FFS - UK Anti Bed Sharing Campaigns

I was stunned earlier in the week to be shown this campaign poster on the left from Hertfordshire Safeguarding Children Board.

Apparently it's not new, it has been used for around a year - and it isn't a stand alone piece of "anti bed sharing prophaganda" either.  

On the right below is a poster currently running in Birmingham:

Now on both posters the small print at the bottom clarifies that sleeping with your baby if you smoke, have had a drink or taken drugs is dangerous. 

Is that the message you instantly take from the main pictures?

The ironic thing about this second poster is that the small print confirms that a soft surface like a sofa poses the biggest risk of all - and indeed it does, but that's where mamas end up, sat trying desperately to stay awake.  The trouble is breastfeeding delivers a massive hit of hormones to both parties, which increase at night to relax and induce sleep - this can make it near impossible to stay awake, particularly if you're a tired new mum.  You can read all about the very real dangers of demonising safe bed sharing in a previous blog entry here.

But the one question I keep coming back to about these posters is why?  Why when budgets are tight and Lactation Consultant positions are vamooshing from hospitals, is money being spent on such campaigns.  Of course infant health and SIDS are hugely important, but what I mean is why pick this particular message to send?  

One might reasonably assume that bed sharing must be the biggest risk facing infants, but this simply isn't true - furthermore overlaying ie suffocation is not SIDS; a point that I think it's important to bear in mind.  

A 2009 study found that 54% of deaths occurred while the baby was co-sleeping with a parent. However:

"Although the risk was strong if they had crashed out on the sofa, it was only significant among those in a bed if the parent had drunk more than two units of alcohol or had been taking drugs."

Right so there wasn't an increased risk unless other risk factors discussed were involved.  Why don't the adverts feature a sofa and alcohol, wouldn't that send a clearer message about what is actually dangerous rather than a tiny message at the bottom?
EG:

Oh but wait, 46% of deaths were in a cot right?  

Professor Fleming, author of the research himself commented:

"You can say that half the deaths occurred while babies slept with their parents. You could also say that half the deaths occurred while babies were alone in their cots, he says, but: "I don't see anybody saying, 'Don't put your baby in a cot.'"

Quite!  Perhaps Hertfordshire or Birmingham's next campaign should be:

What's also interesting is that women most likely to fall asleep feeding are breastfeeding mothers.  Bottle feeding mums do not get the hit of sleepy hormones - and far fewer bed share anyway, so who exactly is the target audience for this ad campaign?  And what size is this audience?  Won't the vast majority of people pat themselves on the back for using a cot?

But does anyone mind if I mention at this point that non breastfed babies are at double the risk of SIDS.  Why no posters highlighting this key fact?  Perhaps the one below might suit?

No?

Can't see that hitting the surgeries any time soon can you?  Imagine the amount of people that would be upset by that message.  No, the co-sleeping posters are a much safer bet - but it's all about reducing key risks right? Consider how many people don't breastfeed compared to how many bed share and don't use a cot - which message do you think is likely to have the biggest impact on SIDS rates?

Hmmm but sending a message involving breastfeeding might mean the NHS have to step up and actually provide consistent effective support rather than being propped up by the voluntary organisations - and that would never do would it?

For the record I don't think such posters would be effective, I am not seriously putting these forward as "alternatives I would like to see".  I am attempting to highlight how inappropriate and offensive such tactics are.

What those producing posters like those at the top currently in use fail to consider, is that bed sharing is also known to protect breastfeeding rates.  Human infants feed frequently during the night and getting up, feeding, resettling can be exhausting - then we tell mums they have to stay awake when feeding, despite all the biological changes taking place to induce sleep?   Stopping breastfeeding with the belief this will create longer artificial sleep spells can follow, or because they're so scared about falling asleep feeding they mistakenly think a bottle will be "safer".  At what impact to the SIDS rate?

One study found:

Breast-fed babies develop a more energy-efficient and rhythmically functioning autonomic nervous system, which controls infant arousal, than bottle-fed babies, says Philip Zeskind, associate professor of psychology, who studied the sleep-wake patterns and heart rates of breast-fed and bottle-fed newborn infants.

