Speaking as a Mammal...

If you are a man realizing this post is about breastfeeding, please keep reading! You are essential to the success of breastfeeding.

According to National Geographic's Encyclopedia of Animals, mammals -- evolved from reptiles more than 195 million years ago -- have two things in common: 1. they have hair and, 2. they "all have mammary glands that produce milk to nurse and nourish their young." Yet somehow, in American society, we find ourselves debating whether 195 million years of evolution can compare to the invention of formula.

Do we believe we can concoct something in a laboratory that rivals the sophistication of the human body? Indeed we do, evidenced by our low breastfeeding rates. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that in 2005, only 3 out of every 4 American babies were breastfed at birth, and by 6 months of age, only 43.4% of our babies were still being breastfed. Boundless technophilia, clever marketing and a misguided trust that any product available in national chains must be harmless, actually make many new mothers see breastfeeding and formula as near equals. While formula has played an important role in many special circumstances, in the United States, formula-feeding is not the exception, but the ruling method of nourishing our infants, with more than half of babies on formula before they are 6 months old.

Though the American Acadamy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, United Nations Children's Fund and World Health Organization (WHO) "strongly recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and that other foods should complement breastfeeding for up to two years or more," only 13.6% of American mothers were still exclusively breastfeeding their 6-month-old babies in 2005 according to the CDC.

What Discourages Breastfeeding?
Is 1 out of 4 mothers (who never begins breastfeeding) prevented by special circumstances? There is a wide range of personal reasons American mothers cite for not starting or continuing to breastfeed. Debating the motives of mothers who do not breastfeed will only further polarize us, and distract from the indisputable superiority of breastmilk (see Breastfeeding vs. Formula below for the unparalleled benefits of breastmilk).

"Human milk is species-specific, and all substitute feeding preparations differ markedly from it, making human milk uniquely superior for infant feeding."
-- AAP Policy Statement: Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk, 2005

Rather, let's focus on changing our mindset as a community, so that breastfeeding is accepted as imperative to the well-being of our species. Certainly today's American society does not expect mothers to breastfeed for 6 to 12 months. Just think of our maternity leave policy (check out the 2004 Harvard study comparing worldwide maternity policies), which separates mothers and babies too early, at three months or sooner, making the continuation of exclusive breastfeeding difficult, as mothers try to pump a full supply of milk without their baby at the breast to stimulate let-down. Or, think of the pediatricians who, contrary to the AAP's recommendations, encourage mothers to supplement their breastmilk supply with formula, which in turn will reduce the mother's supply and lead to more formula feedings. Or think of the subtle endorsement for formula-feeding made by both my obstetrician's office and hospital, when they distribute free formula samples to new mothers, despite the WHO's policy on formula marketing:

Adopted in 1981, the international code to regulate the marketing of breast-milk substitutes calls for:

• all formula labels and information to state the benefits of breastfeeding and the health risks of substitutes;
• no promotion of breast-milk substitutes;
• no free samples of substitutes to be given to pregnant women, mothers or their families; and
• no distribution of free or subsidized substitutes to health workers or facilities.

Just as a birthing mother will slow or reverse her labor if she senses danger, a breastfeeding mother will have trouble with let-down if she feels afraid, nervous or intimidated. This is our natural biological response when we feel threatened. American society must accept breastfeeding as normal, good and necessary, and accordingly support and honor mothers who do so, in order for our situation to improve.

How many times has a new mother wondered if she "will be able to breastfeed?" That doubt alone can be enough to undermine her efforts. Without other experienced women to guide her, she may not feel confident enough to continue, or know the simple tricks that can help in the first months as mother and baby are learning.

Isolation is one of the most powerful enemies post-partum mothers face. On top of possibly not being connected to a group of women with a wealth of breastfeeding know-how (try La Leche League or kellymom); many new mothers may instead be influenced by other mothers (past generations and present) who boast what they consider the advantages of formula-feeding. Compounding a shortage of breastfeeding peers, many new mothers also feel isolated when in public, where they may undergo the disapproval of men and women who are uncomfortable knowing a breast is being bared for a baby to suckle.

How can our sons, husbands and fathers see breastfeeding as a natural part of life if we closet ourselves away -- in public restrooms, our cars, our bedrooms -- fearing others' cruel remarks or condemnation for an act they deem private. Why do we sexualize breastfeeding?

I am proud of my father. He snapped this picture of me with my mother and eldest daughter as I breastfed my newborn son.



While this sight in public stirs discomfort in some Americans, this GQ cover appeared in newsstands everywhere in January 2009. I don't think I'm winning any sexy or indecent-exposure contest here.

