An open letter to Jamie Grumet and ALL the other mums who have spoken publicly about sustained breastfeeding.

" From one mother to another, I am writing to express my thanks.  You see, I nurse my older child too, but I'm not as brave as you are and not that many people in my ‘real life’ know about it.  I don't talk about it openly because I'm too scared of what the fallout might be.  I know a lot of people would say what I'm doing is icky, or unnecessary, and others would believe I'm doing the wrong thing by continuing to nurse my child.   They wouldn't be slow to tell me either!  Some people might even accuse me of abusing my child by not weaning them.  I know those people are just ignorant of the facts and have no clue what they're talking about, but it's very hurtful nonetheless.

I've watched the TV interviews and listened to the phone-ins.  I've read the articles, and I've even made the mistake of reading some of the comments underneath.  I know you must be taking a lot of flack for talking openly about allowing your child to self-wean.  I can't imagine how it must feel to be in your shoes, but I want to express my thanks to you for putting yourself 'out there' and talking openly about sustained breastfeeding.  I want to thank you for being braver than I am. 

Please know that I support you and what you have tried to do by speaking out.  I know you're just doing your best as a mum. I am too.  I realise that some of your words may have been taken out of context - I know how the press can twist things.  Maybe you aren't entirely happy with how you were portrayed, and that must be infuriating.  I know you're not trying to tell other people how to live.  I know you're not trying to make anyone else feel bad by talking about your own experiences of parenting and I know you're not 'doing it for yourself'.  I know how tough nursing an older child can be, because I do it too.  I also know you're not the 'attention seeker' that some people are trying to make you out to be, you're just standing up for something you believe in.  I know that you're not continuing to nurse because you're a mother who 'can't let go'.  I know you're not doing it because you want your child to be dependant on you but actually because you believe it will make them MORE independent in the long run.  I know because I am in the same boat.

I must admit to feeling a little guilty though.  Part of me thinks that if I were braver and more willing to talk about how things are in my own family then *I* could help debunk a few of the horrible myths about sustained nursing too.  After all, everyone's different.  The media often tries to stereotype or 'pigeon-hole' mums, but the truth is that my family is not like yours and I am not the same as you.  We do have this in common though, this shared experience. 

Despite all the rude, derogatory, insulting and uneducated comments you have probably been subjected to, I want you to know that you really HAVE made a positive difference in the world.  Because of you more people know that sustained nursing is possible.  Others have had their preconceptions challenged, and some folk will even have learnt something.  Because of you more people now know that it isn't necessary to wean their child and that allowing them to wean themselves is an option.  Some mothers who felt lonely before don't feel so alone now. 

Things are changing.  Okay so they're changing slowly, but a generation further down the line I don't believe sustained nursing will be as counter-cultural it is right now.   Some of the thanks for that will have to go to you. 

So THANK YOU for being willing to stick your head above the parapet, for talking honestly about your experiences, and for your bravery.  Thank you for being willing to tough it out at the front.

x anne"

If you feel you want to add your 'signature' to this letter and show your support for the women who have put themselves forward to talk publicly about sustained nursing, then please leave a comment below.  Even if you don't feel able to 'come out of the closet' it would be great to see a show of hands...  Anonymous comments are fine.  

Pfizer works to undermine breastfeeding mums on diet and nutrition

Today I did a quick google search for 'breastfeeding vitamins' (I was looking for this link from The Funny Shaped Woman), and a sponsored Ad appeared which I had never seen before.  I usually recognise these ads, so I thought I'd take a closer look.  

I am glad I did, but it makes for some uncomfortable reading (click to enlarge).

For a while we've known that the formula companies are trying to target mothers who breastfeed - mostly with their 'follow on' formulas.  However, it seems that now pharmaceutical companies are also trying to trick breastfeeding mums by implying that without specific diet and nutrition their milk will be less good.  This site claims to have 'Everything you need to know about Breastfeeding'.  Yeah, right..

Look at this (from this page):

See how they accidentally leave off the part which recommends continued breastfeeding beyond 6 months alongside solids for as long as you want?  In fact they actually state their half-truth two times on this one page.  


This is very deliberate and absolutely typical of the way formula companies try to undermine breastfeeding - only now the vitamin companies are doing the same thing.  They even have the cheek to use the international breastfeeding symbol at the top of their page!

