All About Women | Women

.

My blog is a year old! :-) I couldn't be happier that my sorta anniversary post is this one!

.

Back in March, I did a post on the Be A Star campaign. I felt it was one of the best designed, and well founded breastfeeding awareness campaigns I'd ever seen. Read the original post, for why I feel it's such a 'vital' campaign.

.

As the campaign has grown, it's spread into other health trust areas, who have produced their 'own' breastfeeding Mums in new posters. All continuing the theme of photographing breastfeeding Mums and their babies, as glamorous yet individual 'stars'.

Be A Star is currently undertaking an evaluation, to take stock of how effective the campaign has been. The results will be analysed and used to determine if the 'buzz' created by the posters, leaflets, radio ads etc, has been effective in actually encouraging, or sustaining, breastfeeding.

.

As part of the evaluation, there is a survey is for anyone who has seen the campaign. It's one page long, and takes approx 2 minutes to complete. It's vital that health campaigns are assessed rigorously for evidence of their results - and it's not just that people already converted 'like' them. So if you saw the campaign, even only through the blog and then went and looked at the website, please fill in a survey. Do your bit! There is actually a category for seeing the campaign on a website, or blog, so the internet exposure element will be assessed too. :-)

.

Well, I ended up watching it, and even I was beggared by what came up.

.

A conversation from a GP to a patient, in England:

.

GP: Did you know it's illegal to interrupt a Mum and baby breastfeeding these days?

.

Mum: Yes, I know. But that's only up to six months. He's 7 months old now, no help for me. I can be done under public indecency you know?

.

GP: No!!

.

Yes, no! This is complete codswallop! Total and complete mumbojumbomyth. The very myth that sparked a huge panic earlier in the year. You cannot be done for public indecency when breastfeeding in public.

.

If this was any other channel, you could complain to OFCOM, under the Accuracy rules. But it's the BBC, you have to complain to the BBC, about the BBC.

.

And I've just spent 20 minutes trying to let them know about how inaccurate their info was, and how much harm they have done, and how they must retract the info now. But no one wanted to know. I even got a nice man on the phone to phone INTO the editorial unit that OFCOM stated I need to speak too... but no one wanted to know. The usual fill in a form... we'll get to it.

.

So if you are angry about this, you will have to follow the BBC in how to complain to the BBC, about the BBC.

.

Sound rigorous to you?

.

Phone 03700 100 222 or web email.

.

I've highlighted two aspects - factual inaccuracy over the Sex Discrimination Bill. This is presumably what they meant by 'illegal to interrupt' comment as it's England. They presumably mean the measure whereby you can sue if you are discriminated in supplying goods and services, because you are breastfeeding. This is a civil action, and there is no time limit on the age of the baby, as there is no time limit on maternity provision. But it's not illegal to do it - you can just be sued for it afterwards! So the six months thing is really damaging. The other is raising that breastfeeding in public is not illegal, and does not come under the Public Indecency laws as they stated.

.

Honestly, such complete rubbish, going out prime time to Mums! Arrgghhh!!!!!! Although at least they shot themselves in the foot by saying it is illegal... they can hardly claim they meant something in the upcoming Single Equalities Bill... when they stated it _was_ illegal. And that would be the Single Equalities Bill that doesn't mention breastfeeding in it...

.

Hands up who bets they'll say "We're sorry we got it wrong, but it's what people think and it's important in a drama to say what people think and it was a nice positive story about breastfeeding so it doesn't matter, does it?" And they'll say all that in about 4 months time...

.

No matter how hard we worked at it, we couldn't get the above pic in on good resolution, when I made this post. So here it is, as a huge ps!

.

When working out your finances this month, and deciding you can buy yourself a present after all.. after all, you are the centre of your family's world.. you are the engine that drives your family... you deserve the cheer... consider gifting yourself a couple of breastfeeding calenders. Everyone needs to look at nice images to cheer themselves up. Most people need to know the date... and most if us need somewhere to write down that we should be somewhere, sometime, something important. So a calender is usually something we could all use.

.

Most of us also want to contribute to the world around us, and buying a calender from an organisation that uses the money to support babies, and breastfeeding, is A Good Thing. So here's my guide to where you can get your breastfeeding calenders from, and why you should buy these ones!

.