Breastmilk vs. Formula? No Contest!

Why is mother's milk best?

1. ...It is perfect nutrition that adapts. Breastmilk is 80% soluble nourishment, an ever-changing daily blend of more than 200 components: "water, proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, trace metals, growth factors, hormones, enzymes, antibodies, white blood cells and more, each in ideal proportion to one another. This precise biochemical balance-virtually a 'symphony of ingredients'-cannot possibly be duplicated artificially." (Dr. Mom's Guide to Breastfeeding by Marianne R. Neifert, 1998) Breastmilk even changes during one feeding, at first thirst-quenching, then changing to the richer, creamier hind milk, full of essential fatty acids (EFAs) and lipids. Mother's diet also alters the taste of her breastmilk, helping diversify Baby's palate. Breastmilk content and supply also change as baby develops and goes through growth spurts.
2. ...It gives Baby the best chance of survival and wellness. Breastmilk contains growth factors that ensure the best development of baby's organs, as well as enzymes, white blood cells, and antibodies. In fact, shortly after Mom is exposed to a germ, her breastmilk includes the antibodies to protect Baby from that specific infection. Breastmilk decreases the incidence and/or severity of a wide range of bacterial and viral infections, including ear infections, bacterial meningitis, urinary tract infections; and diarrhea and pneumonia -- the two primary causes of child mortality worldwide. Breastfeeding has also been linked to a decrease in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), allergies, chronic immune system disorders, and digestive disorders. Postneonatal infant mortality rates in the United States are reduced by 21% in breastfed infants.
3. ...It makes Baby a healthier adult. Adults who were breastfed have lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, and lower rates of obesity, diabetes, lymphoma, leukemia, Hodgkin disease, and asthma.
4. ...It makes Baby smarter. A growing body of evidence suggests that people who were breastfed perform better in cognitive tests, understandable because breastmilk contains fatty acids that optimize brain development.
5. ...It reduces your baby budget. Aside from investing in nursing bras and/or pads, breastfeeding is free!
6. ...It is less work. No sterilising, cleaning and carrying bottles, mixing powder, keeping formula chilled, warming formula for feeds. "Have baby and breast, will travel."
7. ...It protects Mom's long-term health. Moms who breastfed have lower rates of breast and ovarian cancer, as well as bone fractures and osteoporosis later in life.
8. ...It returns Mom to pre-pregnancy weight and uterus-size faster. Calories burned and hormones released at each feeding help Mom shed pounds, and contracts the uterus to reduce its size.
9. ...It strengthens mother-child bond. Hormone oxytocin released in Mom during each feeding, combined with skin-to-skin contact, promote mothering behavior and bonding with Baby.
10. ...It delays the return of Mom's menstrual cycle. While not a foolproof method of birth control (hence my little brother's conception when I was 5 months old and breastfeeding), exclusive breastfeeding can postpone Mom's first postpartum period for up to or more than 12 months.
11. ...It has no environmental footprint. Breastfeeding eliminates the need to dispose of formula cans and bottles; and to use energy for production and transport of artificial feeding products.

Healthy, free and made in the USA, American mothers' milk is the best way to feed our babies. After all, we are mammals. We were made to breastfeed.

Eating Well, Part Two: Cheap Food Nation

"I pay more for my chickens than I would for store bought, mass-produced ones, but I don't pay too much. The farmer charges me only what it costs him to raise and dress my chickens plus a reasonable profit. He is a farmer who endeavors to operate in an environmentally sound, ethical way. Buying from this farmer, I support a food system that embodies my values---one that provides wholesome food, cares for creation, and provides a living wage to family farmers."
--
Marta Cleaveland, “You Should Pay More for Your Food,” Salt Magazine

At first glance, it seems like quite an achievement that Americans today spend less than 10% of our disposable incomes on food, especially compared to 1933, when spending was at 25%.
During the depression era, U.S. government hatched a relief program to encourage farmers to produce food as cheaply and abundantly as possible. Oil was cheap then, as were the pesticides derived from it, and as the chart above shows, we began to feed our families for less.

Perhaps that system fed our hunger sufficiently to allow us to focus on the specifics of how we have been feeding ourselves, and at what real cost to our long-term health and environment.

For generations, Americans have been offered food -- and consumer goods -- at artificially low prices. A fast food value meal may feed you for less than $5, but it didn’t cost $5. Your tax dollars already paid subsidies to the agricultural conglomerate who produced it, allowing them to remain profitable while selling you that meal at a dirt cheap price.

