The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm and food policy research group that promotes sustainability and advocates for economic justice for family farmers, joined forces with The National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy (NABA) in releasing a report late last month called Replacing Mother—Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory.

Cornucopia began their inquiry based on the discovery that certain omega fatty acids were being added to organic infant formulas, in violation of national organic standards. As they dug deeper, they discovered that the same additives—now found in about 90 percent of infant formulas—were making some babies quite sick: explosive diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, and other gastrointestinal problems. Yet the formula products contain no warning labels to inform parents of the risk.

DHA (an omega-3 fatty acid) and ARA (an omega-6 fatty acid) are both naturally present in human milk and essential for proper growth and development. But in the case of infant formula, the report asserts, the oils are extracted from fermented algae and fungus, with the use of the synthetic solvent hexane (a neurotoxic chemical that violates national organic standards). Contrary to marketing claims, these oils are a far cry from those found in mothers’ milk.

Basing their conclusions upon reading through hundreds of adverse reactions reports filed with the FDA, Charlotte Vallaeys, Farm and Food Policy Analyst with the Cornucopia Institute and lead author of the report, explains: “We investigated how a toxic chemical is used as processing agents in the manufacturing process, the inadequate testing for safety, and most importantly, how some infants are experiencing serious adverse reactions from consuming formula supplemented with these oils.”

In a subsequent telephone interview, Vallaeys adds: “Right now, if a parent is giving DHA formula, they have no way of knowing that there is even a possibility that their baby can’t digest these oils and could develop diarrhea. There is no way of knowing that switching to a non-DHA formula could potentially eliminate their problems…It was shocking to us that so many of these reports had come into the FDA and nobody really knew about it.”

The FDA has the authority to require formula makers to put a warning label on their products. The Cornucopia Institute and the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy therefore have filed a petition with the FDA, urging them to require a label notice for all infant food products containing DHA and ARA oils. Consumers are also encouraged to contact the FDA commissioner via email or U.S. mail: Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. A sample letter is provided for your convenience.

In addition, parents whose babies have experience negative reactions are encouraged to report their experience to the FDA’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A new study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) delivers good news that the number of incidents of most vaccine-preventable diseases is at an all-time low. In addition, those who have been hospitalized or died from vaccine-preventable diseases is down significantly.

By comparing historical pre-vaccine data on the U.S. population with contemporary U.S. data (2006 and 2004), the authors—affiliated with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—examined the number of cases, death, and hospitalizations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases. Particularly striking were the data for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis and tetanus—diseases for which vaccination was recommended prior to 1980. All showed a 92 percent decline and at least a 99 percent drop in deaths. Moreover, smallpox has been eradicated around the world and endemic transmission of polio, measles, and rubella viruses have been eliminated in the U.S. The incidents of vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 have also dropped by at least 80 percent.

Why parents choose not to vaccinate
In light of these dramatic results, why do so many parents struggle with the decision of whether or not to vaccinate their children?

Anti-vaccine advocates assert that while the rates of highly contagious diseases have fallen drastically, the rates at which children are developing autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, and chronic diseases that often affect the brain and immune system have risen dramatically.

“What does it do to a brand new immune system that has never even battled a cold, has barely battled the dust in their own homes, to have tetanus, pertussis, diptheria, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B pumped in, all by the time they are 8 weeks old?” asks Lauren, a psychologist and mother of three unvaccinated children.

“We vaccinated, but slowly,” says Karen, the mother of two boys. “I’d never vaccinate at birth or in the first year or two. There are too many developmental things happening.”

Indeed, the list of adverse vaccine reactions parents report may seem almost as scary as the diseases the vaccines are designed to prevent. They range from immediate and severe (e.g., screaming for hours, staring into space, twitching, restlessness) to a gradual deterioration of overall health with a wide range of symptoms (e.g, constant ear and respiratory infections, an onset of allergies, asthma or rashes, loss of development milestones, extreme fatigue, and more.) The upshot is too many formerly healthy, intelligent children whose health and personality change drastically after vaccination.

Part of the problem may be the increase in the total number of vaccines children receive and the age at which they are given. As of 2007, the CDC recommends the following: hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b. pneumococcal conjugate, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, influenca, hepatitis A, rotavirus. In addition, other vaccines are available for special situations.

Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccination Information Center (NVIC), a non-profit consumer group, asserts that there have never been any large, prospective long-term studies that compare the long-term health of people who have been vaccinated to those who haven’t been. “We don’t have the background rates for chronic disease and disability in totally unvaccinated children,” she explains, referring to issues such as learning disabilities, ADHD/ADD, autism, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, and other immune and brain disorders. In short, without methodologically sound scientific studies to address these issues, universal vaccination becomes something of a social and medical experiment.