First of all, a good breastfeeding calender is more than pretty pictures and a set of dates. Photographs are a moment in time, and every year, calender committees sit and argue out who and what should be included this year. Their decisions are always interesting, and always say something; they set out to show us where breastfeeding is 'at' that year. Sometimes, when I view the calenders, I swear I can hear the ruckus that went on behind the scenes! I commend you to the opening picture here - last year's October in the Australian Breastfeeding Association calender - and ask you to ponder with me for a moment, what sort of hell and high water discussions must have gone on to include this startling, wonderful and gorgeous photo! How many matrons must have fainted, when presented with a pink haired Mama feeding her older baby over the top! ABA - I applaud you! This photo is just a wonder, and I for one am very glad that whoever wanted it in, won the debate.

.

Lest you think this year's crop from Australia cannot compete with the wonder of last year - this one here is currently my favourite of 2009. All together everyone... aaahhh. :-)
.

And yes, I do have an actual paper copy of October 2008. And yes, it will be being put in a proper frame as soon as I can afford it. And no, you can't have it.

.

See, you really do need to buy these beauties on your own, in time!

.

The one calender that everyone needs to buy, no matter where they are in the Globe, is the IBFAN calender. The International Baby Food Action Network, is the core defence for babies worldwide, on infant feeding issues. They fight to protect breastfeeding, and breastfeeding babies, and to keep as safe as possible babies being fed formula. The work they do is both immense, and totally underfunded and undervalued. Every year they produce a stunning quality, cheap to buy, breastfeeding calender on a global scale. Most of the main breastfeeding support organisations only sell the IBFAN calender, and you can purchase it in your own geographical area, from the local region IBFAN office.

.

The main suppliers in the UK and Europe, are Baby Milk Action. For North America, go to INFACT Canada. For other areas, go to the IBFAN group map.

.

.Some of the groups, such as Baby Milk Action, will also offer you last year's calender for under half price. Think about this - if you buy it, you get 12 superb photographs/posters, very very cheaply. You up profits on previous print runs, and you free up storage space. Know anyone pregnant? Giving any talks or peer group meetings? How often have you thought "I could use a nice picture now, to pin to this wall whilst people file past..." Buy last year's calender. If all else fails, it's excellent wrapping paper for a maternity gift!

You will get a lovely warm glow inside... and 12 superb posters. And no, there isn't a big black box on them - that's just for the internet!

The message here, today, is... if you can only afford one calender... buy the IBFAN one. Every penny you spend, will be used wisely, and well. How often can you say that?

Other areas, and regions, also produce their own breastfeeding calenders. My searching found two lovely ones, both in the USA. Unfortunately, my searching hasn't yet found out how to buy them! I actually did the research on this a few weeks back, and found that New Mexico, and Sonomo Country California, hold competitions etc, on putting together their next year's calender. So I can show you images of the 2009 from both...

But neither site have let us into the secret of how to purchase them yet..
.

Although New Mexico now has an eddress to contact!.

.There are much more gift options available, of course, than simply buying yourself a stunning calender. Baby Milk Action does a wide range of postcards, t-shirts, mugs, magnets and cotton shopping bags, all in support of defending babies and their health. One of the most thoughtful gifts I received this year, personally, was someone who sent me a mug from Baby Milk Action, as a thank you. I felt warm and touchy feely and acknowledged, and thrilled that the same gift went in protecting babies too. It's a lot of bang for very little buck.

.

The holiday season is a time for giving - give yourself something nice to look at for the entire year. If all else fails, give one to someone who is giving you grief about breastfeeding! Many an office wall will look the better for having the IBFAN calender proudly displayed! ;-)

Last year, on World AIDS day, I commented on the statistics released by WHO, that breastfeeding whilst HIV positive, actually saved more babies than using formula, in most resource poor countries. That's if the mother has received no treatment at all, and is still actively being affected by the virus. Simply, formula feeding kills more babies, than unrestrained HIV replication in the mother's milk.

.

Most people are quite shocked to hear this. There is still enough phobia and prejudice around HIV (and woman and their diseased and infective bodies that drip contaminated fluids) that most people have a knee jerk fear of thinking about breastfeeding and HIV. This effect is amplified by the concurrent culture that sees formula feeding as safe and ultimately benign. Breastfeeding is always sacrificed on the altar of this combined ignorance: the dangers of the female body on one side, and the safety of the formula bottle on the other. Cow's milk, ripped out of over producing and engorged udders in factory-farmed conditions, then altered and modified in vast vats that are impossible to keep from bacterial contamination: dried to powder and then played about with ingredients not controlled or tested on human infants, pushed into tubs and sold at huge profits, with little to no awareness of the ingredient list, or how much contamination has taken place in the factory: is seen as a safer and more sensible solution than giving a baby its mother's milk.