Even though our receipt totals don’t tally the real cost of our food, which also includes climate change…

“the way we grow, process and transport food uses more fossil fuel and contributes more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than any other industry (17-34%)…”

and rising healthcare costs…

“Spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP has risen from 5% in 1960 to 18% today. Of 2 trillion we spend on healthcare, 1.5 trillion is going to treat preventable chronic disease linked to diet.”

- Author Michael Pollan, keynote speaker, Georgia Organics’ 2009 Annual Conference

…we get what we pay for, whether it’s obvious to us or not. In Americans’ case, we pay with our tax money via farm bill subsidies to make processed food cheaper than real, whole foods.

“The real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (aka liquid corn – [made with high fructose corn syrup]) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.”

“Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?”

- Michael Pollan , “You Are What You Grow,” April 2007, New York Times Magazine

“Nearly 90% of all federal farm payments go to only five favored crops that include corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and rice, while fresh fruits, vegetables and organic agriculture receive little.” -- Environmental Working Group (EWG)

Then, many of us gravitate towards these heavily marketed products of industrialized agriculture, perhaps for “great value” or “great taste.”

“Energy-dense foods, many of them nutrient poor, are good tasting, readily available, and cheap...Simply put, as incomes drop and food budgets shrink, food choices shift toward energy-dense refined grains, added sugars and fats.”

– Adam Drewnowski, Director of Center for Obesity Research, University of Washington professor of Epidemiology and Medicine, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 18, 2008

Sometimes we pay again, to treat the health problems we develop (i.e., obesity/heart disease, type II diabetes, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), etc., etc.) from our refined-grain, added-sugar, partially-hydrogenated-fat-filled diets .

“Americans are becoming more obese while spending a lower share of disposable income on food.” – Adam Drewnowski, “Fat and Sugar: An Economic Analysis”, American Society for Nutritional Sciences Journal of Nutrition, 2003

Good Intentions…

“While initially meant to protect farmers from the vagaries of weather and the fickleness of the free market system, the subsidy system now often rewards big growers over small- and mid-sized producers. Moreover, in recent decades it has tended to consolidate government payments in the hands of a few. Between 2003 and 2005, for example, American taxpayers paid $34.75 billion in crop subsidy benefits to farmers, but only the top one percent of farmers received nearly one-fifth of that amount.”

WATCH: “King Corn” http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/

“EWG data shows that the largest 10% of farms receive almost 70% of total farm payments. Often, the large plantation scale operations use the increased capitol to outbid smaller family farmers for land.”

READ THE TRANSCRIPT: Farming Out Billions of Dollars, CBS Miami I-Team http://miami.cbslocal.com/2008/07/14/i-team-farming-out-billions-of-dollars/

“The [farm subsidy] payments are very concentrated in the hands of a narrow slice of agriculture. And it's important to remember that two-thirds of the farmers in this country are not on the programs at all.” - Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group (EWG), July 2007 NPR Interview

LISTEN: Groups Push for End to Crop Subsidies, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12309276&ps=rs

Real Food Revolution
Baby, who loves you? The owner of a huge industrialized farming operation, or a fourth-generation farmer who appreciates your patronage in helping sustain his family business? The system needs changing, and I’ll write a future post about political involvement, but in the meantime, we can vote with our dollar, and support food systems that are good for our families and our future. How about…

1. We choose to pay more for real, whole foods, grown sustainably without synthetic chemicals. We frequent local farmer’s markets, co-ops and CSAs for affordable alternatives to supermarket natural food chains.
2. Whenever possible, we buy from a local provider to keep responsible family farms in business, to reduce cross-country transport emissions and to ensure that our produce, meats and dairy are truly organic, free-range, and grass-fed.
3. We make sure we know what is in our food. We read ingredients or ask about them (“What kind of sweetener is in your sweet tea?”).
4. We make home-cooked meals a priority. We learn how to make quick fix meals from scratch, as well as stretch one cooking stint into several meals (check out Food Network’s Robin Miller’s Quick Fix Meals). We substitute real ingredients for the processed ones in a favorite recipe.
5. When we eat out, we pay a little more at locally-based eateries that make their food from scratch with fresh, whole ingredients. Look for a future post on local scrumptious meals for less than $10-$15.

Take inspiration from Georgia Organics’ 2010 conference keynote speaker, Slow Food non-profit organization founder Carlo Petrini of Piedmont, Italy. Petrini founded Slow Food in 1989 to “counteract fast food and fast life, the disappearance of local food traditions and people’s dwindling interest in the food they eat. We consider ourselves co-producers, because by being informed about our food production and making choices in support of good, clean and fair food, we become a part of the process.”

The time, energy and money we spend to eat well is worth our families’ health and future.