Re: Is breast best?

[Guest guest]

Alison,

You are very passionate about a very important subject, as am I.

I think you have to be careful, though, because it seems that you are

taking sides, rather than hearing the science and tradition behind Sally's

ideas. Sally would certainly agree with you that well-nourished

breastfeeding is the ideal that we are all striving for. After all, she

tried and tried to breastfeed (read the Fall issue of Wise Traditions for

her own heart-wrenching story of attempting to nurse her own 4 children,

only to have her milk dry up, inexplicably). She was grateful to have

access to beautiful raw cow's milk!

There have been wet nurses (who take over the function of breastfeeding for

mothers who, for whatever reason, are unable to nurse) for much of recorded

history.

I think we mothers need to have sympathy for the women who wish the best

for their children, and yet may not be able to be the well-nourished

breastfeeders they would like to be. And to offer whatever support and

information we can.

Perhaps it is rather La Leche League who needs to consider Sally's very

good idea of supplementing an infant's food with egg yolk, or raw liver.

Why do you not consider the need for flexibility on the side of LLL?

Otherwise, I agree with what you say!

" Alison

"

< >

<ackermurphy@y cc:

ahoo.com> Subject: is

breast best?

01/29/2002

01:36 PM

Please respond

to

native-nutriti

on

*****

Please read the Fall issue of Wise Traditions--articles soon to be on the

website. Breast feeding is NOT always best. It depends on the diet of the

mother. The diets of our breastfeeding mothers are often so appalling

these

days that we are seeing babies have their baby teeth come in entirely

rotten! This is such a problem that it is even mentioned in La Leche

League

literature. Sally

*****

I will read the article when it comes out on the web.

But surely you are not suggesting that canned infant formula is healthier

than breastfeeding? The mother's diet would have to be- well, one of

absolute famine. I can see making the claim that for a mother on a total

SAD

diet or worse a lowfat SAD diet, especially a mother who was smoking etc,

that the infant formula in " Nourishing Traditions " is healthier than

breastfeeding. BUT, the mother who is unwilling to switch butter for

margarine and take cod liver oil capsules is NOT going to be willing to go

through the time consuming process of making up homemade formula! Nor is

the

mother who is too poor to obtain these things going to be able to afford

the

ingredients to make formula. Far better for the WIC office to offer butter

and cod liver oil to nursing mothers than a case of similac.

And breastfeeding is not just about teeth! Many bottle fed babies have bad

teeth and they will never have optimum teeth. The antibodies present in

breastmilk, and the fact that it is a living food make it far superior to

canned formula. You can't add your chicken pox immunity and the antibodies

you produced to that awful flu that's going around to formula. Ear

infections, gastric complaints, brain development, obesity, attachment- the

overall physical and *emotional* health of the infant are at stake. You may

never have propped a bottle or left your children alone with a pacifier,

but

many (I dare say MOST) mothers who aren't nursing have. Breastfeeding

promotes bonding. And mothers who bond with their babies want what's best

for them. If these mothers knew that what they were eating was making an

impact on their children's teeth- well- I think we'd see fewer bad teeth.

The information needs to be OUT there. And it shouldn't be anti-breast or

pro-formula- it should be- " this is what makes breastfeeding BETTER. "

There is a MUCH better chance of improving mother's nutrition *for the

baby*

than getting her to invest the time to make homemade formula. Starting with

pre-natal nutrition and moving forward from there. The way to help these

poor rotten mouthed babies is to make the link between maternal nutrition

and the state of their babies teeth *crystal clear* Many women are still

being told that they can eat whatever junk they want while pregnant, to

limit their weight gain, limit their salt intake, take a synthetic vitamin

and you'll be just fine. Even women who make the effort to become

knowledgable about nutrition are unaware of this link and are being led

astray. Read Diane Hopkins testimonial about her conversion from veganism

to

the Price diet- here is a woman who studied nutrition and was willing to go

against society's norms to find good helath- only to find deterioration of

her (breastfed) children's teeth.

http://www.ldfr.com/articles/veganism.shtml

So much BAD information is out there. Other than through gov. offices like

WIC and organizations like the AAP, La Leche League would be THE place to

start getting this information out there. Organizations of midwives and OBs

who disseminate prenatal nutrition are also important.

Just because we are bucking the diet dictocrats doesn't mean they're wrong

about EVERYTHING. It's taken them 40 years to come to the realization that

breast is best- we need to change the system to make breastfeeding *better*

by adding the nutrients that are lacking to the mother's diet. Support

breastfeeding and you have a chance of getting LLL to back you and to start

including some of the information you have in their literature. And then

you

have LLL pushing FOR YOU to bring these things to the attention of the AAP,

Ob's etc. Not supporting breastfeeding makes it a lot harder to get the

information out the MOTHERS, where it needs to be.

Love in Christ,

Alison

_________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Ok, I read the two following posts a while back and thought that was

overreacting. Well, I finally went to the WAP site and I think is

making more sense. I would love to provide information to alot of women I

know and run into about how important their diet is when breastfeeding their

children but that article on breastfeeding made me cringe. I understand it

and most of it made sense to me but I have read Weston Price and Nourishing

Traditions. I think most women are going to tune something like this out

because it sounds so anti-breastfeeding. I read the breastfeeding saga also

and left these articles with the impression that I couldn't do what some

french cow could. I know the article isn't exactly saying " give up and get a

cow " but that is the impression you are left with and that counts. I want to

provide information to other women but I know these articles would never

fly. Does anyone know of some alternative articles? Another thing about

these articles is the recommendation of breastfeeding the first 6-12 months.

