Research
A research team from Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio sought to quantify the extent of injuries related to bottles, sippy cups, and pacifiers in order to “educate parents, other caregivers, and health professionals about [such] injuries; help improve product design; highlight existing recommendations; and ultimately prevent [such] injuries.”

Dr. Sarah A. Keim and her team obtained data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for patients who were treated in hospital emergency rooms between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 2010. They looked particularly at cases related to use of baby bottles, sippy cups, and pacifiers; they excluded cases in which oral use of the device was not the mechanism of injury (e.g., a child got a splinter when reaching for a pacifier, or a child was injured when a sibling threw a bottle). They also excluded fatalities (e.g., due to aspiration of the liquid, or strangulation by a rope on a pacifier).

The researchers looked at the children’s age, which body part was injured, what type of injury occurred, and outcome (e.g., hospitalization or discharge). Mechanism of injury was classified as “fall” or “other,” which included product malfunctions and burns, such as from a heated liquid in a child’s bottle.

Results
Dr. Keim and colleagues estimated that 45,398 infants and toddlers were treated in emergency rooms for injuries related to the use of sippy cups, bottles, and pacifiers. About two-thirds of these injuries (66.4 percent) occurred in 1 year olds. More injuries occurred in boys (61.2 percent) than girls.

Most injuries involved bottles (65.8 percent), but almost one in five involved pacifiers. Sippy cups were involved in 14.3 percent of injuries overall; predictably, sippy cups were seen more with injuries among 2 year olds than 1 year olds.

The mouth was the site of most injuries (71.0 percent) followed by the head, neck, or face (19.6 percent). Lacerations were the most common injury (70.4 percent), while pacifiers were associated with injuries to the soft tissue and teeth.

Since the researchers relied on emergency room data only, their estimates provide a limited look at injuries related to these products. This study did not include injuries that were treated at home, in child care settings, or in doctor’s offices.

Recommendations
Knowing that injuries due to falls while using bottles, pacifiers, and sippy cups are preventable, here are some tips for keeping your child injury-free:

• Give these products to your child only during their recommended ages. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that parents wean their babies from the pacifier by 1 year of age.
• Use bottles, pacifiers, and sippy cups with your child only when they’re not mobile. For example, use the pacifier only when your infant is sleeping or napping, in accordance with the AAP’s SIDS prevention guidelines. Hold your child in your arms or settle him in a high chair when you give him a bottle.
• Transition your child to an open cup between 12 and 18 months of age, as the AAP recommends.
• Stay aware of product recalls. A small number of instances in this study were related to product failure, such as pacifiers coming apart. The CPSC has recalled more than 16 million pacifiers since 1991 and more than 1 million sippy cups due to safety concerns.

Last but not least, keep your toddler safe by adopting the “don’t drink and walk” rule.

Here are some tips on how to keep your baby from biting:

• Use teething soothers before breastfeeding. Give your child other things to chew on for a few minutes before breastfeeding him. A clean washcloth that has been moistened with cool water and placed in the freezer for a few minutes works well, or a firm rubber ring designed especially for teething babies. Rubbing a clean finger gently across your baby’s gums may also provide temporary relief. Or you can put a few pieces of ice in a clean baby sock and tie off the top. If your baby is older than 6 months and eating complementary foods, he may enjoy cold foods such as applesauce, yogurt, or a frozen banana.
• Use a pain reliever. If teething pain is especially troubling to your baby and the soothers are not working, a dose of children’s pain reliever, such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen (but never aspirin) 30–45 minutes before breastfeeding may help. Topical anesthetics (such as Orajel) should never be used in children under 2 years of age due to the risk of methemoglobinemia, a serious condition that limits the amount of oxygen in the blood.
• Check your baby’s latch. A baby who is latched on correctly—with a wide open mouth and the nipple far back in his mouth—cannot bite. Keep in mind that if he gets sleepy and nipple is slipping away, he may bite reflexively.
• Watch for signs of fullness. Biting is most likely to happen when your baby is full and has lost interest in nursing, so watch for signs that he is full (stops sucking and swallowing, falls asleep) and take him off the breast before he has a chance to bite.
• Pay attention. Some babies will bite if your attention is elsewhere—on the phone or TV, for example. Engage with your baby while breastfeeding, and see if this helps. You may also minimize distractions by dimming lights, turning off the TV, playing music, or going to a quiet room.