For the record, the NHS website says the following: 

'If you're breastfeeding, feeding only breast milk up to around 6 months will give your baby extra protection against infection. Breastfeeding beyond 6 months, alongside solid foods, will continue to protect them for as long as you carry on.'

and the World Health Organisation says:

'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.'

Their website also lists in great detail all the things you *may want* to eat in order to breastfeed.  

The La Leche League (who, let's face it, have supported more mums to breastfeed than any formula company ever has) say this: 

'Over the years of experience with breastfeeding mothers all over the world, LLL Leaders have seen that the best diet for a breastfeeding mother is neither complicated nor expensive [...]  There is very little difference in the milk of healthy mothers and mothers who are severely malnourished'

Most women in the UK (where this website is targeted) are not severely malnourished.  Some may not have the best diets, but there's a big difference between not eating a great diet and being severely malnourished...

However, the Pfizer website says: 

'It is important to continue focusing on your diet and nutritional needs while breastfeeding to help provide your baby with the best possible start.'  

Later on it says this:

'not consuming enough calories while breastfeeding may affect the vitamins and nutrients in your milk supply.' 

Although there is evidence to show that maternal diet can affect the levels of nutrients in a mother's milk under certain circumstances,  Breastfeeding.org says this:

'Only in rare cases of long term, severe nutritional deficiency will breastmilk be affected.  Research shows that during lactation, most nutrients in breast - milk remain consistent by means of complex homeostatic mechanisms independent of maternal intake.'

And even if the maternal diet isn't great the advice from the Linkages Project (2004) states that: 

'In all but the most extreme cases, malnourished mothers can follow the same recommendations for breastfeeding as mothers who are not malnourished. These recommendations include exclusive breastfeeding for six months followed by on-demand breastfeeding and the introduction of complementary foods' 

That doyenne of all things breastfeeding, Kelly Bonyata IBCLC (from Kellymom.com) says this:

'you do not need to maintain a perfect diet in order to provide quality milk for your baby. In fact, research tells us that the quality of a mother’s diet has little influence on her milk. Nature is very forgiving – mother’s milk is designed to provide for and protect baby even in times of hardship and famine. [...]  Although it is certainly not recommended, a breastfeeding mother could live on a diet of junk food – mom would not thrive on that diet, but her milk would still meet her baby’s needs.'

You can read the rest of her article (and references) here.

The pharmaceutical company behind 'nutritioninpregnancy.co.uk' simply want to make breastfeeding look a whole lot harder than it is.  Of course they do - that's how they make their money :(

The role of their website is two-fold:

1/ to trick people into thinking there's no point in breastfeeding past 6 months, and  

2/ to convince mothers that they need to buy a vitamin product in order to produce 'good' milk.

Many people will see this website and believe what it says without question - Pfizer have paid Google to put it at the top of it's searches...

Healthy lactating women will be led to believe that they need unnecessary supplements in order to feed their babies.  Mums will (once again) be duped into thinking there is no point in breastfeeding beyond 6 months.  Readers of websites like this one may start to question the nutritional quality of breast milk and may mistakenly believe that a formula (which lists it's ingredient on the back) is healthier. 

And I haven't even mentioned the contents of the 'breastfeeding' section of this website - take a look for yourself here.  There isn't a single link to sources of FREE and QUALIFIED breastfeeding support available to mothers the UK (some numbers are given on the RHS of this blog).  If Pfizer truly cared about supporting mums to breastfeed they'd have included information about trusted sources of breastfeeding support.  Why haven't they?  Well it's not brain surgery now, is it...?  Of course the info isn't all bad, but it's very similar to the sort of thing you find on the formula company websites - scant and not a whole lot to go on.  Most of the problems they list could be resolved quickly with support from a breastfeeding counsellor or even a peer supporter.  However there is no mention of either of these on the website.

No wonder mums don't know where to go to get real help.

Big Pharma is getting wise to the fact that most women want to breastfeed their babies, and so they are trying to make it look like they want to help.  But who would you rather turn to for help - someone with training in breastfeeding support or a someone employed by a pharmaceutical company?


From UNICEF: 

'The major problems are the societal and commercial pressure to stop breastfeeding, including aggressive marketing and promotion by formula producers.  These pressures are too often worsened by inaccurate medical advice from health workers who lack proper skill and training in breastfeeding support.'