.

Yet, as we've seen, less babies die from their mother's HIV infected milk, than do from formula feeding in resource poor countries. Where bottle culture, poor water supplies, lack of hygiene and poverty, will kill over 15% of babies being formula fed. The transmission rate for HIV in breastmilk, without treatment, stands at 4%.

.

What makes these facts even more shocking, in terms of looking at the prejudice on HIV and breastfeeding, is the transmission rate on HIV to the baby, if the mother is receiving proper anti-retro virals. That transmission rate is... zero. 0%.

.

I'll say that again. If a mother is receiving proper anti-viral treatment, during her pregnancy and breastfeeding.. the transmission rate to the baby of HIV, is a statistical zero percent.

.

In other words, HIV isn't transmitted to the baby enough times to even make it onto the figures. Figures that have over 15% deaths for formula feeding, but have no recorded transmissions of HIV to the baby.

.

Which brings me not to resource poor countries, where mothers aren't getting proper anti-retro virals. Not to resource poor countries where to bottle feed, is to invite death into your baby's crib. Not to areas where water is always a long way away, and not that clean to to start with.

.

It brings me to the UK. To HIV positive mothers here, in the UK, being told they cannot breastfeed. Being terrified that if they choose to do so, they will be reported to Child Protection Services, and their baby will be removed from them. Being told that formula feeding is the only safe option.

.

All of whom, are in receipt of full anti-retral viral treatment, free of charge. All of whom are regularly monitored for viral load and growth, and who are receiving the best standard of HIV care the world can offer.

.

All of whom are told, as standard, not to breastfeed.

.

None of whom, are told, as standard, that the ARVs they take, protect their baby if they breastfeed. None of whom are told that they can also choose to express their milk, heat treat it at home, and feed it to their baby if they want to be completely and absolutely certain they are not exposing the baby to HIV at any level. A simple, cheap and easy solution that has been designed to be safe in mud huts in villages - more than achievable by a Mum in her own modern kitchen.

.

None of whom are told that formula feeding, raises the risks of serious illness in their baby over their baby's entire adult life. That is raises the risk of cancers, diabetes, heart problems, sleep apnoea... well, you now the list. Formula feeding increases health risks; it's not news.

.

So, all these mothers, sitting there, doing 'their best' by their baby... completely unaware of the range of choices open to them. Completely unaware of the statistics and stresses and risks that can affect their babies... being told to formula feed despite the fact that at base, that doesn't make very good scientific sense. At base, it's a tricksy decision. It's a complex decision, requiring attention being paid to several fluid and interwoven factors. And that decision, and those factors, are reduced in the UK to... HIV positive mothers should formula feed. End of.

.

If you were HIV positive, would that blanket statement, depriving you and your baby of a chance of a fulfilling breastfeeding relationship, make you happy? Would you be happy not knowing that even if you didn't want to take the risk of actual breastfeeding, you could make sure your baby had your milk, and not cow's milk? Would you feel cared for in the NHS, if this was presented as your only option?

.

No, I wouldn't either.

.

But I tell you, at least I'd not be looking at my baby having a significant increase in its risk of death, an immediate and direct death, by this advice. And in that, in the UK, I'm a very lucky. For at least, in the UK, as a citizen, with rights, I'd know that if I did formula feed my baby, I wouldn't be contributing to its death later on, in a few months time. I'd have the luxury of knowing that formula feeding was as safe for my baby as I could make it.

.

Not so, all HIV positive mothers in the UK. Not so at all. There is a special group of HIV positive women in the UK, who are being consigned to their own private hell, over our HIV and breastfeeding policy - and that's mothers at risk of deportation. Mothers who have asked to be considered for refugee status as they've endured torture and persecution in the countries they have fled. Mothers deprived of all status and standing in UK society, whilst their claim is assessed. Many of them also deprived of hope. These mothers, who birth here in the UK, are on ARVs. Their milk is already as safe as it can be. And they are on deportation lists, for countries where formula feeding is so dangerous, that the WHO advice is for them to breastfeed - even if they are not on ARVs. Breastfeed at all costs.

.