Many mothers instinctively pull back and cry out when bitten, startling their babies. This negative reinforcement can be a deterrent to ever biting again. Some mothers couple this with putting the baby down for few minutes and walking away before returning to the feeding.

If you can, try to pull your baby into the breast for a few seconds when he bites instead of pushing him away. This will keep your nipple from being stretched out, and will enable you to slide your finger into your baby’s mouth to release his latch before taking him off the breast. Once you soothe his gums, try completing the feeding.

Albow is not alone in his criticism. TODAY Moms invited comments on the cover photo from its readers by posing the question, “We know you have opinions about the cover. Sure, it got everyone’s attention, but does it ultimately hurt or help the perception of breast-feeding?” Most of the 3,126 comments were critical of the cover: “I have cancelled my subscription.” “An infant OK, a kid that age NO.” “I consider this picture child abuse.” Sadly, I had to dig deep to find a positive comment: “This is a good thing, and the more mothers do it the better.”

Calculated or misguided?
“It’s [extended breastfeeding] not socially normal. The more people see it, the more it’ll become normal in our culture. That’s what I’m hoping. I want people to see it,” Grumet tells Kate Pickert, author of The Man Who Remade Motherhood, the TIME magazine article marking the 20^th anniversary of attachment parenting.

Whether TIME’s choice of cover photo was calculated or misguided, it’s clear that Grumet’s photo (along with the photos inside the magazine) has reignited the Attachment Parenting debate (a parenting approach largely characterized by babywearing, co-sleeping, and child-led weaning). Lost in the debate, however, is the fact that attachment parenting is more than the sum of its parts. It is a parenting method designed to make children confident and compassionate by responding to their needs, nurturing strong physical and emotional connections, and modeling appropriate social behavior.

Sound familiar? It should. Because it’s a parenting method that every parent embraces—keep your child warm, well nourished, and safe; stimulate their senses; calm their fears; and behave in a way that says to your child, “Do as I say and as I do.”

Is the cover photo good for breastfeeding?
“Time” will tell whether negative media is better than no media. However, when only 1 in 10 U.S. babies breastfeed exclusively for six months perhaps it’s time to tone down the rhetoric and stop arguing about the small number of mothers who breastfeed three, four, or more years, and focus instead on the many mothers who try to breastfeed but can’t. Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that how long a mother breastfeeds—six days, six weeks, six months, six years, or not at all—was never meant to be a measure of motherhood.

So you might think.

But formula companies these days are up against a formidable alternative: breastfeeding. The benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and babies—and, along with that, the high cost of not breastfeeding—are widely recognized.

What’s more Nestlé, Gerber’s parent company since 2007, has been charged with marketing strategies designed to undercut breastfeeding at the expense of infant health. Positioning itself as the breastfeeding moms’ best friend is an attempt to overcome its troubled past. Thus, the company has rebranded its “Nestlé Good Start” label with the smiling Gerber baby, developed a series of videos about “how to nourish Generation Healthy through the milestones,” (more about that in a minute) and launched its new feel-good marketing campaign.

But there’s nothing to feel good about with this advertisement. Beyond the adorable baby and the mother’s gentle touch, this ad has nothing to offer the breastfeeding mothers who are its intended audience. “You want your baby to have your imagination, your smile, your eyes … not your allergies,” it declares. After acknowledging that “breastfeeding is the best way to naturally protect your baby” from this danger, it gets to the heart of its message: “If you do introduce formula, choose the Gerber Good Start Comfort Proteins advantage.” Such statements are well-recognized as “booby traps” to breastfeeding.

According to the ad, this formula is “inspired by breast milk” and produced by a company that is “nourishing” what it calls “Generation Healthy.” But what it isn’t—and cannot be—is a replacement for breastfeeding.

And while the final screen promises “expert feeding advice 24/7,” it seems best to remember that this company has at its heart one goal: selling formula, and, after that, a line of complementary foods.

Simply put, breastfeeding promotion is not the job of a company whose products compete with breast milk. Nor should it be. The company’s marketing bias cannot help but affect its advice.