"Our results suggest that the behaviors of breast-fed infants are physiologically more desirable. Feeding infants formula may make them sleep more and may disrupt the smooth running of their arousal systems."

Zeskind looked at babies in all stages of behaviour: deep sleep, dream sleep, drowsy, alert, fussing, and crying. Bottle-fed babies were found more often in the deep-sleep state, and breast-fed babies were more alert. Breast-fed babies also had lower heart rates, indicating better energy efficiency (read more here)

Indeed some sources suggest bed sharing may not be safe for those not breastfeeding - but it's easier to tackle the issue of the small number of people doing that with a blanket campaign, than it is to improve breastfeeding rates right?

As a final note - anyone find it bizarre that the angel baby in the Birmingham poster is wearing a disposable nappy?  It's great they're so gung ho about environmental issues.

RELATED POSTS: 

• Breastfeeding mums don't get less sleep! Myth Busted!
• Why sleep training is like crash dieting.
• Lucky apes can't read

Related Reading Elsewhere Online:

• Why babies should never sleep alone: A review of the co-sleeping controversy in relation to SIDS, bedsharing and breast feeding

Big Thumbs Down For Dr Ellie

Dr Ellie off the Telly decided to add her two penneth to the whole "feeding older babies" debate this weekend.  For those who haven't had the pleasure, Dr Ellie is a bit like a female version of Dr Christian Jessen; her website confirms she:

"Works in a busy inner city NHS practice as well as a private practice. She has a very family-orientated practice, specialising in children health from newborns to teenagers."

It's never promising when the publisher is the "Daily Mail", but as Dr Ellie specialises in infants and children - she will surely have her facts straight right?

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr hmmmmmmmmm

"Women who breastfeed their older children argue they are doing nothing wrong, and that each mother should be free to do what is right for their child, whether not to breastfeed at all or continue indefinitely.
But as a doctor, I must advise there is little benefit and possibly harm to be done by the latter."

Yikes, right!

Best read on!

Dr Ellie acknowledges the WHO recommendation to breastfeed for two years before adding:

"But there is little evidence of any health benefits beyond the age of one. ."

But hang on,

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends."

So why would they recommend at least two years if actually only a year mattered?  Does Dr Ellie have evidence there aren't health benefits beyond a year?

I could re-write the reply to Clare-Byam Cooking in my last blog post - but as it was only yesterday, I will go for a copy and paste!

Dewey in 2001 found:

"Breast milk continues to provide substantial amounts of key nutrients well beyond the first year of life, especially protein, fat, and most vitamins.”

From Kellymom:

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

Furthermore breastmilk isn't just about nutrition is it? Even if we take this out of the equation, what about immunological implications?

The American Academy of Family Physicians note:

"Children weaned before two years of age are at increased risk of illness (2008).

Again from Kellymom:

“Antibodies are abundant in human milk throughout lactation. In fact, some of the immune factors in breastmilk increase in concentration during the second year and also during the weaning process. (Lawrence & Lawrence 2011, Goldman 1983, Goldman & Goldblum 1983, Institute of Medicine 1991)."

If we think about what's in breastmilk, there is protein that cause cell suicide in over 40 types of cancer, stem cells that develop into many different cell types in the body, serving as an internal repair system. Lymphocytes that kill infected cells directly or mobilise other components of the immune system, enzymes, immunologlobulins and a whole lot more, that actively seek out and destroy harmful pathogens, sweeping them from the body and regulating immune response. Anti infective factors, hormones, growth factors, anti-inflammatories and more. Why on earth would we assume that this is of no benefit after 12 months when we know a child's immune system doesn't mature fully until much later? Where is the evidence supporting this frankly archaic statement?

We can go a step further and remove the nutritional and immunological reasons to breastfeed after a year, and there is still a whole plethora of reasons to continue! Kellymom again covers this in great detail with references here, so I see little point reinventing the wheel; but numerous implications are "dose related" - ie the longer it happens the bigger the "benefit" (or if you want to word things accurately, the earlier it ceases the more increased the risk).