It doesn't say " at least the first 6-12 months " just 6-12 months. No one

else out there recommends such a minimal amount of time. It just sounds like

" your not going to succeed but give it 6 months " . Is there any native

culture out there that nurses for such a scanty period of time? The AAP

recommends AT LEAST 1 year and WHO recommends at least 2 years, not that

they are nutrition experts but it just leaves you with a not so great

impression of these articles.

Marcella

*****

Please read the Fall issue of Wise Traditions--articles soon to be on the

website. Breast feeding is NOT always best. It depends on the diet of the

mother. The diets of our breastfeeding mothers are often so appalling these

days that we are seeing babies have their baby teeth come in entirely

rotten! This is such a problem that it is even mentioned in La Leche League

literature. Sally

*****

I will read the article when it comes out on the web.

But surely you are not suggesting that canned infant formula is healthier

than breastfeeding? The mother's diet would have to be- well, one of

absolute famine. I can see making the claim that for a mother on a total SAD

diet or worse a lowfat SAD diet, especially a mother who was smoking etc,

that the infant formula in " Nourishing Traditions " is healthier than

breastfeeding. BUT, the mother who is unwilling to switch butter for

margarine and take cod liver oil capsules is NOT going to be willing to go

through the time consuming process of making up homemade formula! Nor is the

mother who is too poor to obtain these things going to be able to afford the

ingredients to make formula. Far better for the WIC office to offer butter

and cod liver oil to nursing mothers than a case of similac.

And breastfeeding is not just about teeth! Many bottle fed babies have bad

teeth and they will never have optimum teeth. The antibodies present in

breastmilk, and the fact that it is a living food make it far superior to

canned formula. You can't add your chicken pox immunity and the antibodies

you produced to that awful flu that's going around to formula. Ear

infections, gastric complaints, brain development, obesity, attachment- the

overall physical and *emotional* health of the infant are at stake. You may

never have propped a bottle or left your children alone with a pacifier, but

many (I dare say MOST) mothers who aren't nursing have. Breastfeeding

promotes bonding. And mothers who bond with their babies want what's best

for them. If these mothers knew that what they were eating was making an

impact on their children's teeth- well- I think we'd see fewer bad teeth.

The information needs to be OUT there. And it shouldn't be anti-breast or

pro-formula- it should be- " this is what makes breastfeeding BETTER. "

There is a MUCH better chance of improving mother's nutrition *for the baby*

than getting her to invest the time to make homemade formula. Starting with

pre-natal nutrition and moving forward from there. The way to help these

poor rotten mouthed babies is to make the link between maternal nutrition

and the state of their babies teeth *crystal clear* Many women are still

being told that they can eat whatever junk they want while pregnant, to

limit their weight gain, limit their salt intake, take a synthetic vitamin

and you'll be just fine. Even women who make the effort to become

knowledgable about nutrition are unaware of this link and are being led

astray. Read Diane Hopkins testimonial about her conversion from veganism to

the Price diet- here is a woman who studied nutrition and was willing to go

against society's norms to find good helath- only to find deterioration of

her (breastfed) children's teeth.

http://www.ldfr.com/articles/veganism.shtml

So much BAD information is out there. Other than through gov. offices like

WIC and organizations like the AAP, La Leche League would be THE place to

start getting this information out there. Organizations of midwives and OBs

who disseminate prenatal nutrition are also important.

Just because we are bucking the diet dictocrats doesn't mean they're wrong

about EVERYTHING. It's taken them 40 years to come to the realization that

breast is best- we need to change the system to make breastfeeding *better*

by adding the nutrients that are lacking to the mother's diet. Support

breastfeeding and you have a chance of getting LLL to back you and to start

including some of the information you have in their literature. And then you

have LLL pushing FOR YOU to bring these things to the attention of the AAP,

Ob's etc. Not supporting breastfeeding makes it a lot harder to get the

information out the MOTHERS, where it needs to be.

Love in Christ,

Alison

Alison,

You are very passionate about a very important subject, as am I.

I think you have to be careful, though, because it seems that you are

taking sides, rather than hearing the science and tradition behind Sally's

ideas. Sally would certainly agree with you that well-nourished

breastfeeding is the ideal that we are all striving for. After all, she

tried and tried to breastfeed (read the Fall issue of Wise Traditions for

her own heart-wrenching story of attempting to nurse her own 4 children,

only to have her milk dry up, inexplicably). She was grateful to have

access to beautiful raw cow's milk!

There have been wet nurses (who take over the function of breastfeeding for

mothers who, for whatever reason, are unable to nurse) for much of recorded

history.

I think we mothers need to have sympathy for the women who wish the best

for their children, and yet may not be able to be the well-nourished

breastfeeders they would like to be. And to offer whatever support and

information we can.

Perhaps it is rather La Leche League who needs to consider Sally's very

good idea of supplementing an infant's food with egg yolk, or raw liver.

Why do you not consider the need for flexibility on the side of LLL?

Otherwise, I agree with what you say!