Take, for example, Gerber’s video series, mentioned above. The first video promises to cover “all about breastfeeding,” a tall order indeed for just over 10 minutes of screen-time. The advice here is generally sound, given by a self-described breastfeeding mother named Francesca as she guides her friend through using several breastfeeding positions with her newborn. However, while Francesca notes that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends mothers breastfeed for at least a year or as long as the mother and baby want, she ignores the group’s call for exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months.

The second video tackles pumping and storing milk, perplexingly recommending that mothers stop pumping when their breasts are “somewhat emptied,” rather than fully emptied. The third video turns to bottle-feeding and bottle care and by this video, Francesca is no longer said to be breastfeeding. The fourth is about “choosing a formula for your baby,” which Francesca explains she did when she decided to supplement her breast milk. The “milestones” the series is designed to address, then, are a short period of breastfeeding followed by supplemented feeding (or, the company’s narrator points out, exclusive formula-feeding), and then the introduction of complementary foods. The implicit message? We’re here for you when you give up breastfeeding—which you will.

We recognize that some women choose never to breastfeed and that only 1 in 10 U.S. mothers breastfeed exclusively for six months. But it is disingenuous, at best, for formula companies to promote breastfeeding, knowing that they profit only when mothers choose not to breastfeed.

While Gerber might promise that its “experts are here to help,” breastfeeding mothers are best advised to get their help elsewhere. Talk with your health care provider or a lactation consultant about the breastfeeding resources in your area. La Leche League has trained leaders available to answer questions in many areas, and breastfeeding counselors from the newly-minted Breastfeeding USA may be able to help with breastfeeding questions and concerns.

When it comes to breastfeeding, don’t look to Gerber for a “good start.”

Until recently, foremilk was thought to contain less fat and fewer calories than hindmilk. Consequently, foremilk was described as thin and runny, and hindmilk was described as thick and creamy.

When you compare samples of foremilk and hindmilk expressed during the same feeding, it’s true that the foremilk usually has less fat and fewer calories than the hindmilk. However, if you compare a sample of foremilk expressed at one feeding with a sample of hindmilk expressed at another feeding, the foremilk may actually contain more fat than the hindmilk. Confused? You’re not alone!

Fat content varies with milk volume—the smaller the milk volume, the higher the fat content. Feeding patterns determine milk volume. The longer the period of time between feedings, the greater the milk volume and the lower the fat content. When the time between feedings is short (1–2 hours), babies get smaller amounts of high fat milk. More time between feedings (3 or more hours) causes babies to get larger amounts of low fat milk. Most babies get the nutrients they need to grow by following their own unique pattern.

Breast fullness is a measure of fat content. The fuller the breast, the lower the fat content of the milk and the greater the difference in fat content between the milk obtained first and the milk obtained last. The emptier the breast, the higher the fat content and the lesser the difference between the milk obtained at the start of the feeding and the milk obtained at the end.

One of the amazing things about human milk is its ability to change from month-to- month, week-to-week, day-to-day, feeding-to-feeding, and from start to finish during a single feeding. To ensure that your baby gets all the fat and calories she needs to grow, breastfeed at the first sign of hunger and continue to breastfeed until your baby is full. Remember, it is important to always watch your baby, not the clock, for signs of hunger and fullness.

Is it time, as Time magazine asks, to “bring back the binky?”

A surprising finding
The study that’s getting so much attention was conducted recently at Doernbecher Children’s Hospital of Oregon Health & Sciences University (OHSU). It has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet, but was presented at the 2012 Pediatric Academic Societies conference. (Please note that since it hasn’t been published, our sources of information are limited to the abstract, a summary by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), OHSU’s press release, and media accounts.)

Unfortunately, this means we can’t know the researcher’s methodology, inclusion or exclusion criteria, and other pertinent details.

In December 2010, the OHSU Mother-Baby Unit halted the routine distribution of pacifiers to breastfeeding newborns. Pacifiers were instead kept in a locked supply management system that required the health care provider to type in a code, the patient’s name, and a reason for checking out a pacifier. Pacifiers were allowed in special circumstances, such as in conjunction with a painful procedure. In addition, parents were able to bring pacifiers from home, and these were not tracked.