Dr Ellie doesn't stop there though:

"But in my opinion, breastfeeding your child up until three or even later is unnecessary"

Right so is that Dr Ellie's professional or personal opinion?  At least there is clarification it's opinion and not fact.

Dr Ellie then moves on to Sears:

"Every cry from an infant is a cry for help and should never be ignored, he says. Dr Sears even claims that allowing a baby to cry for too long can cause them brain damage."

The "even" implies the comment outlandish, but what Dr Ellie fails to mention is this isn't some far fetched ideal Dr Sears has come up with.  It's one supported by evidence. A 2002 paper entitled "Infant Crying: Nature, Physiologic Consequences, and Select Interventions" states:

"Documented immediate and long-term sequelae of crying include increased heart rate and blood pressure, reduced oxygen level, elevated cerebral blood pressure, initiation of the stress response, depleted energy reserves and oxygen, interrupted mother-infant interaction, brain injury, and cardiac dysfunction. Caregivers are encouraged to answer infant cries swiftly, consistently, and comprehensively."

In fact I would suggest Dr Ellie takes a look at this article as a matter of urgency to bring herself up to date with the latest research surrounding infant crying given her "day job".   Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D. provides an excellent referenced run down on the topic.

Anyway, back to the article:

"The attachment parenting crowd argue this is the way parents have been doing things for thousands of years. I’m not an anthropologist, but I do know that we’re living in an era when these things are not the norm"

Well I think the "AP crowd" probably argue that because it makes anthropological sense?  I appreciate Dr Ellie acknowledges she isn't an anthropologist, so if you would like to hear from someone who is and read an educated opinion  - click here.  Nope it's not the norm, that doesn't therefore make it wrong though does it?

"And breastfeeding until a child goes to school is fulfilling a mother’s needs, not a child’s. It is self-indulgent and possibly narcissistic. Children are at the centre of our world but it doesn’t mean we need to be at the centre of theirs."

Woah backup the truck Dr Ellie, we're definitely into "personal opinion" territory now right?  I know Dr Ellie confessed to no training in anthropology, but surely she can recognise that "appropriate nursing duration" is based on social norms not biological?

Dr Ellie then states that many psychologists worry that "extreme breastfeeding" (perhaps whilst parachuting?) hinders normal child development and indulges the mother with attention and purpose.

I would suggest any such concerned psychologists explore the numerous cultures where children are often nursed until older such as Mongolia, are they a country full of narcissistic needy mothers caring for developmentally delayed children?

Or perhaps some existing research?

In 2010 a study set out specifically to evaluate whether breastfeeding duration predicted later psychosocial development.     Researchers found the opposite of the concerns Dr Ellie raises, and that breastfeeding duration was a positive predictor of future psychosocial development (using an index shown previously to predict school readiness) measured in late childhood, concluding:

""These findings add to growing evidence that breastfeeding could provide lasting economic and social benefits" (Am J Hum Biol. 2010 Nov-Dec;22(6):725-30.)

The American Academy of Paediatrics state:

“Increased duration of breastfeeding confers significant health and developmental benefits for the child and the mother… 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.”(AAP 2012)"

 The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine state:

“The average age at weaning ranges anywhere from six months to five years… Claims that breastfeeding beyond infancy is harmful to mother or infant have absolutely no medical or scientific basis".

Just to throw a few in to start with...


Back to Dr Ellie:

"Children go to nursery aged three, so they need to be able to cope without their parents."

Um, children don't always go to nursery at three; some go much earlier and others not at all.  But I don't see the link between the "need to be able to cope without their parents" and breastfeeding?  Does Dr Ellie really think toddlers who are breastfed when at home with their mother, can't go to nursery and cope without?

That because they choose to still feed at the breast, this is comparable to feeding a newborn who cannot be left or that the toddler will choose to stay home just because the breast is there?  The mind boggles as to what Dr Ellie thinks feeding a toddler is like!