Some people are bound to comment under this article that a) supplements are harmless and what's the big deal if it means 'covering yourself' and b) I'm getting wound up over nothing.  So, let me save you the bother.

I don't personally care one jot if a person doesn't want to breastfeed - the last thing I ever want to do is tell anyone what to do with their own body.  However - I DO care a great deal about the thousands of mums who really want to breastfeed but are 'booby-trapped' by Big Pharma.  Is it a co-incidence that this website has started to show up in searches since Nestle recently bought Pfizer Nutrition?  Probably - Nestle have not acquired the wing of the company that produces these vitamins (Consumer Healthcare)* - but then this website isn't just about breastfeeding - it's about pregnancy too.  The thought that C21st women are constantly being told that they need help from the pharmaceutical industry in order to grow, birth and feed their babies scares me.  Many of their products and services are based on exploiting our fears.  We all want the best for our babies, but how justified are these fears? 

Please tell your friends, eat to hunger, drink to thirst, and just feed your baby.


* my thanks to Tiffany on Facebook for clarifying this

What breastfeeding older children REALLY looks like.

Most people will have seen the cover of the latest issue of TIME Magazine by now.  

The image below is challenging on many levels and - of course - TIME chose it because it was likely to provoke extreme reactions.

But let's face it, this image has really very little to do with breastfeeding older children, and a lot to do with selling magazines.  It is not a realistic representation of how nursing older children really looks.  The picture on TIME magazine is all about sensationalism and shows nothing of the nurturing nature of sustained breastfeeding.  

Children continue to breastfeed into childhood for many reasons - it's biologically normal for them after all.  Their mothers aren't somehow 'making' them do it.  There are many myths surrounding sustained breastfeeding, I have tried to address some of them with this post.  

If you find yourself freaked out/ challenged/ appalled by the notion of older children feeding, then please take some time to read more about it.  We can all acknowledge that it's unusual to see older children breastfeeding in our culture, but that doesn't make it wrong.

So I thought it might be helpful to provide a bit of a reality-check.  I am grateful to the members of DBM who have sent in their photos to help us do this.


PLEASE NOTE:  THESE PICTURES MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED ELSEWHERE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THEM.  

Jen and her 2.5 year old

Aged 3.5

Aged 3 

On the Beach - aged 2.5 

Aged 22 months 

Aged 4 

Almost 3. 

Aged 3

This breastfeeding Triceratops is 2yrs 9m old. 

Tandem toddler wrestling nursing from Indigo Whispers.

If you have breastfed an older child and would like to include your picture in this blogpost, please email it to me at:
dispellingbreastfeedingmyths@hotmail.co.uk

x anne

Are mums who breastfeed older children attention-seekers?

Is breastfeeding older children weird?


It seems some people think so.  Despite the fact the breastfeeding into childhood is actually biologically normal for human infants, it's something we rarely see in the modern world. 


TIME magazine caused a furore when they published a particularly challenging image showing an attractive young mother feeding her three year old son.  But was this picture in any way representative of what natural-term nursing really looks like?  

The percentage of people who breastfeed exclusively for 6 months is very small (something in the region of 1% where I live), so it doesn't take a genius to work out that if you've made it beyond a year, you and your child are in a tiny minority.  Get as far as two years (the minimum recommended by the World Health Organisation) and the situation is even more extreme.  After this point - as was demonstrated by discussion on the DBM group wall this week - mothers who continue to breastfeed their children often find themselves viewed with suspicion.  

One commentator on Facebook gave voice to this recently when he asked:

'are some mothers breastfeeding beyond 2 to further develop their children, or is it rather the case that they breastfeed to showing [sic] off or possibly as a way of attention seeking?'

One mother this week told us how a court judgement was forcing her to wean her two year old, and despite a complete lack of evidence to support any such recommendations, many mothers in our group report being advised to wean their older children by a variety of health professionals.

I have to ask - why are we so against nursing older children?

Comments like 'are you still going to be feeding him when he's at college?' are fairly standard, but anyone who takes five minutes to research the subject will soon discover that that's not even physically possible.  As children grow their jaw and teeth change and develop in such a way that weaning occurs naturally - they simply lose the ability to latch and nurse effectively.  The immune system of a child continues to develop up until around the same point.  Co-incidence?  I think not.  They're called 'milk teeth' for a reason, people.