Dr. Carrie Phillipi, associate professor of pediatrics at OHSU and resident pediatrician Laura Kair analyzed data on feeding of 2,249 infants. They determined that when pacifiers were still being distributed (July 2010–November 2010), about 79 percent of infants were breastfed exclusively during their hospital stay, but once the locked-pacifier policy was initiated, over the subsequent eight-month period (January 2011–August 2011), the percentage of breastfeeding infants decreased significantly to 68 percent. At the same time, the proportion of breastfed infants who received supplemental formula increased from 18 percent to 28 percent. The percentage of infants fed formula-only remained statistically unchanged.

Dr. Phillipi explained to The Oregonian’s Kathy Hinson that she and Dr. Kair “had sort of taken it on faith … that (avoiding pacifier use) would increase breastfeeding rates.” According to MSNBC, Dr. Kair notes that their expectation was in line with “the common belief among medical providers and the general public that pacifier use negatively impacts breastfeeding,” but instead they “found limiting pacifier use in the Mother-Baby Unit was associated with decreased exclusive [breastfeeding] and increased supplemental formula feeds.”

The researchers suggest that the seeming relationship between pacifier availability and breastfeeding should be viewed “as an interesting observation.” Dr. Kair explains that they “do not claim a cause and effect relationship,” but publicize this data “to stimulate dialogue and scientific inquiry into the relationship between pacifiers and breastfeeding.”

“Our overall goal,” she continues, “is to increase breastfeeding rates.”

Study raises questions
While the study raises some interesting questions about the researcher’s unexpected finding, it must be considered with caution in light of several facts:

• There’s a lot we don’t know about the research. As noted above, we don’t know the methodology, or the inclusion or exclusion criteria for this study. We also don’t know what process the hospital undertook in launching its “pacifier lockdown” initiative or staff response/compliance.
• There’s a lot we don’t know about the hospital environment. Dr. Kair has observed that this was an initial step in the hospital’s pursuit of Baby-Friendly status: “As our hospital is trying to get Baby-Friendly status, we anticipated that removing pacifiers would improve exclusive breastfeeding,” says Kair in an interview with the TODAY show. “Pacifiers were a low-hanging fruit, removing them was an easy thing to do.” Some previous research suggests that the steps of the Baby-Friendly Hospital initiative don’t work in isolation but rather in concert. For example, one study of maternity-care practices found that more of the practices led to better improvements in rates of breastfeeding assessed at six weeks. Another recent study of baby-friendly practices in a Hong Kong hospital found that mothers who experienced just one or fewer baby-friendly practices were almost three times more likely to discontinue breastfeeding by eight weeks postpartum.
• It’s unclear whether the hospital engaged in any parent education. Parental use of pacifiers as “hushers” to calm a crying baby, as the World Health Organization (WHO) explains, may inadvertently be used as a substitute for a feeding. This may lead infants who use them regularly to have fewer daily breastfeeds. Thus any effort to support breastfeeding ought to involve some education with regard to normal newborn behavior (including the meaning of different cries), infant feeding cues, and the need to put the baby to the breast as soon as possible in the first days postpartum to build the mother’s milk supply.
• Analysis is limited to the hospital stay. It seems the researchers looked only at infant feeding data in the hospital. A more complete analysis might follow the mother-baby dyads into the postpartum period, assessing breastfeeding behavior at a number of weeks or months.
• Analysis doesn’t address “why.” In November 2011, the AAP revised and reissued its SIDS policy statement, a primary component of which is a call for parents to give their babies pacifiers during sleep. This event was widely covered by the popular media, but it’s possible that the timing of this event—alone or in combination with other social messages in the community—influenced parents’ choices.
• It’s an observational study and cannot prove causality. As Dr. Phillipi has noted, no conclusions can be reached as to which came first: pacifier use leading to decreased breastfeeding, or decreased breastfeeding leading to increased pacifier use.
• It doesn’t account for parents who brought pacifiers in themselves, either before or after the lock-down policy was instituted.