_________________________________________________________________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Marcella, I'm glad you brought this up again, and I

agree with a lot of what you said. I also have

reservations about the tone of some of the

breastfeeding articles put out by WAPF. I completely

agree with them that it's shameful how mainstream

breastfeeding " advocates " do not encourage an adequate

diet for nursing moms, and I understand all the other

things in the WAPF articles about the formula industry

and about moms who can't breastfeed. I know that

Sally wants to make breastfeeding better, and make

quality formula available when breastfeeding is truly

not possible, but I also feel a lot of what is in the

breastfeeding and formula articles comes across as not

as supportive of breastfeeding in general as it should

be, and certainly not for an extended period of time.

6-12 months is not biologically adequate for humans,

IMO, and to say that should be the ideal goal is

seriously shortchanging the baby. This is a major

issue for me. It's not " ideal " for babies to have

high-quality human breastmilk for 6-12 months, it

should be normal and average for them to have such

milk well into toddlerhood.

Of course, if mothers were eating a good diet, fewer

would have supply and quality issues with their milk,

and breastfed babies would be healthier. I greatly

appreciate Sally pushing for good nutrition in that

area. I'm struggling somewhat to convey my meaning

here. Sally, if you're reading this, I don't want to

elicit a defensive response on your part or seem like

I'm attcking your position, but honestly, like

Marcella, I hesitate to refer people to the

breastfeeding info from you because I can see how many

people I know, especially gung-ho breastfeeding

supporters like me, could get the impression that

you're saying a cow can do a better job of nourishing

their babies than they can themselves. Aside from

those who cannot produce sufficient volume of milk,

perhaps that's the case if the mother's diet is

deficient, but if a mom can get the ingredients for

quality formula, I believe the baby would be better

served by the mom eating those foods and making better

breastmilk (supplementing the baby until the mother's

milk improves). I do not believe you think a

well-nourished mother is inferior to your formula

recipes, but frankly in many places the tone of your

breastfeeding and formula articles gives an impression

that I think will immediately turn off many people who

would otherwise be very open to and supportive of your

message.

I do fully understand there are women who will not

make adequate milk even on a great diet, for a variety

of explainable and unexplainable reasons. Certainly I

support any effort to get a quality replacement to

those babies. By all means, healthy children are the

goal, and if a mother is not able to provide

nutrient-dense milk of sufficient quantity for her

baby, then there needs to be a better alternative than

commercial formula. But by turning off mothers who

*could* be making better milk for their babies,

because they think you're more supportive of putting a

baby on homemade formula than you are of improving the

quality of breastmilk, much of the good of your

message is being cancelled out. There is much less

space in NT given to improving the quality of

breastmilk than there is to making quality formula. I

think that gives the impression of favoring formula to

someone just being introduced to your writing. I

think the Fall 2001 issue of Wise Traditions gave the

issue a more balanced treatment, but some of the " oh

well, it's not an ideal world, use formula " tone could

still be derived from it by someone with an incomplete

perspective on your writing.

I know you repeatedly say breastfeeding is best, but

so do commercial formula makers (under duress), and

some people may find that disingenuous, in light of

being told that " ideally " high-quality breastmilk

should be provided for 6-12 months, but that it's not

an ideal world, so here's formula.

My sister was not able to be breastfed for medical

reasons, and I wish my family had been able to read

your formula info then. I am not at all criticizing

putting that info out, but I do understand why some

people think you are not as pro-breastfeeding as a

health writer should be.

I am so supportive of NT and the WAPF, but I have

thought about this breastfeeding issue a lot and don't

think it's inappropriate for me to say what I think

could be improved.

respectfully,

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Thank you ,Aubin, you did a much much better job expressing how I was

feeling. I used goats milk for my first so I am also certainly not

condemning a formula substitute. I am glad however to see the WAP foundation

is being more helpful, than they were when I needed the help, by including

formula recipes. I discovered WAP when I had a four week old I was trying

desperately to find a substitute formula with goats milk for. When I wrote

at that time for more specifics I was told to " buy the book " . I was more

than a little disgusted and didn't look back for quite awhile. I would say

it was to my detriment, but I was getting the definite impression that WAP

was more interested in selling a book than actually making a difference and

I just couldn't " buy the book " at the time.

Marcella

>From: Aubin Parrish <aubinparrish@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: Is breast best?

>Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:33:19 -0800 (PST)

>

>Marcella, I'm glad you brought this up again, and I

>agree with a lot of what you said. I also have

>reservations about the tone of some of the

>breastfeeding articles put out by WAPF. I completely

>agree with them that it's shameful how mainstream

>breastfeeding " advocates " do not encourage an adequate

>diet for nursing moms, and I understand all the other

>things in the WAPF articles about the formula industry

>and about moms who can't breastfeed. I know that

>Sally wants to make breastfeeding better, and make

>quality formula available when breastfeeding is truly

>not possible, but I also feel a lot of what is in the

>breastfeeding and formula articles comes across as not

>as supportive of breastfeeding in general as it should

>be, and certainly not for an extended period of time.

>6-12 months is not biologically adequate for humans,

>IMO, and to say that should be the ideal goal is

>seriously shortchanging the baby. This is a major

>issue for me. It's not " ideal " for babies to have

>high-quality human breastmilk for 6-12 months, it

>should be normal and average for them to have such

>milk well into toddlerhood.