In addition to criticism concerning this lack of comparative data, criticism also centers around the government’s lack of effort to help people understand the distinction between diseases once considered a part of normal childhood (diseases people would heal from and then have lifetime immunity e.g., chicken pox and measles), and diseases that are potentially life threatening (e.g., polio and tetanus). Contracting an illness as a child creates a lifetime immunity, but the duration of immunity from a vaccine remains unclear. And many diseases are more serious when a teen or adult comes down with them.

Individuals versus society
Nobody wants to go back to an era when parents lived in fear that their children would contract polio, diphtheria, or other contagious, often deadly diseases. But these diseases are kept at bay only with mass public vaccination.

“We did the vaccinations, on the regular schedule,” says Caren, an ecologist with two daughters. “We decided it was our part of a social contract, since that aspect of public health only works if everyone (or most everyone) goes along.”

But how binding should the social contract be? For example, it was recently reported that school officials in Prince George’s County, Maryland, have threatened parents with 10 days of jail time if they do not vaccinate their children. It will be up to a judge to determine whether or not the parent’s can receive an exemption for their children.

Unfortunately, when it comes to schools, parents aren’t always empowered to pick and choose the vaccines they want their children to receive. Parents can file for an exemption (be they for medical, religious, philosophical, or conscientious beliefs) but the laws vary greatly from state to state. A given exemption may be either widely or narrowly interpreted, some exemptions are easier to get than others, and just because an exemption may be theoretically possible doesn’t mean it is easily obtainable. As it currently stands, the right to informed consent to vaccination is a myth, asserts Fisher.

Make informed decisions
Like so many other decisions you will make on behalf of your children, only you can decide what’s right. Here are some things to consider:

• Personal and family medical history—does it include any condition that would put your child at greater risk? Have other family members had adverse reactions? Is there a history of autoimmune or neurological disorders?
• Your child’s health at the time of vaccination. If he or she is sick, you may want to wait a few weeks.
• Your child’s age.
• The number and type of vaccinations to be given at the same time.
• Any previous reaction to vaccines, including subsequent health problems.

Fisher reiterates what every other consumer health advocate says—it’s all about information and education. She sums it up like this: “Become educated about the risks of infectious diseases and the risks of vaccines and then make an informed decision.” Take responsibility and don’t just trust a single source of information, she adds. “Becoming an educated consumer is the number one thing you can do to protect your health and the health of your children.”

Good advice to apply to just about anything.

From coffee shops to airplanes, from swimming pools to day care centers, people refuse to accept that women have breasts in order to feed their babies. That, and that segregating mothers and babies from the rest of society is simply not acceptable.

I’ve written about this topic before, but new confrontations sadly keep the issue from becoming passe. The latest incident happened at none other than the otherwise wonderful Ronald McDonald House. Usually a haven housing families whose children are receiving medical treatment for cancer and other serious illnesses, the Ronald McDonald House in Houston damaged its reputation by asking Jessica Swimeley to stop nursing one of her 17-month-old twins in a communal dining area after another father complained. Jessica’s room, three floors up, was the only acceptable place to nurse and if she didn’t comply, she could be kicked out. The reason? “Sensitivity” to the house’s “multicultural residents.”

The irony is stunning. Jessica, 27, was nursing her son who was recovering from surgery to remove a brain tumor. What does breast milk do? It boosts the immune system and may even kill cancer cells. Equally important, as Jessica explained, nursing is the only thing that makes her son feel better. Instead of being admonished, Jessica should have been applauded for meeting her child’s physical and emotional needs.

After Jessica’s internet savvy sister took the issue public and after a meeting between administrators at the Ronald McDonald House, La Leche League, Jessica, and her family, Ronald McDonald House agreed that Jessica could stay as long as she nursed discreetly and “announced her intention to nurse” giving anyone who would be offended the chance to leave. But any future complaints and she could be kicked out.

Apart from my inability to see how one can “discreetly” announce one’s intention to nurse (wouldn’t it be more discreet to simply go about it quietly?), the bottom line is that Ronald McDonald House has thus far missed a fabulous opportunity to revisit its guidelines, educate its staff throughout the whole organization, and make it clear, in writing, that nursing mothers and babies are welcome and supported. And they failed to see that their treatment of Jessica is blatantly against Texas state law. As of 1995, Chapter 165 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, reads as follows: “A mother is entitled to breast-feed her baby in any location in which the mother is authorized to be.” Not any bedroom in which a mother is authorized to be, but any location, period.

It may be too much to ask each and every individual for understanding and approval of women’s rights, but isn’t it time for organizations and institutions that serve the public to recognize them? And to make sure their policies and programs are breastfeeding-friendly? Why wait to take action defensively? Why not do it proactively?

As far as Jessica and the Ronald McDonald House, please consider contacting Naomi Scott, Executive Director of Houston’s Ronald McDonald House, to insist that Ronald McDonald House create explicitly breastfeeding-friendly policies and educate its employees on the issue. You can also telephone the organization’s headquarters at (630) 623-7048 to express your concerns.

