Breastfeeding reduces cancer & other myths

It was widely reported that a study this week found that breastfeeding reduces breast cancer risk, especially in women with a family history of the disease.

Don't be fooled: this is a myth.

The truth is that women who do not breastfeed have a higher incidence of breast cancer. They also have a higher incidence of ovarian, endometrial and uterine cancer - in addition to passing on that increased risk to their daughters and grand-daughters. You'll rarely see the headline you ought to see about breastfeeding, though we have few compunctions about telling parents that they will harm their children by not putting them in carseats or failing to keep them active.

So here are a few more 'myths':
- Breastfeeding reduces your baby's risk of obesity, Type I and II diabetes and childhood cancers.
- Breastfeeding reduces Mom's risk of Type II diabetes, high blood pressure and cardio-vascular disease.
- Breastfeeding promotes optimal palate development, decreasing sleep apnea and other disorders.

Here's the truth:

- Formula-fed babies are at greater risk for obesity, Type I and II diabetes and childhood cancers. These are serious conditions that can result in disability and premature death.
- Not breastfeeding increases your risk of Type II diabetes and cardio-vascular disease. In addition to the attention required in the management of the disease, the risk of complications means you're less likely to be rocking your grandbabies and chasing them through the park.
- Bottlefeeding causes the palate to be malformed, increasing the risk of debilitating and possibly life-threatening conditions like sleep apnea. These conditions are life-long and are incurable, though treatable.

Maybe it seems like semantics to you... but it's important. Mothers who go to extraordinary lengths to breastfeed their babies often have to also contend with family and health care providers who don't "see the point". While we talk a lot about how breastfeeding is a foundation of good health, there are major systemic barriers to success for the nursing pair - birth practices, sleep practices, maternity leave... these are big, broad issues that get white-washed in the "breast is best" message. Diane Wiessinger has done some great work in talking about breastfed being 'normal fed' and is a worthy read for anyone interested in how language affects our view of breastfeeding and how to address it.

Think about it next time you see a health headline.

You can't believe everything you read

I've been preoccupied with a story this week - and I've been trying to decide what it means. For a long time, I've followed themcdonaldfive blog about a family with three kids, the youngest a medically-fragile, beautiful 3 year old. I've been reading vigilantly thorough the spring as little Dakota has had a string of health problems and things looked pretty dire. Then, the unthinkable happened: someone sent me this link. Emily Beth McDonald, 23, was arrested after allegedly smearing feces in her daughter's central line, causing a series of serious life-threatening blood infections.
My first reaction was to think that this is what you get when you believe what you read on the internet - I felt silly and duped for having worried and empathized. I wondered whether it makes sense to spend my time reading blogs and twittering with other mothers. But, I suppose it's true that any abuser would gets away with their behaviour is doing so secretly and has a good front story - or they'd never get away with it to begin with. This woman had tricked a good many people in her real life as well as with her internet persona. Her light, beautiful pictures and apparently honest, straightforward recounting of day-to-day life were easy to enjoy - the triumph of family over adversity. Of course, the allegations currently only relate to the last few weeks - so who knows how long it has been going on or in what ways the increasing attention she and her blog were getting fed into her attention-seeking.
Annie, over at PhD in Parenting wrote a post this week about "bad mothers" and parentcentral.ca had a feature on it. I've been thinking a lot about that in light of Emily McDonald and her family. How good mothers turn bad, how we judge each other and how we protect each others babies when bad really means evil. Hug your babies tight and keep your eyes open.

Friday Five - 5 Annoying Baby Products

Adiri Nurser: Yeah, so just because it looks like a breast does not mean that it is anything like a breast. Babies don't develop nipple confusion because bottles don't look like boobies, they develop it because the mechanics of bottle-feeding are completely different from those of breastfeeding. Period. Save yourself the very expensive cost of these (apparently leaky) bottles.


Car Seat Carrier: There are so many ergonomic problems with carrying a swinging infant car seat that I don't think we even need to address the fact that car seats are meant for transporting babies in cars and there's an increasing understanding of the dangers of leaving babies in seats for extended periods. To say nothing of the potential stress something like this might place on the seats. Just pick up you baby and check the seat.