'In a group of 21 species of non-human primates (monkeys and apes) studied by Holly Smith, she found that the offspring were weaned at the same time they were getting their first permanent molars.  In humans that would be 5.5 - 6 years' ~ Kathy Dettwyler

Of course breastfeeding an older child is very different to breastfeeding a younger one.  One study into longer-term nursing showed that the timings and frequency of breastfeeds:

'were not different between the 1-year-old and 2-year-old age groups but were significantly lower in the 3-year-old age group.'. 

Children generally breastfeed a good deal less as they get older.  Shocking, I know.

The milk they get is different too - the antibodies become more concentrated the less your child feeds.  There's a much perpetuated myth that mother's milk is somehow 'no good' after point x - but that's total rubbish.  One mother of a 2.5 year old had her milk analysed, and a sample of just 6 ml was found to contain at least 7,850,000 living cells - that equates to roughly 38,692,035 an ounce!  In mature milk the white cell count is estimated to be somewhere between 0.1 million and 1 million cells per ml.  White blood cells (aka leukocytes) are:

'cells of the immune system involved in defending the body against both infectious disease and foreign materials.'  ~ Wikipedia  

Breast milk is full of the antibodies produced by these white blood cells.  The highest levels of antibodies in human milk are found in colostrum, however evidence now shows that levels of some immunological components in human milk actually begin to increase towards the end of the second year.  No studies that I'm aware of have looked at human milk beyond the 24 month point, but this steady rise between 12 months and 24 months is interesting.  Are we to believe that this upward trend just stops in it's tracks, right at the point when our kids are starting to mix with other children, encounter more viruses and illnesses and feed less frequently?  I don't buy it.

We know for sure that stopping breastfeeding increases the statistical risk of a range of conditions including some cancers and obesity.  So what's the problem?  The mother's happy, the child is happy, they're both healthy and are happy to continue nursing, so WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?

Well, unlike most people (who will insinuate it rather than say it), I 'll just say it - it's to do with sex.  Isn't everything?  In our culture breasts = sex - and the thought of an older child sucking on their mothers breast is, for many people, a bridge too far.  They're just about ok with it when the child is a babe in arms, but a few short months later, when they're walking about, with TEETH, then it's DISGUSTING!

So, to summarise the problem.  1/ the older child is being nourished at their mother's breasts 2/ the mother is getting pleasure out of it.

Pardon me?

Yes, you read that right, the mother may even be ENJOYING it.  :-O

Now before you all start punching your computer screens, hear me out.  People seem to have a problem with the concept of breastfeeding as enjoyable.  Probably because they equate enjoying having your breasts suck(l)ed with sex (because it's GOT to be all about sex, obviously.....).

Breastfeeding does have something in common with sex of course - the oxytocin release.  That lovely hormone which 'lets down' the milk, is also the hormone released when you have an orgasm.  But there's just one problem with this theory, and it's this:  our bodies produce oxytocin in all kinds of different situations - when we hug a friend, when we think happy thoughts, when someone smiles at us, when we laugh etc etc.  It's our body's natural antidote to stress.  So enjoying breastfeeding is OK - you're actually meant to, in exactly the same way you'd enjoy a hug or a bar of chocolate!

The problem remains though - there is a small person sucking on your breast (and since in our culture sucking on breasts is largely a sexual preserve) and that's just weird, right?
  

But is the implication that some mums 'get off' on breastfeeding in any way fair?

Ann Sinnott conducted a survey of 2040 mothers for her book 'Breastfeeding Older Children'  and, in a sub-survey of 181 women, looked at the range of sexual sensations women reported experiencing during breastfeeding.  7.18% of the respondents reported 'high' level sensations - however many of the participants questioned Ms Sinnott's use of the word 'sexual' in the context of the study and insisted that the sensations they had experienced were more 'sensual' than sexual.  Sinnott also suggests in her book that some of the responses might be accounted for by an 'involuntary hormonal/ physiological reaction' in a percentage of women - involuntary means something you have no control over btw...