Pacifier role still unclear
As explained elsewhere on baby gooroo, WHO and UNICEF recommend parents skip pacifiers since they may make it harder for parents to respond to their babies’ feeding cues, leading to a reduced milk supply and early cessation of breastfeeding. Meanwhile, the AAP continues to recommend pacifier use, on a restricted basis (e.g., when the baby is going to sleep), to reduce the risk of SIDS.

When it comes right down to it, each parent will need to weigh the risks and benefits of pacifier use and make a decision that feels right for their family. Breastfeeding mothers should remember that their baby’s sucking instincts are the “demand” that affects their milk “supply.” Some tips:

• Be attuned to your baby’s cues. Rather than reaching for the “husher” when your baby cries, recognize that this is one way your baby is trying to communicate with you. If she’s hungry—or if she just wants the comfort breastfeeding can provide—consider offering the breast before you offer a pacifier.
• Limit pacifier time to when your baby sleeps. In accord with the AAP’s recommendation, put your baby to bed with a pacifier to reduce the risk of SIDS, but don’t replace it if it falls out of your baby’s mouth.
• If you choose to give your baby a pacifier, take care of it. Check it often for cracks and tears. Clean it regularly and replace it as needed.
• Delay pacifier use until four to six weeks postpartum. Breastfeeding—and your milk supply—should be well-established by 4-6 weeks and use of a pacifier at that time should not interfere with your baby’s ability to breastfeed.

A recent study of infant feeding (exclusive breastfeeding, exclusive formula-feeding, or a combination of the two) and sleep found no difference in sleep for mothers who fed their babies formula before bedtime and those who breastfed.

“Efforts to encourage women to breastfeed,” the authors suggest, “should include information about sleep. Specifically, … that choosing formula does not equate with improved sleep.” (A summary of this study is available elsewhere on baby gooroo.)

A similar, earlier study showed that giving formula in the evening can actually lead to less sleep for babies—and, therefore, less sleep for parents. Parents of infants who were breastfed in the evening and/or at night “slept an average of 40–45 minutes more than parents of infants given formula.” Parents of infants who received formula at night also reported “more sleep disturbances” than parents of those who were exclusively breastfed. It’s unclear why, but it may be related to breast milk being easier to digest and causing less gastrointestinal upset than formula.

Baby sleep habits
Most babies are wired to sleep for short periods of time. Frequent night awakenings is a sleep pattern shared by all babies during their first year of life, and likely protects against sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

During the first few months, babies tend to awaken frequently during the night, as they shift between quiet sleep and active sleep, then back to quiet sleep. During extended periods of sleep, infants are less responsive to biological cues, such as low oxygen and increased carbon dioxide. While the cause of SIDS remains unknown, many experts believe it is related to a disruption in the baby’s breathing during sleep. In fact, the peak incidence of SIDS occurs at about 3 months of age—around the same time when most babies seem to start sleeping for longer periods of time. Many researchers hypothesize that awakenings from sleep may be essential for proper breathing in babies whose breathing mechanisms are not yet fully developed at birth. In other words, frequent awakenings are a biological necessity for infants and—as tired as parents may feel as a result—they are a positive sign of your baby’s overall health and safety.

Since breastfeeding is also protective against SIDS, for the safest sleep possible, all mothers are urged to breastfeed.

To learn more about babies and their sleep habits, read “Good Night, Sleep Tight”.

1. Mammals are the only animals that produce a unique and complex fluid that protects and nourishes their young. Infant formulas nourish but do not protect.
2. The human breast contains hundreds of milk-producing cells ensuring an ample supply of milk for one, two, or more babies! Instances of insufficient milk are rare and are usually due to lack of knowledge or lack of support.
3. Aristotle was among those who wrongly thought milk produced in the first days after birth (colostrum) was unsuitable to drink. So much for genius!
4. There are over 200 known ingredients in human milk and they are all free! Mothers that breastfeed save as much as $2,500 the first year alone in bottles, nipples, and formula.
5. Babies are born with reflexes such as rooting, sucking, and swallowing that make learning to breastfeed easier. But it takes patience, persistence, and practice to become proficient.
6. Babies who must cry in order to be fed often have difficulty latching on. Crying also triggers the release of hormones that affect brain development and personality. Keeping your baby close—day and night—during the early weeks, will ensure that you see your baby’s hunger cues long before you hear his cry.
7. Breastfeeding can be painful at first. But the pain should only last a few seconds. If the pain persists, it can be a sign that your baby is poorly latched. Break the suction, remove your baby from the breast, and try again. Still hurts? Get help from someone trained to help moms breastfeed.
8. Breastfeeding a child beyond their first year is normal. Mammals most like humans—chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas—nurse their young for 4–6 years.
9. The portions of the brain associated with maternal sensitivity are more active in breastfeeding mothers compared to formula-feeding mothers. The significance of this and similar findings are yet to be gleaned.
10. In 2010, a group of Swedish scientists discovered a substance in human milk that kills cancer cells but spares healthy cells. Dubbed HAMLET—human alpha-lactalbumin made lethal to tumor cells—these cells serve as a reminder of how little we know about human milk and why artificial formula will never compare.