>

>Of course, if mothers were eating a good diet, fewer

>would have supply and quality issues with their milk,

>and breastfed babies would be healthier. I greatly

>appreciate Sally pushing for good nutrition in that

>area. I'm struggling somewhat to convey my meaning

>here. Sally, if you're reading this, I don't want to

>elicit a defensive response on your part or seem like

>I'm attcking your position, but honestly, like

>Marcella, I hesitate to refer people to the

>breastfeeding info from you because I can see how many

>people I know, especially gung-ho breastfeeding

>supporters like me, could get the impression that

>you're saying a cow can do a better job of nourishing

>their babies than they can themselves. Aside from

>those who cannot produce sufficient volume of milk,

>perhaps that's the case if the mother's diet is

>deficient, but if a mom can get the ingredients for

>quality formula, I believe the baby would be better

>served by the mom eating those foods and making better

>breastmilk (supplementing the baby until the mother's

>milk improves). I do not believe you think a

>well-nourished mother is inferior to your formula

>recipes, but frankly in many places the tone of your

>breastfeeding and formula articles gives an impression

>that I think will immediately turn off many people who

>would otherwise be very open to and supportive of your

>message.

>

>I do fully understand there are women who will not

>make adequate milk even on a great diet, for a variety

>of explainable and unexplainable reasons. Certainly I

>support any effort to get a quality replacement to

>those babies. By all means, healthy children are the

>goal, and if a mother is not able to provide

>nutrient-dense milk of sufficient quantity for her

>baby, then there needs to be a better alternative than

>commercial formula. But by turning off mothers who

>*could* be making better milk for their babies,

>because they think you're more supportive of putting a

>baby on homemade formula than you are of improving the

>quality of breastmilk, much of the good of your

>message is being cancelled out. There is much less

>space in NT given to improving the quality of

>breastmilk than there is to making quality formula. I

>think that gives the impression of favoring formula to

>someone just being introduced to your writing. I

>think the Fall 2001 issue of Wise Traditions gave the

>issue a more balanced treatment, but some of the " oh

>well, it's not an ideal world, use formula " tone could

>still be derived from it by someone with an incomplete

>perspective on your writing.

>

>I know you repeatedly say breastfeeding is best, but

>so do commercial formula makers (under duress), and

>some people may find that disingenuous, in light of

>being told that " ideally " high-quality breastmilk

>should be provided for 6-12 months, but that it's not

>an ideal world, so here's formula.

>

>My sister was not able to be breastfed for medical

>reasons, and I wish my family had been able to read

>your formula info then. I am not at all criticizing

>putting that info out, but I do understand why some

>people think you are not as pro-breastfeeding as a

>health writer should be.

>

>I am so supportive of NT and the WAPF, but I have

>thought about this breastfeeding issue a lot and don't

>think it's inappropriate for me to say what I think

>could be improved.

>

>respectfully,

>Aubin

>

>

>

>__________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

I have to chime in here to say that I really appreciated the breast feeding

article. I subscribe to the quarterly journal and as soon as I read it I

photocopied the article for my friends (recent mothers or mothers-to-be). -

Why? Why give them an article which presents them with an alternative to

breastfeeding - for many reasons:

1. They already know that breast-feeding is supposed to be best. I don't

need to tell them this, the doctor that they completely trust has already

done this.

2. They aren't eating healthy to begin with (although they and their doctors

think they are eating healthy).

3. They don't have time or are easily frustrated with with

reastfeeding. -- That's their reality. I can't change that for them.

4. They don't have the time, or the inclination, or the research skills to

unlearn everything they have been taught about food and then re-learn it (in

spite of their doctors complete disapproval).

5. Along those lines, they do not have the time to learn all new recipes,

incorportate only real food in their diet, let alone meet the additional

requirements of organic produce, meats and eggs from pastuered animals, and

raw dairy products.

5. Even if they did change their diet immediately, their bodies would still

be unhealthy for a while and full of partially hydrogenated fats - how long

would it take before their breastmilk would be deamed healthy enough?

6. While their personal health and diet is not a priority for them, their

baby's health is a top priority. - They would be much more inclined to buy

all the ingrediants to follow an infant formula recipe than to change the

way the shop for and prepare their breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks.

I think the point of the article was summed up very well by my sister -

" it's simple, it's a vending machine: put garbage in and you get garbage

out. " I think that it was an extremely responsible action on the part of

the authors to acknowledge this truth, instead of blindy pushing

breastfeeding, and instead of taking an unrealistic view of demanding that

mothers completely change their lives to produce better breast milk.

Getting mothers to change their diet would be wonderful, but it is very

idealistic. We cannot ignore the reality of our society and alienate women

if they won't conform to our standards - for all these women know, NT is

just another fad diet.

Again, I am grateful to have a reference for my friends who represent the

epitome of American culture and health, diligently following the guidelines,

unknowingly putting garbage in their bodies. I think the article serves as

a reminder to us all of the realities of our society. Yes, the statement is

a sad one: some breastmilk is shamefully inadequate compared to that of a

cow. - But, the statement is true. Only when our society begins to

acknowledge this, will it move beyond the band-aid of healthy homemade

formulas and address the diet of the mother.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

So, you give women the article to encourage them to give up breastfeeding

and just make formula? This an example of why I would never give someone the

article.

<<I have to chime in here to say that I really appreciated the breast

feeding

>article.>>

It doesn't sound like it could really be called a breastfeeding article at

this point why not just call it a home-made formula article.

<<I subscribe to the quarterly journal and as soon as I read it I

>photocopied the article for my friends (recent mothers or mothers-to-be).

>-

>Why? Why give them an article which presents them with an alternative to

>breastfeeding - for many reasons:

>

>1. They already know that breast-feeding is supposed to be best. I don't

>need to tell them this, the doctor that they completely trust has already

>done this.