A bizarre comparison is then made to continuing breastfeeding and not allowing a child to move on from nappies or a pushchair.   As though continuing to provide a child with milk of their own species rather than swapping to that from a cow was directly comparable to these acts.  Perhaps I'm wrong but my radar detects "personal baggage" sneaking into the mix here...

The next comment is the one I find most disturbing:

Toddlers & Tiaras

"Children are sexually aware from a young age. They become interested in body parts and what they do. Breastfeeding a child old enough to walk over to his mother and open her shirt creates a confusing message about personal boundaries and our bodies."

Dr Ellie is attributing sexual traits to a toddler?  For real?  Yikes, I've no idea where Dr Ellie lives but I can assure you that my toddler was not sexually aware!  He still isn't at 6 although he self weaned several years ago, but he does understand breasts are there for the purpose of nourishing (regardless of what else he goes on to appreciate them for as he matures!).

Perhaps I'm the only one that finds it disturbing to hear a Doctor making such links?  For those interested in the culture of sexualising our toddlers, this may be of interest.  But my children could walk over to me and lift my shirt at 10 months and a year respectively, should I have weaned them then despite the evidence highlighting the risks of doing so?

So to conclude, a statement from the American Academy of Family Physicians about GPs and lactation:

"Family physicians should be knowledgeable regarding the ongoing benefits to the child of extended breastfeeding, including continued immune protection, better social adjustment, and having a sustainable food source in times of emergency. The longer women breastfeed, the greater the decrease in their risk of breast cancer.” (AAFP 2008)"

It seems some still have rather a long way to go...

Clare Byam-Cook In The Times - Say What?

A kind reader emailed me this morning, to ask if I had seen the Saturday Times magazine yesterday as breastfeeding was featured.

"There are a load of mums feeding older babies and telling their stories, and then the inevitable 'expert' opinions." the message read, so I naturally went a Googling.

The piece was entitled "Meet the mothers who breastfeed beyond infancy", and is quite an interesting piece hearing from mothers who choose to breastfeed beyond a year.

Cut to "BREASTFEEDING: WHAT THE EXPERT SAYS" at the end of the piece and the fun really starts.

Of course said "expert" wasn't an Internationally Board Certified Lactation Consultant, it was Clare Byam-Cook - someone who (for me) is to breastfeeding what (Dr *cough*) Gillian Mckeith is to nutrition; and we all know how that ended on "I'm A Celebrity" right?

Clare opens with the statement:

"If mothers wish to breastfeed for three years that’s their choice, but it is worth noting that breast milk after a year is likely to be little better for a child than milk from the fridge, and could be lacking in vital nutrients if a mother has a poor diet."

Right, er ok Clare "Expert" Cook, evidence please?  Last time Clare made such a comparison was back in 2010, in a Nestle sponsored programme when she (cringe worthily) compared breastmilk to Coca Cola.   The trouble being a fair few folk have demonstrated otherwise.

The World Health Organisation themselves state:

"Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended up to 6 months of age, with continued breastfeeding along with appropriate complementary foods up to two years of age or beyond."

Dewey in 2001 found:

"Breast milk continues to provide substantial amounts of key nutrients well beyond the first year of life, especially protein, fat, and most vitamins.”

From Kellymom:

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

Furthermore breastmilk isn't just about nutrition is it?  Even if we take this out of the equation,  what about immunological implications?

The American Academy of Family Physicians note:

"Children weaned before two years of age are at increased risk of illness (2008).

Again from Kellymom:

“Antibodies are abundant in human milk throughout lactation. In fact, some of the immune factors in breastmilk increase in concentration during the second year and also during the weaning process. (Lawrence & Lawrence 2011, Goldman 1983, Goldman & Goldblum 1983, Institute of Medicine 1991)."