For future updates, visit The Reluctant Lactivist.

Designed by two moms, Milkscreen works as follows: Saturate a test pad with breast milk and wait two minutes. If the pad changes color, voila, alcohol is present in your milk.

This information is intended to help you decide whether or not it’s “safe” to breastfeed after having that cold beer on a hot summer night.

So what’s the problem?
When it comes to alcohol, there’s a huge difference between getting roaring drunk and having an occasional glass of wine or bottle of beer. Unfortunately, Milkscreen doesn’t differentiate—either there’s alcohol in your milk or there isn’t. The results are the same, whether you consume a single glass of champagne, an entire six-pack of beer, or a single dose of Nyquil (a popular over-the-counter sleep aid).

Most experts agree that drinking alcohol in moderation is compatible with breastfeeding. “Prohibiting alcohol is another way we make life unnecessarily restrictive for breastfeeding mothers,” asserts Dr. Jack Newman, author of numerous books and articles on breastfeeding and a member of the La Leche League International Health Advisory Council.

Women take lots of over-the-counter and prescription medications and continue to safely breastfeed their children. Even smokers are encouraged to breastfeed, because breast milk with nicotine is still preferable to formula.

Why the obsession over breast milk safety?
Lactation consultant Linda Smith points out, “Nobody is marketing a test for the safety of formula!” Formula remains a far riskier choice than breast milk.

In her fascinating and provocative book Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood, biologist Sandra Steingraber discusses the degree to which traces of pesticides and toxic chemicals are found in the breast milk of women all over the planet. Yet Steingraber remains a staunch proponent of breastfeeding and indeed breastfed each of her own children for several years.

Why? Because breast milk is still safer than formula—even breast milk with small amounts of alcohol in it.

“We spend an awful lot of time balancing small theoretical risks of breastmilk against known hazards of formula,” asserts lactation consultant Diane Wiessinger.

I’m not suggesting that mothers should be cavalier about alcohol intake. Excessive drinking can affect a baby’s ability to breastfeed and inhibit milk production. But good judgment and common sense are at least as effective as a simplistic test.

• Are you drinking on a full or empty stomach? Food decreases the absorption of alcohol.

• How much did you drink? The more alcohol you consume, the more likely you and your baby will feel the effects. And the longer it will take for the effects to wear off.

• Are you small or large? Small people may feel the effects of alcohol longer than larger people.

• How old is your baby? Is your baby healthy? Was your baby born premature? A baby that is newly born, ill, or premature will metabolize alcohol more slowly than an older, healthy baby born full-term.

Breast milk is rarely a dangerous a substance from which babies need protection. The bottom line—if you drink a lot, don’t breastfeed. More importantly, seek help. Heavy drinking will affect your mothering ability in more areas than breastfeeding.

Editor’s Note—February 20, 2009

Milkscreen was recently released in the United Kingdom (UK) where it has become the target of “safety” concerns—Is the test accurate? Does it encourage binge drinking? A spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, questioned the validity of the research on which Milkscreen is based, noting that the current evidence is not robust enough to exclude any risk from low-to-moderate levels of alcohol consumption. Kimberly Schram of UpSpring Baby, maker of Milkscreen responded to the concerns in a Guardian interview. “We are in the process of finalizing approval with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), so we are not able to share accuracy rates at this time. However, from the clinical studies that have been performed to date, we are confident in the accuracy of our product and the peace of mind that it provides to breastfeeding women. We are not marketing this product at problem drinkers: we aim to appeal to responsible mothers.”

Most of the time when people are asked to fill out any sort of questionnaire, they do so reluctantly. One of the things that struck me about this survey is how engaged women were reported to be in answering questions about their birth and breastfeeding.

I remember when I was interviewing women for my own newsletter series, The Breastfeeding Cafe. Women would spend several hours sharing with me the most intimate details of their life and in the end would thank me for the opportunity!

I was made aware then, and am reminded again now, of how much women want their voices to be heard, of how much our culture tends to silence us in the telling of our birthing and breastfeeding stories.

Here, some of the breastfeeding findings from the survey:

• 61 percent of mothers wanted to breastfeed exclusively but only 51 percent were nursing one week after birth.

• The babies of 38 percent of mothers who intended to breastfeed exclusively were given formula or water at birth.

• The babies of 44 percent of mothers who intended to breastfeed exclusively were given a pacifier shortly after birth.

• 66 percent of mothers who intended to breastfeed exclusively were offered formula samples while in recovery at their birthing site.

• Over 33 percent of mothers perceived that the staff was either neutral about feeding method or preferred formula.

Until breastfeeding is seen as the normal way to feed a baby, and supported after birth and beyond by hospital staff and medical professionals, it’s likely these figures won’t change.