>2. They aren't eating healthy to begin with (although they and their

>doctors

>think they are eating healthy).>>

Why not give them articles on changing their diet while they are pregnant.

If they are as you say so concerned with the health of their child.

<<3. They don't have time or are easily frustrated with with

>reastfeeding. -- That's their reality. I can't change that for them.>>

I'd point out that that is not reality. Making a homemade formula is not

going to save them time in feeding their children or be less frustrating.

<<4. They don't have the time, or the inclination, or the research skills to

>unlearn everything they have been taught about food and then re-learn it

>(in

>spite of their doctors complete disapproval).

>5. Along those lines, they do not have the time to learn all new recipes,

>incorportate only real food in their diet, let alone meet the additional

>requirements of organic produce, meats and eggs from pastuered animals, and

>raw dairy products.>>

So they are going to just accept new information as far as feeding their

children that their doctor is also NOT going to approve of? They aren't

going to feed themselves raw milk but they are just going to hand it out to

their infants inspite of their doctors warnings? Scrambled eggs is hardly

all new recipes. They don't need to " learn " all new recipes either. They

just follow them out of NT or other cookbooks. I haven't been memorizing

recipes! It isn't that complicated. It sounds from this paragraph here that

it is just unrealistic to actually expect anyone to change their diet at

all.

<<>5. Even if they did change their diet immediately, their bodies would

still

>be unhealthy for a while and full of partially hydrogenated fats - how long

>would it take before their breastmilk would be deamed healthy enough?>>

This is the same body that nourished that child for 9 months. If it isn't

any good for that baby now how was any good for them then? Good grief, I

hope you aren't going around telling people this. " It is too much work to

change your diet and your milk won't be any good anyway! "

<<6. While their personal health and diet is not a priority for them, their

>baby's health is a top priority. - They would be much more inclined to buy

>all the ingrediants to follow an infant formula recipe than to change the

>way the shop for and prepare their breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks.>>

This is inconsistent. If their baby's health is actually a top priority you

could have given them information while they were pregnant that they would

be just as likely to follow while nursing. Choosing to formula feed instead

of improving their diet is NOT giving their baby's top priority. If they

aren't going to change their diet while pregnant, or nursing what about when

that baby is no longer on formula? Is that child enough of a priority for

the parents to change their diet then? Using formula in an instance like

this is just laziness. But is deceptive to let a woman think it really is

going to be easier. I have done both and it isn't.

<<I think the point of the article was summed up very well by my sister -

> " it's simple, it's a vending machine: put garbage in and you get garbage

>out. " I think that it was an extremely responsible action on the part of

>the authors to acknowledge this truth, instead of blindy pushing

>breastfeeding, and instead of taking an unrealistic view of demanding that

>mothers completely change their lives to produce better breast milk.>>

I think the article does women a great disservice IF it used to discourage

women from nursing. It should be used to encourage them to eat properly.

This really is laughable..it is unrealistic to " demand that mothers

completely change their lives to produce better breast milk? " What do you

think happened when they chose to have children? They completely changed

their lives! Who is demanding anyway, if these children are truly a priority

a woman would change her diet.

This is exactly what is wrong with our society full of rotting little

chidren. People think it is asking too much for the parents to exert any

effort on behalf of their (own)children that might impinge on the adults

personal freedoms. The only thing easier about this formula is a mother can

delegate the responsability of her child to someone else.

<<Getting mothers to change their diet would be wonderful, but it is very

>idealistic. We cannot ignore the reality of our society and alienate women

>if they won't conform to our standards - for all these women know, NT is

>just another fad diet.>>

This just isn't logical these women think NT is a fad diet so they won't

follow it but they will put their infants on it? If they ask those trusted

doctors you mentioned they won't. These children are going to be on a SAD

diet if their mothers and fathers don't change theirs. The reality of our

society is " everyone " eats crap. We alienate them in a certain way by

bucking the tradition and choosing better for ourselves. If you don't get

the mothers to change their diet you haven't helped the children at all. If

asking a woman to change her diet for her child is too much these women

don't need to be having children. If the WAPF thinks it is better to just

encourage women to give formula rather than improving their diet for their

children I don't intend to support the WAPF in anyw ay. But I certainly hope

that Sally's article wasn't meant to be used as you are using it, telling

women that they might as well just give the baby formula.

Marcella

>

>Again, I am grateful to have a reference for my friends who represent the

>epitome of American culture and health, diligently following the

>guidelines,

>unknowingly putting garbage in their bodies. I think the article serves as

>a reminder to us all of the realities of our society. Yes, the statement

>is

>a sad one: some breastmilk is shamefully inadequate compared to that of a

>cow. - But, the statement is true. Only when our society begins to

>acknowledge this, will it move beyond the band-aid of healthy homemade

>formulas and address the diet of the mother.

>

>Deanna

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

[Guest guest]

The point of my post (and I think, the point of the article) was not to

discourage them from breastfeeding, but to give them a better option than

commercial formula or a better option for a formula supplement (for a poor

milk supply). I, who plan to breast-feed when my baby arrives, would never

discourage breastfeeding.

While it is not my responsibility to care for the children of my friends, I

do care about them and try to present them with information so they can make

choices for themselves. And yes, I attempted to do this before and

throughout their pregnancy. My friends think I am utterly crazy for eating

the way I do. They would never consider it. So, I do agree that they won't

use raw milk. Possibly, they won't use the recipe at all, and they will

stick with commercial formula. However, I do see that they apply different

rules to the feeding of their infants and they do consider the recipe as an

option. For some reason, they cannot see some of the stuff they eat as

unhealthy, but they know that formula that one buys in a can just isn't a

good option. If they can't fit breastfeeding into their lives or need a

supplement, I can certainly suggest that they provide their formula-fed

babies with something healthier.

