RE: WAPF and breastfeeding

[Guest guest]

> I'd like to see it done,

> though, so if anyone has any ideas to help out or if someone wants

> to take the reins...

I'm game to help.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

I'm curious what folks think the revision should be. I'm unclear if

we're still on the issue of wether or not a majority of women are

able to breastfeed...I think this is a true statement, although I

think a more accurate statement would include an acknowledgement

that there have always been moms & babes who have struggled (for a

variety of reasons), thus the presence of wet nurses, inter-tribal

and inter-familial shared nursing throughout most of human culture.

I also think it is valuable for any mother to seek a second opinion

if any lactation consultant or doctor tells them they cannot

breastfeed.

But in an era where breastfeeding is making a comeback after all out

assault by formula manufacturers and doctors, I think it's important

to focus on the fact that most women can breastfeed--the increase in

breastfeeding in the US alone is tenuous enough that I think it is

more of a disservice to focus too much of an article on what might

be hard or challenging.

I live in the Northwest which has the highest rates of breastfeeding

in the US, so I sometimes forget that in places like the Southeast

of the US, where the breastfeeding rates are the absolute lowest,

that moms to be need all the encouragement they can get!

Isn't the scope of the article about nutritional factors as opposed

to the " how to's " of breastfeeding?

Leann

--- In , " keirfey " <Poofig@h...>

wrote:

> Would the foundation listen to a call to revise the language of

> their statements on this issue to reflect a more mindful way of

> stating its position? We could organize something to let them

know

> that we feel strongly that they could improve their success

> drastically if they revised the language they use, and more

> descriptively laid out their wisdom? This seems like a worthy

cause

> to me though I'm going to be gone for a couple weeks and have

never

> organized anything like this before. I'd like to see it done,

> though, so if anyone has any ideas to help out or if someone wants

> to take the reins...

> ~~Carolyn

[Guest guest]

>>> " Isn't the scope of the article about nutritional factors as

opposed

to the " how to's " of breastfeeding? "

---->scope of what article?

i'm most definitely interested in being a part of a call to re-

evaluate the language used by the foundation regarding breastfeeding

and i'd be happy to help organize it. lynn (and anyone else

interested), you can contact me off list or i can contact you if

that's easier. let me know.

erica z

> > Would the foundation listen to a call to revise the language of

> > their statements on this issue to reflect a more mindful way of

> > stating its position? We could organize something to let them

> know

> > that we feel strongly that they could improve their success

> > drastically if they revised the language they use, and more

> > descriptively laid out their wisdom? This seems like a worthy

> cause

> > to me though I'm going to be gone for a couple weeks and have

> never

> > organized anything like this before. I'd like to see it done,

> > though, so if anyone has any ideas to help out or if someone

wants

> > to take the reins...

> > ~~Carolyn

[Guest guest]

> WAPF and breastfeeding

>

>

>Would the foundation listen to a call to revise the language of

>their statements on this issue to reflect a more mindful way of

>stating its position? We could organize something to let them know

>that we feel strongly that they could improve their success

>drastically if they revised the language they use, and more

>descriptively laid out their wisdom? This seems like a worthy cause

>to me though I'm going to be gone for a couple weeks and have never

>organized anything like this before. I'd like to see it done,

>though, so if anyone has any ideas to help out or if someone wants

>to take the reins...

>~~Carolyn

FWIW, from my experience, Sally (the Foundation president) is very open to

constructive criticism. Several of us on this list and another were

bemoaning for a year or so that a statement on the Realmilk.com website and

in the WAPF literature regarding calves on pasteurized milk dying before

maturity, was incorrect. Well several months ago we were discussing this

issue on the chapter leader list and I laid out why this was an inaccurate

statement, and I think M. added supporting statements. Then Sally (a

member of that list) said she'd go ahead and change the WAPF literature to

reflect a more accurate summary of the study that statement was based on,

and she did.

It's not totally analagous to the WAPF's breastfeeding stance, as the

pasteurized milk statement was a scientific inaccuracy, and the

breastfeeding stance is more a matter of opinion. But I think it's certainly

worth approaching Sally with your argument, and more so if a group of

ers petition her as a group.

(I'm not endorsing anyone's particular approach in saying this, because I

haven't followed this thread closely so am not very familiar with the

controversy.)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>