If we think about what's in breastmilk,  there is protein that cause cell suicide in over 40 types of cancer, stem cells that develop into many different cell types in the body, serving as an internal repair system. Lymphocytes that kill infected cells directly or mobilise other components of the immune system, enzymes, immunologlobulins and a whole lot more, that actively seek out and destroy harmful pathogens, sweeping them from the body and regulating immune response. Anti infective factors, hormones, growth factors, anti-inflammatories and more. Why on earth would we assume that this is of no benefit after 12 months when we know a child's immune system doesn't mature fully until much later?  Where is the evidence supporting this frankly archaic statement?

We can go a step further and remove the nutritional and immunological reasons to breastfeed after a year, and there is still a whole plethora of reasons to continue!  Kellymom again covers this in great detail with references here, so I see little point reinventing the wheel; but numerous implications are "dose related" - ie the longer it happens the bigger the "benefit" (or if you want to word things accurately, the earlier it ceases the more increased the risk).

And yet the Times will casually print that there is no difference between this and a glass of milk from the fridge?

And that's OK?

Clare adds:

"and could be lacking in vital nutrients if a mother has a poor diet. "

But *blows trumpet* these can be found in cow's milk right?  The pasteurised (ie dead) milk of a different species, best go check out that cow's diet!  No?  Oh wait, even better maybe "follow on formula"!  Shhh don't mention the link with follow on milks and impaired development...

But that's not all Clare has to say:

"The length of time it is essential to breastfeed depends largely on what part of the world you live in. Women who have no access to clean water or who cannot sterilise bottles, should breastfeed for as long as possible because it is the safest form of nutrition for infants. But in Britain, if you can manage it for six weeks then you will have seen your baby through the vulnerable early stages before their own immune system starts working. Beyond this, anything is a bonus.

Of course it's more critical that women in some countries breastfeed, but it's also the safest form of nutrition in developed countries too.

The cost to the NHS of not breastfeeding is huge, several million for gastroenteritis alone - without considering other conditions that may require hospitalisation such as upper respiratory infections etc.  For heavens sake Australian SIDS prevention guidelines have been updated to include breastfeeding, stating that non breastfed infants are at double the risk of SIDS - and here in the UK we have someone presented as an "expert" stating beyond 6 weeks is a "bonus"?

Why six weeks?  In all my years of studying to become an IBCLC, I never came across any material that supported 6 weeks as the only important period - what evidence is Clare basing this comment on?

The next comment makes me want to introduce my head to my desk:

"Breastfeeding is a wonderful thing for mothers and babies both nutritionally and emotionally if it is going right, but it is wrong for mothers to feel guilty if they don’t manage it, and many women simply can’t.

The guilt trip of the "mummy wars", well of course that had to feature at some point right?  We couldn't just have a piece about breastfeeding beyond 12 months and discuss that based on its own merit?

"In fact, for women who find breastfeeding difficult, the pressure to carry on doing so for the “good of their child” will have the opposite effect. I have seen hundreds of stressed-out mothers with anxious, crying babies who are simply not getting the amount of milk they need from their mother’s breast. For these babies, glugging down a warm bottle of expressed milk or formula in their mother’s arms will be a far more nurturing experience than an anxious encounter with a breast."

Weren't we talking about breastfeeding beyond a year a moment ago?  Babies that eat food too right?  Who can eat dairy if the parent so desires alongside breastmilk?

I too have seen "hundreds of stressed-out mothers with anxious, crying babies who are simply not getting the amount of milk they need from their mother’s breast", although all were much younger than a year.  For these babies someone helping their mum work out why and increase the flow to them, will be a far more nurturing experience than an anxious encounter with a breast".  Far easier and satisfying than expressing and warming milk and feeding back.  I've also seen a lot of babies not getting the amount of milk they need at the breast,  who cough, splutter, gulp or take forever to drink from a bottle - Oh but sorry we don't talk about that do we?

And the closing statement - guard your nether regions readers as this is way below the belt:

"I would be amazed if there was any conclusive evidence to show that breast-fed babies love their mothers more than bottle fed babies do."

Wow.  


We've gone from mothers talking about their experiences breastfeeding beyond a year, to this?