Am I the only person on this list with friends that continue to eat a SAD

(Standard American Diet - I'm guessing her) and think they are doing the

right thing? Doesn't anyone else know parents that eat garbage, but make

certain they give their children a healthy meal? Discussions of food are

becoming a taboo subject between my friends and myself. They are

overwhelmed with conflicting information. I think that presenting them with

a healthy alternative for their infants is a good thing. If we want to make

a difference, we have to start somewhere and if my friends will treat the

health of their infants or children differently, then I'll start there....

Deanna

----- Original Message -----

From: " Marcella Mathewes " <honoraholmes@...>

< >

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:36 PM

Subject: Re: Is breast best?

So, you give women the article to encourage them to give up breastfeeding

and just make formula? This an example of why I would never give someone the

article.

<<I have to chime in here to say that I really appreciated the breast

feeding

>article.>>

It doesn't sound like it could really be called a breastfeeding article at

this point why not just call it a home-made formula article.

<<I subscribe to the quarterly journal and as soon as I read it I

>photocopied the article for my friends (recent mothers or mothers-to-be).

>-

>Why? Why give them an article which presents them with an alternative to

>breastfeeding - for many reasons:

>

>1. They already know that breast-feeding is supposed to be best. I don't

>need to tell them this, the doctor that they completely trust has already

>done this.

>2. They aren't eating healthy to begin with (although they and their

>doctors

>think they are eating healthy).>>

Why not give them articles on changing their diet while they are pregnant.

If they are as you say so concerned with the health of their child.

<<3. They don't have time or are easily frustrated with with

>reastfeeding. -- That's their reality. I can't change that for them.>>

I'd point out that that is not reality. Making a homemade formula is not

going to save them time in feeding their children or be less frustrating.

<<4. They don't have the time, or the inclination, or the research skills to

>unlearn everything they have been taught about food and then re-learn it

>(in

>spite of their doctors complete disapproval).

>5. Along those lines, they do not have the time to learn all new recipes,

>incorportate only real food in their diet, let alone meet the additional

>requirements of organic produce, meats and eggs from pastuered animals, and

>raw dairy products.>>

So they are going to just accept new information as far as feeding their

children that their doctor is also NOT going to approve of? They aren't

going to feed themselves raw milk but they are just going to hand it out to

their infants inspite of their doctors warnings? Scrambled eggs is hardly

all new recipes. They don't need to " learn " all new recipes either. They

just follow them out of NT or other cookbooks. I haven't been memorizing

recipes! It isn't that complicated. It sounds from this paragraph here that

it is just unrealistic to actually expect anyone to change their diet at

all.

<<>5. Even if they did change their diet immediately, their bodies would

still

>be unhealthy for a while and full of partially hydrogenated fats - how long

>would it take before their breastmilk would be deamed healthy enough?>>

This is the same body that nourished that child for 9 months. If it isn't

any good for that baby now how was any good for them then? Good grief, I

hope you aren't going around telling people this. " It is too much work to

change your diet and your milk won't be any good anyway! "

<<6. While their personal health and diet is not a priority for them, their

>baby's health is a top priority. - They would be much more inclined to buy

>all the ingrediants to follow an infant formula recipe than to change the

>way the shop for and prepare their breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks.>>

This is inconsistent. If their baby's health is actually a top priority you

could have given them information while they were pregnant that they would

be just as likely to follow while nursing. Choosing to formula feed instead

of improving their diet is NOT giving their baby's top priority. If they

aren't going to change their diet while pregnant, or nursing what about when

that baby is no longer on formula? Is that child enough of a priority for

the parents to change their diet then? Using formula in an instance like

this is just laziness. But is deceptive to let a woman think it really is

going to be easier. I have done both and it isn't.

<<I think the point of the article was summed up very well by my sister -

> " it's simple, it's a vending machine: put garbage in and you get garbage

>out. " I think that it was an extremely responsible action on the part of

>the authors to acknowledge this truth, instead of blindy pushing

>breastfeeding, and instead of taking an unrealistic view of demanding that

>mothers completely change their lives to produce better breast milk.>>

I think the article does women a great disservice IF it used to discourage

women from nursing. It should be used to encourage them to eat properly.

This really is laughable..it is unrealistic to " demand that mothers

completely change their lives to produce better breast milk? " What do you

think happened when they chose to have children? They completely changed

their lives! Who is demanding anyway, if these children are truly a priority

a woman would change her diet.

This is exactly what is wrong with our society full of rotting little

chidren. People think it is asking too much for the parents to exert any

effort on behalf of their (own)children that might impinge on the adults

personal freedoms. The only thing easier about this formula is a mother can

delegate the responsability of her child to someone else.