Do we advise them to breastfeed? Do we look at their case for recognition of refugee status, recognise that they are on the short list to deportation, and that they are likely being deported to regions where formula feeding kills babies at the rate of 4000 per day? Do we then advise them accordingly, and point out that if they are deported, then the baby needs to be breastfeeding... and support them in establishing breastfeeding?

.

Do we hell as like. We tell them to formula feed. They're in the UK currently, no matter where they are heading out to - they formula feed. End of.
.

To then add insult to injury, we make the formula feeding as difficult as possible for them. We deprive them of proper income, and deny them the right to earn any money for themselves. We stick them on vouchers, in hostels, and expect them to live on income levels far far below that of Income Support, the catch all safety net benefit for those of us with citizenship, or status.

.

There is a mnemonic phrase to sum up the equating decision for when formula feeding is considered, especially as a replacement with HIV positive mothers - it's AFASS. Is replacement feeding:

.

* Acceptable?

* Feasible?
* Affordable?

* Sustainable?

* Safe?

.

In resource poor areas, the AFASS equation is vital in determining how a mother should feed her baby. Have a look at how detailed and thorough the WHO/Unicef training pack is for it. The results are pretty simple - if AFASS is applied, and replacement feeding is not shown to tick all the AFASS boxes.. the mother should breastfeed.

.

Well, an interesting thing happens if you apply AFASS to HIV mothers in the UK, awaiting deportation. AFASS requires they... breastfeed. And that's not just because they are going to a resource poor country, where the formula feeding fails in situ. It's also because AFASS determines breastfeeding, over formula... in the UK. You just have to look at one area - affordable. Whilst it shouldn't be happening at all, some mothers and babies in the UK, are left literally penniless in the streets because of our Immigration policy. Just last week, I was told of a mother and toddler, left stranded because the mother had had refugee status granted, and therefore her NASS vouchers stopped. But she didn't have the paperwork yet for Social Services support, and was left with no money. Her toddler was admitted to hospital for malnutrition - the child had had nothing but watery porridge for a few days. The mother hadn't eaten at all, for the same period.

.

In the UK.

.

Talk to any Church, or support organisation, and hear the tales of the mothers and children being fed by them, and some sleeping on Church floors. Does formula feeding survive AFASS scrutiny under these conditions? You bet your bottom dollar it doesn't. Mothers on NASS vouchers struggle to buy enough formula, and regularly water it down and try to fill it out with other things. Just as all mothers do, on low-incomes.. they don't understand the risks. With HIV positive mothers, this poses even more risk to the babies - for formula fed babies do contract HIV from their mothers, especially if the mother is introducing solids early. Introducing solids early, is a classic way to defer formula costs.

.

And in an irony of all damned ironies... most of these mothers are sent out of the country via Yarl's Wood. A detention centre that can run out of formula and feed a baby oral hydration solution instead! A detention centre where mothers are prevented from making safe feeds in their own rooms at night! A detention centre that doesn't pass AFASS!!!!

.

It's almost a sick joke, isn't it? Take an HIV positive pregnant woman. Treat her with ARVs, and give her excellent HIV care. Tell her to formula feed and don't inform her there are other options. Don't give her the financial support she needs to buy enough formula. Don't give her the living conditions she needs to prepare the formula safely. Lock her up in Yarl's Wood, and prevent her from making fresh formula safely in her own room at night. One morning, put her on a plane, and deposit her and baby, in a resource poor country, with no stocks of clean water or formula to get her through. Just deposit her and her formula fed baby, at the airport, and walk away.

.

And hope what.. she can relactate somehow on the plane? That standing at the airport, with a hungry baby in her arms, she can rush out and buy formula and make it safely? That she can now also afford the ARVs she needs to keep herself alive?

.

This is UK policy. This is what we do with HIV positive mothers in this country. This is what we do with HIV mothers who are on deportation lists.

.

Think it's good enough? No, neither do I.

.

HIV and breastfeeding is a huge issue. It is complex, it is ever changing. This post was about the updated statement from WABA, on World Aids Day, on AFASS and HIV and Breastfeeding. A statement that says that...

.

At six months, if replacement feeding is still not acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe, continuation of breastfeeding with additional complementary foods is recommended, while the mother and baby continue to be regularly assessed.

.

... which is a change in policy. Prior to this release, both WHO and Unicef recommended breastfeeding cease at six months. This position is no longer supportable, as seen by the update.

.