So what does this tell us?  Well, some people are bound to suggest that a (small) percentage of mums who breastfeed older children are indeed doing it 'for themselves' - because here's the proof!  However, this assumption fails to take into consideration a range of other factors - not least the fact that a child who doesn't want to breastfeed can't be 'made' to by a domineering mother.  Should the fact that a small minority of women in Sinnott's survey reported high level sensations during breastfeeding worry us?  Well, in my opinion no.  There's a world of a difference between experiencing a sensation (which in a different context might be interpreted as sexual) and the abuse of a child.  Whilst some of the women were not bothered by any sensations (they were able to rationalise them), a number of the women reported feeling ashamed and disturbed by what they had felt.  In the context of a discussion about nursing an older children none of this is relevant, however, unless you can prove that the sensations intensified over time.  All this survey shows is that for some women, breastfeeding caused high level sensations - period.  Not breastfeeding an older child.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that women who breastfeed older children are in some way abusing them.  In fact, available evidence actually suggests that breastfed children are less likely to suffer from abuse and neglect.  Sinnott quotes an American study done in 2003 which:

'followed 7,695 mothers over 14 years and found that breastfeeding reduced the incidence of child abuse and neglect to a probability of 0.001, concluding that 'breastfeeding may be protective against child maltreatment by enhancing the quality of mother-infant interactions and stimulating the central oxytocin system, thus reducting levels of maternal anxiety'.'*

One of the biggest problems I have with people suggesting that there is something wrong in nursing beyond age x is this: a child being mothered at the breast until they self-wean is NOT a problem for society.  We're not a culture in danger from 'over-mothering' - quite the reverse.  1 in 10 children in the UK have a mental health problem.  We have more kids in care than ever before, on 31st March last year 50,552 children were known to be 'at risk' of abuse on child protection registers - and the true figure is likely to be much higher.  Do people really have nothing better to do than get their knickers in a twist over sustained breastfeeding?  What's it to you if my three year old breastfeeds?  It's not doing you any harm and it's benefiting both of us, so (as we say in Norn Iron) why don't you just 'wind your neck in?'.  Your ignorance is showing.

I can't speak for everyone, but by the time I had breastfed for a while, my own breasts had become very much 'dual function' anyway.  Whereas at one time they had had solely a sexual function, they came to function perfectly well as food/ comfort too.  Who'd have thunk it? ;)  These two identities can - really and truly - exist perfectly happily alongside one another.  My brain is perfectly capable of working out the difference between feeding my child and sex.  So is my husband's, I'm delighted to say.  I can kiss my kids on the mouth without it being sexual, and yet a kiss from my other half can have a distinctly different effect.  The human brain is clever like that...  I understand that what I'm saying might be a tad difficult thing for anyone living in such an overtly sexualised society to get their head around, but if you haven't done it then you won't know - so you'll just have to take my word for it.   

I'd like to give the last words to the gorgeous Jenny Allen who was brave enough to discuss breastfeeding her older child on (Nestle-sponsored) GMTV.  Here she elegantly and eloquently confronts incredible ignorance from both the presenter and a well-known UK doctor (although he does get paid to endorse follow on milk so it's hardly surprising).  Jenny holds her own beautifully in this interview - another mother who went on tv to talk about sustained breastfeeding was not so lucky (although through no fault of her own).  

Anyone who thinks a mother breastfeeds her older child for her own benefit or because she is somehow 'showing off' is living in cloud cuckoo land.  This isn't the 'Breastfeeding Olympics' - there are no medals.  The idea that someone would willingly subject themselves to the ignorance and innuendo which accompanies sustained breastfeeding simply for their own sake is crazy.  Be under no illusions - mums do it because it's good for their children.  

* L. Strathern MBBS, FRACP , 'Breastfeeding and mother-infant separation; independent predictors of child abuse and neglect',at the November 2003 AAP Section on Breastfeeding Educational Program
http://kellymom.com/nutrition/milk/immunefactors/ 

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=134

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/breastfeeding/why-breast-best/how-human-milk-protects-babies-illness http://lactationnarration.com/index.php/tag/antibodies/ 

http://www.whale.to/a/dettwyler.html

http://www.healthychild.com/for-healthy-immunity/breastfeeding-for-a-strong-immune-system/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01401.x/full

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/9_4%20The%20Anthropology%20of%20Breast%20Feeding.htm

http://www.llli.org/nb/nbnovdec96p164.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MAbQjY0ppgQC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=human+milk+little+and+often+primates&source=bl&ots=sD-Iq4WySd&sig=yrBn-uocaCbrI7P1HxS7SB1ToO8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-t6mT-eWO4m-8gPpnuTgBA&sqi=2&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=human%20milk%20little%20and%20often%20primates&f=false