<<Getting mothers to change their diet would be wonderful, but it is very

>idealistic. We cannot ignore the reality of our society and alienate women

>if they won't conform to our standards - for all these women know, NT is

>just another fad diet.>>

This just isn't logical these women think NT is a fad diet so they won't

follow it but they will put their infants on it? If they ask those trusted

doctors you mentioned they won't. These children are going to be on a SAD

diet if their mothers and fathers don't change theirs. The reality of our

society is " everyone " eats crap. We alienate them in a certain way by

bucking the tradition and choosing better for ourselves. If you don't get

the mothers to change their diet you haven't helped the children at all. If

asking a woman to change her diet for her child is too much these women

don't need to be having children. If the WAPF thinks it is better to just

encourage women to give formula rather than improving their diet for their

children I don't intend to support the WAPF in anyw ay. But I certainly hope

that Sally's article wasn't meant to be used as you are using it, telling

women that they might as well just give the baby formula.

Marcella

>

>Again, I am grateful to have a reference for my friends who represent the

>epitome of American culture and health, diligently following the

>guidelines,

>unknowingly putting garbage in their bodies. I think the article serves as

>a reminder to us all of the realities of our society. Yes, the statement

>is

>a sad one: some breastmilk is shamefully inadequate compared to that of a

>cow. - But, the statement is true. Only when our society begins to

>acknowledge this, will it move beyond the band-aid of healthy homemade

>formulas and address the diet of the mother.

>

>Deanna

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

[Guest guest]

Deanna:

> Am I the only person on this list with friends that continue to eat a SAD

> (Standard American Diet - I'm guessing her) and think they are doing the

> right thing? Doesn't anyone else know parents that eat garbage, but make

> certain they give their children a healthy meal? Discussions of food are

> becoming a taboo subject between my friends and myself.

If my experience is any guide, you are not the only one by a long shot.

What I have found is this:

My family is medium-receptive about the information because they were raised

somewhat traditionally, and they mostly tend to respect me when it comes to

science and technology.

Most of my friends are relatively unreceptive because they were not raised

with a particularly traditional diet, and most of them don't hold

particularly radical political views (I'll explain why that matters below).

Some of my aquaintances, who are often varying types and degrees of

vegetarian and are often quite political, can be receptive if I approach it

from the standpoint of something they already believe and can relate to.

Most of them are firm believers that corporations strongly manipulate the

" information " that is available to the public, so I focus on the ease and

profitability of marketing products based on those things that we are told

are healthy (grains and legumes). Once I logically demonstrate that point

to them, I can easily convince them how much it is in the interest of

multi-national agribusiness to emphasize those food products over others.

It takes very little effort to show how overwhelmingly integral the SAD diet

is to an awful lot of what makes our society and economy tick. Once they

understand all of that, convincing them that this way of eating is more

healthy is relatively easy. If they're firmly in the " Meat is murder " camp,

however, I don't think they can be helped until they see themselves fading

away and start to wonder why.

So, no, you're not the only one.

[Guest guest]

Thank-you Marcella for this passionate response. It is such a relief to read

such a strong statement of what I also feel. I also feel grateful to Alison

for the wonderful plea for support of breastfeeding posts she wrote.

----- Original Message -----

From: Marcella Mathewes

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 11:36 AM

Subject: Re: Is breast best?

So, you give women the article to encourage them to give up breastfeeding

and just make formula? This an example of why I would never give someone the

article.

<<I have to chime in here to say that I really appreciated the breast

feeding

>article.>>

It doesn't sound like it could really be called a breastfeeding article at

this point why not just call it a home-made formula article.

<<I subscribe to the quarterly journal and as soon as I read it I

>photocopied the article for my friends (recent mothers or mothers-to-be).

>-

>Why? Why give them an article which presents them with an alternative to

>breastfeeding - for many reasons:

>

>1. They already know that breast-feeding is supposed to be best. I don't

>need to tell them this, the doctor that they completely trust has already

>done this.

>2. They aren't eating healthy to begin with (although they and their

>doctors

>think they are eating healthy).>>

Why not give them articles on changing their diet while they are pregnant.

If they are as you say so concerned with the health of their child.

<<3. They don't have time or are easily frustrated with with

>reastfeeding. -- That's their reality. I can't change that for them.>>

I'd point out that that is not reality. Making a homemade formula is not

going to save them time in feeding their children or be less frustrating.

<<4. They don't have the time, or the inclination, or the research skills to

>unlearn everything they have been taught about food and then re-learn it

>(in

>spite of their doctors complete disapproval).

>5. Along those lines, they do not have the time to learn all new recipes,

>incorportate only real food in their diet, let alone meet the additional

>requirements of organic produce, meats and eggs from pastuered animals, and

>raw dairy products.>>

So they are going to just accept new information as far as feeding their

children that their doctor is also NOT going to approve of? They aren't

going to feed themselves raw milk but they are just going to hand it out to

their infants inspite of their doctors warnings? Scrambled eggs is hardly

all new recipes. They don't need to " learn " all new recipes either. They

just follow them out of NT or other cookbooks. I haven't been memorizing

recipes! It isn't that complicated. It sounds from this paragraph here that

it is just unrealistic to actually expect anyone to change their diet at

all.

<<>5. Even if they did change their diet immediately, their bodies would

still

>be unhealthy for a while and full of partially hydrogenated fats - how long

>would it take before their breastmilk would be deamed healthy enough?>>

This is the same body that nourished that child for 9 months. If it isn't

any good for that baby now how was any good for them then? Good grief, I

hope you aren't going around telling people this. " It is too much work to

change your diet and your milk won't be any good anyway! "

<<6. While their personal health and diet is not a priority for them, their

>baby's health is a top priority. - They would be much more inclined to buy

>all the ingrediants to follow an infant formula recipe than to change the

>way the shop for and prepare their breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks.>>

This is inconsistent. If their baby's health is actually a top priority you

could have given them information while they were pregnant that they would

be just as likely to follow while nursing. Choosing to formula feed instead

of improving their diet is NOT giving their baby's top priority. If they

aren't going to change their diet while pregnant, or nursing what about when

that baby is no longer on formula? Is that child enough of a priority for

the parents to change their diet then? Using formula in an instance like

this is just laziness. But is deceptive to let a woman think it really is

going to be easier. I have done both and it isn't.

