high-profile lives. Overall the push is still to quit nursing earlier rather than later. OSIT.

I would agree, it of course depends on our definition of rich. I've been everywhere on the economic spectrum. My relatives on the rez would say I am rich right now. I've got indoor plumbing after all. That said, as poor as they are most bottle feed their babies because the formula is free and available and bottle feeding is encouraged. WIC with is assistance for Women, Infants and Children, offers free formula, but if you are nursing all you get is two extra cans of tuna a week, and of all things TUNA! So yes, I would agree that the top 2% of wage earners probably aren't nursing their babies for an extended period. However, even within this set it is becoming trendier with celebrities leading the way. For middle income families the ability for parents to arrange their working schedule to accommodate and support the nursing mom is possible and the question is a matter of downsizing their lifestyle rather than a question of whether they will be able to buy beans and keep the lights on if mom doesn't work cleaning the floors at WalMart.

A thought that occurred to me while driving home about the possible disinfo implications to the recommendations around breastfeeding and considering the demographic associated with the highest percentage of breastfeeding moms (white middle class). I started thinking about this demographic and, what do you know, this demographic is also most often proscribed antidepressants.

Between 1996 and 2005, the rate of antidepressant treatment increased from 5.84 percent to 10.12 percent or from an estimated 13.3 million to 27 million individuals. "Significant increases in antidepressant use were evident across all sociodemographic groups examined, except African Americans, who had comparatively low rates of use in both years (1996, 3.61 percent; 2005, 4.51 percent)," the authors write. "Although antidepressant treatment increased for Hispanics, it remained comparatively low (1996, 3.72 percent; 2005, 5.21 percent)."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803173116.htm

And on antidepressants and pregnancy..

Prevalence and predictors of antidepressant use in a cohort of pregnant women.

Ramos E, Oraichi D, Rey E, Blais L, Bérard A.

Research Center, CHU Sainte-Justine Hosptial, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Comment in:

* BJOG. 2007 Sep;114(9):1051-4.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To determine the prevalence of antidepressant utilisation before, during, and after pregnancy, (2) to determine switches, dosages, and classes of antidepressant used during pregnancy, and (3) to identify factors associated with their use at the beginning and at the end of pregnancy. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort. SETTING: The 'Medication and Pregnancy' cohort was used for this study. This cohort was built by the linkage of three administrative databases (Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec [RAMQ], Med-Echo, and l'Institut de la Statistique du Québec). POPULATION: All pregnancies occuring in Quebec between January 1 1998 and December 31 2002. METHODS: Date of entry in the cohort was the first day of gestation. To be eligible for this study, women had to be (1) 15-45 years old at cohort entry and (2) covered by the RAMQ drug plan for at least 12 months before, during, and at least 12 months after pregnancy. Antidepressant users were defined as those receiving at least one antidepressant before, during, or after pregnancy, depending on the time period analysed. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with receiving an antidepressant either at the beginning or at the end of pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To determine the prevalence and predictors associated with the use of antidepressants. RESULTS: A total of 97,680 women met inclusion criteria. The prevalence rates significantly declined during the first trimester compared with before pregnancy (3.7 versus 6.6%, P < 0.01). During pregnancy, antidepressants were used under the recommended daily dosage 7.7% of the time, and 4.7% of women switched to another class of antidepressant. Factors significantly associated with antidepressant utilisation on the first day of gestation (P < 0.05) were older maternal age, being on welfare, and calendar year; receiving at least six different types of medications other than antidepressants, having at least two different prescribers, having at least three visits to the physician, and having at least one diagnosis of depression in the year before pregnancy also increased the odds of having an antidepressant. Similar predictors were found at the end of pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that antidepressant utilisation declines once pregnancy is diagnosed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17565615

and

Placental Passage of Antidepressant Medications
Victoria Hendrick, M.D., Zachary N. Stowe, M.D., Lori L. Altshuler, M.D., Sun Hwang, M.S., Emily Lee, B.A., and Desiree Haynes, M.S.

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the placental transfer of antidepressants and their metabolites. METHOD: A total of 38 pregnant women taking citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline participated. Maternal and umbilical cord blood samples were obtained to determine antidepressant and metabolite concentrations. RESULTS: Antidepressant and metabolite concentrations were detectable in 86.8% of umbilical cord samples. The mean ratios of umbilical cord to maternal serum concentrations ranged from 0.29 to 0.89. The lowest ratios were for sertraline and paroxetine; the highest were for citalopram and fluoxetine. Maternal doses of sertraline and fluoxetine correlated with umbilical cord concentrations of these medications. CONCLUSIONS: Umbilical cord concentrations of antidepressants and their metabolites were almost invariably lower than corresponding maternal concentrations. Maternal doses predicted umbilical concentrations of fluoxetine and sertraline. Mean umbilical cord to maternal serum ratios were significantly lower for sertraline than fluoxetine, suggesting that sertraline may produce less fetal medication exposure than fluoxetine near delivery.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/5/993

Heres another one that goes on to explore the explosive uses of antidepressants and women in particular... I can't get at the whole article but the google blurb quotes this:

Our study explores the possibility that the increased use of SSRIs has also played a ... middle-class women four times more often than to any other demographic ..... White, middle-aged women targets' problems with marriage, motherhood, ...

Assessing the impact of SSRI antidepressants on popular notions of women's depressive illness
Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Jonathan M. MetzlCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a and Joni Angel

a Department of Psychiatry and Women's Studies Program, Director, Program in Culture, Health, and Medicine, University of Michigan, 2203 Lane Hall, 204 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092, USA

Available online 8 August 2003.

Abstract

This study examines how Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants have played a contributing role in expanding categories of women's “mental illness” in relation to categories of “normal” behavior. We hypothesized that between 1985 and 2000, as Premenopausal Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD), postpartum depression, and perimenopausal depression were increasingly treated with SSRIs, popular categories of depressive illness expanded to encompass what were previously considered normative women's life events such as motherhood, menstruation, or child birth. We quantified and qualified this expansion through an in-depth analysis of popular representations of depressive illness during the time period when SSRIs were introduced. Using established coding methods, we analyzed popular articles about depression from a mix of American magazines and newspapers spanning the years 1985–2000. Through this approach, we uncovered a widening set of gender-specific criteria outside of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria for dysthymic or depressive disorders that have, over time, been conceived as indicative of treatment with SSRIs. Our results suggest that SSRI discourse may have helped shift popular categories of “normal/acceptable” and “pathological/treatable” womanhood, in much the same way that the popularity of Ritalin has shifted these categories for childhood.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-497YSNG-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1170881936&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6a3a94cfecbe071e5ce53318fb8c2c88

Now I know a lot of women who fit this demographic and I am hard pressed to think of one of them who are not taking or who haven't taken an antidepressant at some time. And many of them while pregnant and some while nursing for extended periods of time. So what happens to the these kids who have been getting their daily dose of Prozac or Lexapro who are then weaned at 2 years old???