I'm quite surprised at The Times really.  Sure they have their readership and feel they have to try and make them feel good; but as more and more mothers tell us they want evidence based accurate information (regardless of how they feed their babies) without the guilt trips, and more are reading the evidence surrounding techniques various authors employ and advice they give - the tide is turning.  The fashion for strict routines and half baked advice has passed, with more and more mothers complaining about the quality of "experts" presented in the media.  It makes Clare an interesting choice, perhaps The Times should consider exploring what sort of "experts" their readership respect if they want to move with the times.

The UK Department of Health, UNICEF, WHO, AAP and decades of research all contradict the comments Clare made, but ultimately it's up to the Press Complaints Comission to decide whether The Times breached The Editors' Code of Practice, by publishing such comments as fact.  Clause one covers accuracy here.

Watch this space...

How Many Mums Are Breastfeeding In Secret?

Since Facebook pulled the nifty trick of sharing content from here there and everywhere on people's walls, the number of "please post anon" messages received has gone through the roof; so much so I'm miles behind with reposting them.

What's also interesting is the changing nature of the posts.  Previously requests to post anon were typically of a sensitive nature - perhaps the loss of a pregnancy when friends hadn't been told, or something the poster considered embarrassing.

What's troubled me a little since this shift, is the increase in the number of requests for a repost because they don't want people to know they are still breastfeeding.  That their friend's, sister caught a previous statement update and commented that "OMG I didn't know she was still breastfeeding" (and we're not talking school age children, but beyond 6 months or around 1-2 yrs) and thus they want to avoid that again.

I then began wondering how many more people breastfeeding beyond six months never mention it to anyone, because they don't have the need to ask a question.  We could have a whole heap of "underground nursers" that never feature in the infant feeding stats!

I understand it's private, that people don't have to share details of how they feed their baby, that it's nobody else's business; but I have to wonder, what comes first the chicken or the egg?  If people don't ever discuss breastfeeding beyond the tiny weeks, how will we ever stop the OMG reaction, the thing that is in turn stopping people wanting to share?  Isn't it a vicious cycle of one perpetuating the other?

Furthermore the posters are asking a question because they need help and information, and surely keeping breastfeeding underground only serves to hinder more wide spread sharing of such information in the community?  In putting common knowledge back in place?

Isn't it really a bit like feeding in public?  The more we see it, the more normalised it becomes, the more new mums feel comfortable doing it and so ultimately the more end up doing it.  A paradigm shift can occur purely from challenging the norms we see around us.

Sure someone may "OMG" the first time they read someone is still breastfeeding an eighteen month old, but that's only because it's so infrequently heard.  If that was seen lots, it would soon lose it's shock value - it would become normalised.  And mums would no longer have to breastfeed in secret.

Time Mag Cover - Perfect Or Porn?

Whilst most are done already with the Time Magazine cover that's caused such a brouhaha this week, it still didn't seem to right to let it pass without even a mention; after all it's not everyday a nearly four year old is featured breastfeeding on the cover of a US magazine right?

Knickers have truly been twisting in all corners.  Some claimed the image pornographic, others that it was damaging to the breastfeeding movement; even those supportive of breastfeeding beyond babyhood have been divided by this cover.

So firstly I should say a big well done to Time!  As far as marketing sensations go, this has to get a ten right?  It's every PR company's dream to have the World's media debating your mag, as the old adage goes   there's no such thing as bad publicity.

But they worked hard at this - the tall toddler who looks older than his years, the abandoning of typical breastfeeding positions and the fact the nursling is standing, not curled on his mother's lap.  The way both parties look at the camera instead of gazing at each other, mum striking a confident challenging pose.  Then the "Top Trump" is the tag, "Are you mum enough", it screams; neatly tapping in to the "mummy guilt culture".

Genius!

But seriously, isn't it really quite sad that we live in a society where the lines of nurturing a child and pornography seem to so easily blur?  Should we blame Time for tapping in on something that makes the Western World squirm?  That should be firmly be kept behind closed doors, heck we are still debating whether it's appropriate to feed our offspring milk of their own species in public even as a newborn.  A culture where we are forced to contemplate the "knock on effect" to the "breastfeeding movement" and discussing whether it will help or hinder those who choose to do the same.