<<I think the point of the article was summed up very well by my sister -

> " it's simple, it's a vending machine: put garbage in and you get garbage

>out. " I think that it was an extremely responsible action on the part of

>the authors to acknowledge this truth, instead of blindy pushing

>breastfeeding, and instead of taking an unrealistic view of demanding that

>mothers completely change their lives to produce better breast milk.>>

I think the article does women a great disservice IF it used to discourage

women from nursing. It should be used to encourage them to eat properly.

This really is laughable..it is unrealistic to " demand that mothers

completely change their lives to produce better breast milk? " What do you

think happened when they chose to have children? They completely changed

their lives! Who is demanding anyway, if these children are truly a priority

a woman would change her diet.

This is exactly what is wrong with our society full of rotting little

chidren. People think it is asking too much for the parents to exert any

effort on behalf of their (own)children that might impinge on the adults

personal freedoms. The only thing easier about this formula is a mother can

delegate the responsability of her child to someone else.

<<Getting mothers to change their diet would be wonderful, but it is very

>idealistic. We cannot ignore the reality of our society and alienate women

>if they won't conform to our standards - for all these women know, NT is

>just another fad diet.>>

This just isn't logical these women think NT is a fad diet so they won't

follow it but they will put their infants on it? If they ask those trusted

doctors you mentioned they won't. These children are going to be on a SAD

diet if their mothers and fathers don't change theirs. The reality of our

society is " everyone " eats crap. We alienate them in a certain way by

bucking the tradition and choosing better for ourselves. If you don't get

the mothers to change their diet you haven't helped the children at all. If

asking a woman to change her diet for her child is too much these women

don't need to be having children. If the WAPF thinks it is better to just

encourage women to give formula rather than improving their diet for their

children I don't intend to support the WAPF in anyw ay. But I certainly hope

that Sally's article wasn't meant to be used as you are using it, telling

women that they might as well just give the baby formula.

Marcella

>

>Again, I am grateful to have a reference for my friends who represent the

>epitome of American culture and health, diligently following the

>guidelines,

>unknowingly putting garbage in their bodies. I think the article serves as

>a reminder to us all of the realities of our society. Yes, the statement

>is

>a sad one: some breastmilk is shamefully inadequate compared to that of a

>cow. - But, the statement is true. Only when our society begins to

>acknowledge this, will it move beyond the band-aid of healthy homemade

>formulas and address the diet of the mother.

>

>Deanna

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

[Guest guest]

My suggestion would be not to discuss food, just do what you do and let

them do what they do. Believe me they are watching. Once they see after a

period of time that you are consistent and this isn't just a fad, they

will eventually start asking questions, which you can GENTLY answer, and

then move on as if its not that important to you.

Some will come around, some won't, but at least it won't be a point of

contention between you and your family. It has been twenty years and just

now are some of my family members making the big switch. And as of late,

it has become quite the topic of discussion because they know that while

I'm passionate about the topic, I'm not going to browbeat them over the

head with it. As another post mentioned, find some common ground and then

gently lead them to the promised land.

:

Deanna:

> Am I the only person on this list with friends that continue to eat a

SAD

> (Standard American Diet - I'm guessing her) and think they are doing

the

> right thing? Doesn't anyone else know parents that eat garbage, but

make

> certain they give their children a healthy meal? Discussions of food

are

> becoming a taboo subject between my friends and myself.

[Guest guest]

Great Response!

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:14:06 -0600 Kroyer

<skroyer@...> writes:

Deanna:

> Am I the only person on this list with friends that continue to eat a

SAD

> (Standard American Diet - I'm guessing her) and think they are doing

the

> right thing? Doesn't anyone else know parents that eat garbage, but

make

> certain they give their children a healthy meal? Discussions of food

are

> becoming a taboo subject between my friends and myself.

If my experience is any guide, you are not the only one by a long shot.

What I have found is this:

My family is medium-receptive about the information because they were

raised

somewhat traditionally, and they mostly tend to respect me when it comes

to

science and technology.

Most of my friends are relatively unreceptive because they were not

raised

with a particularly traditional diet, and most of them don't hold

particularly radical political views (I'll explain why that matters

below).

Some of my aquaintances, who are often varying types and degrees of

vegetarian and are often quite political, can be receptive if I approach

it

from the standpoint of something they already believe and can relate to.

Most of them are firm believers that corporations strongly manipulate the

" information " that is available to the public, so I focus on the ease and

profitability of marketing products based on those things that we are

told

are healthy (grains and legumes). Once I logically demonstrate that

point

to them, I can easily convince them how much it is in the interest of

multi-national agribusiness to emphasize those food products over others.

It takes very little effort to show how overwhelmingly integral the SAD

diet

is to an awful lot of what makes our society and economy tick. Once they

understand all of that, convincing them that this way of eating is more

healthy is relatively easy. If they're firmly in the " Meat is murder "

camp,

however, I don't think they can be helped until they see themselves

fading

away and start to wonder why.

So, no, you're not the only one.