But it's too easy to read the report, any report on HIV and breastfeeding, and think it's a problem that is happening somewhere else. We are a global village. The mother standing behind you in the queue in Tescos, with formula tins in her basket, may be buying it as she's been told to as she's HIV positive. She may also be on a plane, with her formula fed baby, next week, and dumped in a country where the baby's chances of surviving on formula are very slim indeed. Where if she'd birthed in that country, she'd have been told to breastfeed to protect her baby's health.

.

She may also be safe in staying in this country, as she's got a passport. But she's still using formula as she's HIV positive, and no one is listening to her pain over not being able to breastfeed. She reads about formula risks, but she knows formula is better than starving her baby... but every bottle cuts her to the quick. She feels she's failed in the Mum test - she's a living danger to her baby. She may not choose to breastfeed if you told her the ratio of risks, and the protecting effects of the ARVs she takes every day. She may not be able to hack expressing and pasteurising her milk. She may still be on formula, if you tell her what her options are... but at least it would have been her choice. Her informed choice.

.

And she may choose to breastfeed. She may choose to express and bottle feed her own heat treated milk. and she deserves our support in doing it. She deserves the support of her medical and social support agencies, operating from facts, not fear. She needs us to acknowledge that her feeding options are many, and not locked into the commercial pressures of formula companies and their needs for profit at all costs. (Those same formula companies promoting their formula as the 'HIV answer' in resource poor countries, despite the much higher death tolls.)

.

We need to get this straight. We need to pay attention to HIV and breastfeeding. We need to empower mothers to care for their babies, and to protect them. We need to stop sending out blanket messages about formula feeding and HIV, and actually pay attention to the science.

.

You could start by writing your MP, and asking them to justify the DoH advice on HIV and formula feeding, especially to those mothers under threat of deportation. This country either needs to support mothers in breastfeeding if they are under threat of deportation, or it needs to promise not to deport any formula fed baby under two years of age to a formula danger area. It's not rocket science - just common sense. Writing your MP has proven to be a very effective way of raising issues, and something that just about everyone can do. For those who truly struggle to formulate a letter, I've appended a draft at the bottom of this page. Write your MP - annoy them. That's what they are there for. They're paid to listen to your concerns, and to raise issues, and respond to you - use them!

.

You can also raise awareness by setting people straight when you hear people discuss HIV and breastfeeding. Let them know heat treating exists, is proven, is cheap, is under the control of the mother... and there's no need for formula unless the mother wishes it. Talk about the formula deaths, and how ARVs can be seen as a safe pathway to breastfeeding. Discuss facts, not fears. Talk openly about how heat treated human milk is a viable option, in AIDS orphanages, rather than formula. (Empower local women to be paid for producing human milk for human babies rather than spending money rewarding cows in some other country!) Of course HIV presents huge challenges to breastfeeding worldwide - but as a race, we're really good at coming up with huge solutions to huge challenges... as long as the need for profit doesn't stomp people into the ground. As long as fear of being human...of having a body that can carry disease... doesn't block out all ratonal thought.

.

I'll leave the final words on this to Pamela Morrison, Co-ordinator WABA Breastfeeding and HIV Task Force:

.

In the context of HIV exclusive breastfeeding during the first 3 months of life followed by continued partial breastfeeding for 15-18 months has been shown to reduce breastfeeding-associated transmission of HIV to 5-7% (a reduction of 60% compared to previous estimates of risk during mixed breastfeeding) and to reduce young child mortality due to HIV and other infections to ~2% in circumstances where underlying infant mortality may be as high as 20% and where formula-feeding has been shown to provide no HIV-free survival advantage. A recent large study from South Africa shows a 4% risk of transmission over 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding, achieved by 83% of the mothers recruited into the study. Thus, exclusive breastfeeding for the first half-year of life provides dramatic protection against all causes of infant morbidity and mortality, including HIV, and research published subsequent to early recommendations clearly shows that previous estimates of HIV-transmission during any "breastfeeding" can be dramatically reduced.

.

Recommendations that HIV-infected mothers should be supported in a choice not to breastfeed need to be viewed against the backdrop of women’s vulnerability, aggravated by the harsh biological, economic and social realities in countries suffering from poverty and inadequate resources where the potential for commercial exploitation of this tragedy is self-evident. Taken together, high HIV prevalence, loss of confidence in breastfeeding, and provision of free supplies of formula, sometimes exceeding need, have the potential to destroy the cultural breastfeeding norm in communities whose babies most need its protection, and contribute to “spillover” into the uninfected population.