Some said that the picture is "unnatural", that this isn't how people feed, why picture them in this deliberately provocative way?  And I agree that is absolutely what it is.  Consider this other image of a mother feeding an older child, taken from a video clip covering this story by ABC Action News.  It's a child of the same age nursing, but whilst it will still raise debate for some - it's much more "socially acceptable", more people will see nature v porn.

But surely the underlying problem is why feeding a child in any position is "provocative"?

If we took the breastfeeding out of the picture and had a mum and child cuddling in the same post as feature in Time - nobody would say "We don't hug like that", "What an unrealistic portrayal of a hug, both parties looking at the camera instead of each other as you do in a real hug".

The Time image however is likely to have Facebook peeing in their pants as their servers must be red hot with "indecent" flags.  We're so used to breasts in the context of "tits to titillate" that we can't separate a child nursing from porn?  Because as a male he will be expected to go on and appreciate a woman's "rack", that is projected to a THREE year old?

It's interesting that society who claims indecency at such a picture, is on the whole entirely comfortable with the sexualisation of children - and perhaps that is the problem.

This video of 7 year olds gyrating to "Single Ladies" in bra and pants on YouTube has over 6 million likes (I do wonder how many by paedophiles).  How far we have come since the 1950's when Elvis’s gyrating hips caused outrage across the US?  Yet in some cultures seven year olds are still breastfeeding, that I'm sure would be firmly in the "porn" category.  

It's easy to say it's just changing times, that not agreeing is prudish or repressed - but has everyone forgotten we are talking about children here?

Last year a move was taken to ban padded bras for children in high street shops, the fact the manufacturers even considered there may be a market speaking volumes.  In  2010 Mumsnet launched a "Let girls be girls" campaign because of their "concern that an increasingly sexualised culture was dripping, toxically, into the lives of children.".

The problem is so significant that on 11 October 2011, the Prime Minister and Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families, hosted a summit at 10 Downing Street on tackling the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. The summit followed the publication in June of Reg Bailey's report Letting Children be Children, which made a series of practical recommendations to businesses, broadcasters and regulators.

But ultimately there has to be a receptive and lucrative audience for what is being marketed, and isn't it a concern that exists?  The same audience who cannot see the innocence of a child taking comfort from his mother's breast.

My first thoughts when seeing the picture were, that would have been a good idea when my toddler wanted nursing and I was trying to chop veg.  I've clearly been a lactivist far too long.

Is Breastfeeding & Staying At Home Parenting Anti Feminism?

Prior to having children, I wouldn't really call myself a feminist.  Sure I thought women should have equal workplace rights, pay and so on - but really that's as far as it went.  If I'm honest I also quite like chivalry; men opening doors, carrying a heavy bag and so on - which I'm sure to some directly undermines the "feminist movement" as this article discusses.

Yet more recently the discussion surrounding feminism has fascinated me, that people with very different and even directly opposing views can both consider themselves feminist.  And even more recently still how this seems to have become an almost buzz word as a tool in the "parenting wars".

The Globe and mail this week reported:

"Sling-wearing. Co-sleeping. Extended breastfeeding. Ms. Badinter ( French feminist and philosopher) believes that these popular, labour-intensive practices, part of the attachment parenting model, cast women as mothers above all else. In her view, the Betty Drapers of the past have not evolved, but have been remade into glowing Earth Mothers pressured to embrace their biology: “Their increased responsibility for babies and young children has proved just as restrictive, if not more so, than sexism in the home or the workplace,” she writes. “The best allies of men’s dominance have been, quite unwittingly, innocent infants.”

and

"Ms. Badinter sees co-sleeping, a big part of attachment parenting, as an additional limitation to a woman’s freedom - and to her relationship with her husband or partner, who is often relegated to the couch for months."

Now perhaps the most important point to note about Ms Badinter's comments, is not actually related to feminism - but to the fact that Elisabeth Badinter’s billion-dollar PR company "Publicis" represent Nestlé's breastmilk substitutes.