Udder Covers: While I'm all for anything that helps breastfeeding moms, I can't accept that referring to my "udders" is anything less than stupid and demeaning. Same with Hooter Hiders. The one plus is that these loud, graphic patterns do bring attention to how many moms are breastfeeding out there - which is something you can miss when they just pull up their t-shirt and their baby nurses.

Baby Bling Pacifiers: Multiples issues here - first, what about a beautiful, angelic baby screams stuff a loud, sparkly plug in my mouth? Second, given that it is in a baby's mouth, are all these nooks and crannies really hygenic? And isn't it insane to spend $20+ on something that you are nearly 100% sure to lose?


Milk Maid Bottle Holder: With everything we know about human attachment, how is it even legal to sell these things? Put aside the obvious safety concerns with leaving an infant like this - this is inhumane. The 'argument' I've seen in favour of these is that they allow parents of multiples or parents with disabilities to feed their babies without extra help. I don't buy it - if an infant can't be fed with love, then you need human hands to help, not these.

Leave my Chunky Monkey alone!

So I’m all for promoting the power of breastmilk, but this silly prank by PETA goes a little too far.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/09/25/peta-icecream.html
The most worrisome aspect of this is that the campaign fails to point out that the alternative to breastmilk for babies (formula) is made of cow’s milk. Presumably, babies whose mothers were producing breastmilk for the ice cream market would have to be fed something – and the tainted milk scandal in China has shown us that milk used for infant formula is no more protected than any other part of our food chain.
PETA, how about doing dairy cows and humans a favour by pointing out the “absurdity” of feeding the milk of another animal to a human infant?

Weirdest Advice - Gross misuse of herbs II

I thought I was done with this series, but my mom of all people came out with a great one a few weeks ago and I needed to share. Thomas has been constipated for much of the last two months – not painfully so, but worrisome to us because he had some early trouble in that department that landed him in the Sick Kids NICU (fabulous people, give them money).
Mom suggests that the old-fashioned cure for this is to stimulate baby’s anus. This makes sense since that’s what a suppository would do. But her method is would definitely not pass medical muster – she suggests taking a stem of parsley dipped in olive oil and slipping it up there. She claims she’s never done it (thank goodness), but it’s an old trick.
Well, some things are better left in the past. It’s gross and possibly unsanitary (when I mention this, mom says “Well, you wash it first!”).
More importantly, stimulating baby shouldn’t be done unless the constipation is long-running and it should be used only to clear up a back log. Using it regularly can cause baby to become dependent on stimulation to poop. And a nice little glycerin suppository does the trick just fine (this is one of the few cases where I advocate buying something!).
Ok, so unless someone out there has a better one, I’ll close this series right off.

Weirdest Parenting Advice - Bait and Switch

If your baby won’t take a bottle, just put chocolate milk in it. Variation: If your baby won’t take a pacifier, dip it in honey.

Ah, the old bait and switch. Both these pieces of advice were actually dispensed to me in the doctor's office (by fellow patients).

Do not try this at home, folks. Seriously, these are both very bad ideas even if your baby still doesn’t have any teeth to rot.

First, babies usually don’t need bottles or pacifiers – in fact, introducing these too soon can interfere with breastfeeding. A bottlefed baby who suddenly refuses a bottle should be seen by a professional as soon as possible as something else may be at work.

Second, even if you are a breastfeeding pro, chocolate milk does not contain all the iron or fat that a baby needs and contains a whole lot that she doesn’t (like refined sugar, colour and other additives). Furthermore, there’s no guarantee that she’ll accept breastmilk or formula in that bottle. Besides that, chocolate is among the more allergenic foods and it’s wise to delay its introduction beyond the first year.

Honey has to the potential to be even more dangerous – spores that cause infant botulism (Clostridium botulinum) can be found in honey and your little one’s immune system can’t fight these off. It's rare, very very rare, but it's dangerous and sometimes deadly. And probably useless anyway as he’ll be able to tell when there’s no sweet nectar on the end of that soother…