.

Safe feeding decisions cannot be made without up-to-date information, and should not be framed as an option when the consequences may impact on a baby’s survival. Infants have the right to be fed in the way that maximizes their chances of good health and survival. Mothers have an entitlement to receive clear medical advice about the safest way to feed their babies in the face of their personal living conditions and locally prevailing risk factors. Failure to provide appropriate information, while promoting private maternal rights over public infant health, leaves babies at risk for exploitation by the infant food industry.

.

.

.

Dear MP,

.

I'm writing to register my unease over the UK's current policy of supporting HIV positive mothers, and their babies, who are locked into the asylum system. It's come to my attention, that we advise HIV positive mothers, under threat of deportation, to formula feed. and then we deport them and their babies to areas where the WHO and Unicef advice is to breastfeed, even if HIV positive. The death toll from inappropriate formula feeding practices being several times higher than the HIV transmission rate from breastfeeding. Surely this is an inhumane policy? If we are deporting HIV positive mothers, to areas where they are advised to breastfeed to support their infant's health, surely we should support them in breastfeeding? I'd appreciate your own thoughts on this matter.

.

Would it be possible for you to obtain official figures for me, on how many babies are being deported from the UK, on formula versus breastfeeding? And which countries these formula fed babies are being deported to? I'm eager to understand how many mothers from the UK, are deported whilst breastfeeding, versus formula feeding. This is in isolation to the HIV issue. Although if there are figures about how many HIV positive mothers are deported, with their babies being formula fed, every year, I would be interested in seeing them.

.

Many thanks

.

your constituent...

Hello,
.

My name is Emma Kwasnica. I am a 30-year-old Canadian tandem-nursing mother living in Montréal, whose Facebook account has now been entirely disabled over the breastfeeding photos controversy. The official petition group on Facebook is called Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is NOT obscene! . I am reaching out because I think you might be interested in the Facebook fiasco over breastfeeding images, and them being classed as "obscene, sexually explicit and pornographic". Yes, I said breastfeeding. The most loving, selfless act on Earth.
.
For the record, my entire Facebook account has now been deleted, with no explanation from the administrators of Facebook. While they have not confirmed the reason for disabling my account, I can only suspect it stems from the fact that, in the days leading up to the disabling of my account, I had photos of me breastfeeding my daughters deleted, and was given a "warning" for having had uploaded "obscene" content that renders Facebook "unsafe for children". They are reproduced here.
.
Given the amount of obscene, pornographic, and truly disturbing photos, applications and groups that proliferate across Facebook, I am stunned that this has happened to me. I am an aspiring midwife/Childbirth Educator/ Breastfeeding Counselor; I run a lively discussion group on Facebook called Informed Choice : Birth and Beyond, and have been sharing all of my summarised research, studies, links regarding pregnancy, birth and motherhood with a group of nearly three hundred people, since July 2008. And now, everything that I ever wrote, all my photos, all of my midwifery-related research, has been deleted --right off the face of Facebook. Furthermore, this does not concern me alone, as many (over a hundred ?) other Facebook users had their posts deleted, too, since whole discussion threads were deleted into oblivion, if it was indeed me who began the thread (which, 80% of the time, I had started the threads, since this was my group/me sharing the most recent research relevant to the childbearing/-rearing woman).
.
Facebook has not responded to my e-mails politely enquiring why my account has been disabled. They remain faceless. Hence the reason why I am now reaching out and going public with my situation. I am desperate to get my words back, and most importantly, the general North American public needs to be made aware of Facebook's disgusting double-standards regarding "decency". I am revolted to report that Facebook allows the likes of a group called "Dead Babies Make Me Laugh", and yet, someone such as myself, who wants nothing but to inspire and help women on their journey to birthing healthy, vibrant babies, has her whole account deleted.I have now done radio station interviews (a Sakatoon one, as well as Montréal's 98.5 FM), and was interviewed for 'La Presse' newspaper here in Montréal, the article for which appeared in yesterday's edition of 'La Presse' (the English translation for which you will find below). I may be doing another one-hour long segment on the same Saskatoon radio station at some point this week.
.
There is a Canadian slant to this whole Facebook fiasco, in that the tireless organiser of the original online protest is from Ottawa (Stephanie Muir), the site that is currently the "safe haven" for breastfeeding photos which have been deleted by Facebook is a Canadian one (TERA), is coordinated by Paul Rapoport of Hamilton, Ontario, and now, the only (known) person so far to have had their Facebook account fully disabled over this issue --me, a Montreal mother.
.
Please help me by spreading the word of Facebook's appalling actions (such as by posting this to your blog), and consider this an official plea to get the word out ! For the sake of the next generation of babies, people everywhere need to understand that the larger issue of normalising breastfeeding is deeply important here. In 2009, it is unacceptable that women feel shamed, or are sexualised, while providing the most normal, the most physiologically appropriate food for their babies : breastmilk.
.
Sincerely yours,
.
Emma Kwasnica,
Montréal