Human milk is a marvel of evolution—six million years in the making—with a delivery system that has truly endured the test of time!

While breastfeeding may not seem the right choice for every mother, it is the best choice for every baby.

Being exposed to someone practicing extended breastfeeding—and seeing her son grow into a sweet, bright, well-adjusted boy—opened my mind and prompted me to do a little research. What I discovered is that breastfeeding through the toddler years was not only the norm throughout human history but remains so today in many cultures around the world. My own father-in-law, who was born in China, breastfed for five years.

The United Nations Children’s Fund estimates that 49 percent of children worldwide are breastfed for 1–2 years. But only 23 percent of American children are still breastfeeding at age 1, and that number drops to 8 percent at 18 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Weaning ages vary widely for the small percentage of long-term breastfeeders. A 1995 study of such mothers in the U.S. found the average weaning age was between 2 1/2 to 3 years and ranged all the way up to 7 years, 4 months.

Although nursing beyond infancy is atypical in the United States (U.S.) today, the practice is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNICEF. In fact WHO and UNICEF urge mothers to breastfeed for at least two years, with complementary foods added after six months of exclusive breastfeeding. The AAP believes breastfeeding should continue for at least a year and as long as mutually desired by the mother and child.

“Increased duration of breastfeeding confers significant health and developmental benefits for the child and the mother,” says the AAP’s breastfeeding policy paper. “There is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding and no evidence of psychologic or developmental harm from breastfeeding into the third year of life or longer.”

The health benefits of extended breastfeeding are tough to dispute. Immunological factors in breast milk continue to help children fight infection beyond 2 years of age, and long-term breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of childhood obesity and Type 2 diabetes, not to mention higher IQs.

The benefits for mothers are just as impressive. The longer mothers breastfeed, for instance, the more they reduce their risk of breast cancer. A 2002 review of 47 epidemiological studies from 30 countries published in the Journal Lancet shows the risk of breast cancer declines 4.3 percentage points for every 12 months of breastfeeding. The incidence of breast cancer in developed countries would be reduced by more than half if mothers breastfed as long as mothers in developing countries.

There are emotional benefits to extended breastfeeding too. Nursing provides a quiet, close time for mothers and children to bond, and breastfeeding can help calm toddlers during emotional upsets.

Nevertheless, practicing extended breastfeeding in the U.S. can be challenging given the lack of societal approval. Because our culture treats the female breast as a sexual object rather than a means to produce and deliver milk to children, mothers often receive subtle and overt pressure to wean early from friends, family, and even doctors. As a result, many women who continue nursing past infancy stop breastfeeding in public—a phenomenon called “closet nursing.” (You can read more about this here, here, and here.)

Most states have laws specifically allowing mothers to breastfeed in public, although women still face hostility. In 2011, the city council of Forest Park, Georgia, passed a law restricting public breastfeeding to children over age 2. After 300 breastfeeding women and their supporters staged a “nurse-in” at City Hall, however, the city council backed down and dropped the nursing age limit from its public indecency ordinance.

While I certainly never planned to breastfeed for this long, our pediatrician said my son needed some form of milk for at least two years. He never took to cow’s milk, and why should he? The way I look at it now: Cow’s milk was designed for cows. Breast milk is for humans. So if my child needs milk, why shouldn’t I keep giving him what nature intended?

Jenny Hontz is a Los Angeles-based freelance writer, yogi, and mom.