Hmmmm

The second point to note is Publicis also appears to be the go-to agency for the infant formula industry’s other major players as well, including Abbot Laboratories (Similac) and Mead & Johnson (Enfamil) as this webpage discusses.

So to summarise, Elisabeth Badinter’s job is to increase sales of baby formula.

Excellent.

But Elisabeth isn't the only person to voice such an opinion, I've heard other feminists make the same claims (which is perhaps what inspired the latest PR ploy?)

The Wiki description of Feminism is:

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment."

Right, but what about choice?

Isn't feminism about empowering women?  That they alone choose how to use their body and mind?    Surely telling a mum she can't stay at home, breastfeed and raise her family if she wants to is just as bad as her being forced to?  Having to go to out of the home to work is as restrictive as not being allowed?  If mum is the main earner, dad may choose to stay home or both partners may work part time.  Nowadays a whole range of different family setups exist, based on the needs and wants of each unique family.  If a woman wants to "be a mother above all else" (to quote Badinter) why shouldn't she?   If she was chairman of a multi million pound industry "above all else" would that suit?

If that's feminism, I'm glad I never fully subscribed!

The reality is that women get pregnant and lactate - men don't.  That's not political but biological - and no amount of campaigning will change it.  We also know that human milk is the normal food for a human infant, and that alternatives aren't as good.  Yet a mother is letting down the feminist movement if she is able to give her young their intended food, and wants to (and is in a position to) stay home with her children?  What about mothers who want to stay home, but can't because financial circumstances don't allow?

What about tackling employers to support women to express at the workplace, so they can choose to work AND feed their child?  What about women who breastfeed, co-sleep and work, either by pumping or by continuing to breastfeed when they are with their infant?  Where do they fit into this feminist mission Badinter speaks of?

Yeah, that sort of feminism wouldn't increase sales of formula though would it?  Let's not forget breastmilk substitute's heyday was during the Second World War,  when National Dried Milk was celebrated for liberating mothers from the constraints of breastfeeding so that they could help with the war effort.

But, in 1939, Nestlé was exporting condensed milk to Singapore and Malaysia as ‘ideal for delicate infants’, though it was banned in the UK for causing rickets and blindness.  Even then it was all about profit (read more here. 60 years later, Dr Cecily Williams said:

‘Misguided propaganda on infant feeding should be punished as the most miserable form of sedition; these deaths should be regarded as murder.’

What's changed?

A 2004 report found:

"The use of infant formula costs the lives of an estimated 9,335 U.S. babies each year."

Yet still manufacturers are allowed to advertise and in the US give free formula samples out at birth.

It seems to me the propaganda continues.  Claims that men are relegated to sofas because the mum is "mothering" rather bizarre.

My other half is a huge co-sleeping convert as he got shed loads more sleep (in our bed!).  A baby is pretty small, not like another adult squeezing in?  I have known dads who have headed off to the sofa, but their partners have at times been bottle feeding.  A restless baby at 3am can exist regardless of how they are fed or where they sleep.

Ultimately if you have to get up and make a bottle as per the DOH recommendations, with baby sometimes crying whilst you do so - how is this more workable for anyone than rolling over and feeding baby from the breast whilst dozing?  I rarely meet a mum who has both breast and bottle fed successfully who claims the latter is easier - the vast majority confirm it's oodles more work.  Sterilising, making up feeds, having to buy and carry everything around.

The role of a mother is often undervalued in society.  Ask a mum what she does and often you will hear "just a mum" (to differentiate from a work outside the home job) - just a mum?  Indeed a mum on Facebook recently discussing the fact that she worked full time, made the comment that the women in her family were strong and independent and should be applauded for that.  Which lays heavy implication that women who choose not to do so are neither.  A mum some years ago stated she worked to set a positive role model for her children, others are asked do they not get bored staying at home?

Perhaps we have come full circle with the feminist movement; our ancestors fought to work, and women today are at times fighting for the right not to - yet ultimately the respect for women and freedom of choice, seems as illusive as it ever was...