<emma.kwasnica@gmail.com>.

.
PS
You will also find above the scanned, full-page image from Le Journal de Montréal, in which I am breastfeeding my daughters. This is particularly relevant as Facebook has said that no major newspaper in North America would publish the type of breastfeeding photos that they have deleted. This simply isn't true - this newspaper image (from October 2008) is living proof ! If Montreal, a city of over 3.5 million, can handle seeing this image in a daily newspaper, they why can't Facebook ?

.

(Morgan here - I've had three photos deleted from Facebook, and no one has deleted my account! My three photos exposed more aureole than Emma's do!)

.

This photo is obscene. So obscene, it was deleted off my Facebook profile photo album, and I was issued with a warning. Does this photo, clearly part of a Government/health agency campaign to protect breastfeeding, look obscene to you?

.

Does the mother look obscene to you? Engaging in a sex act? Evoking an erotic response?

.

Does this one...?

.

.

She hasn't been deleted, as of yet.

.

EDIT: Jan 2009. The Virgin Mary was then deleted! If you check the Tera site, you'll find close up of two Virgin Mary paintings, including this one, was deleted by Facebook as obscene...
.

Why was the first mother deleted? She was deleted as Facebook have stated that photos showing aureole or nipple, are obscene. A full breast shot it obscene. Regardless of context. There has been a huge protest about this, as Facebook have been deleting family photos out of personal albums on Facebook, with no warning. The protest was organised by mothers who had had their pictures removed. There was an online virtual nurse-in yesterday, on Facebook, and a physical one outside the Facebook headquarters in California.

.

Online, people were asked to post breastfeeding photos in their profile, and to add the status line "Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene."

.

Many of us online, ended up in free and frank exchanges of views with our own online friends, and in the protest forums. Free and frank exchanges of view aren't a problem. Most lactavists, remember when they too thought breastfeeding was a lifestyle choice, and formula was benign and held no health risks to infants. We remember being duped by the hegemony too! And how hard it is to unthink formula dominant culture.

.

Also, during the day, interesting things happened. Posted comments started to appear without their profile photo, and accounts had been frozen. In short, photos were being deleted off accounts, by Facebook, as the day progressed.

.

When I'd started posting, I'd had a series of about 5 photos, I was cycling through. The first one above, was one of them. Then, I read the link that Facebook had stated that it was aureole, or full breast that was offensive. I changed by photo to number two up there - the Virgin Mary with a fully naked breast. Commissioned by the Catholic Church, to hang in a Catholic Church.

.

I left this one there. Unchanged, for the rest of the day. Still there, in fact, as I type this.

.

I didn't think they'd delete the Virgin Mary, and I felt that made a point.

.

So, you can imagine my surprise, when logging back in today, I found that the first picture above, had been deleted out of my profile album. The first picture above, shows LESS breast than the second one.

.

What's the difference between them? Why is one still up, and the other in the rubbish basket?

.

Because someone complained about photo one, and no one has complained about photo two.

.

Seriously.

.

Now, let's think about that for a moment. A *huge* number of breastfeeding photos were deleted off Facebook yesterday and today. *HUGE* One might imagine all of them following a complaint...

.

Who was complaining?

.

Who, on a protest against censorship of breastfeeding, has gone around and complained, vigorously, about breastfeeding photos. Answer: quite a lot of people. (To judge by the amount of deletions.)

.

Lactaphobes. Misogynists. Mean as skimmed milk morons who get their kicks by acting important and feeling powerful... by complaining about a breastfeeding photo!

.

But that's not what really worries me. World is full of sad and inadequate people, trying their best to feel validated in any small way. Not to mention stupid and small minded ones.

.

It's the internet. You expect morons and inadequates.

.

What worries me about this... is that Facebook is standing by such bullying. Lactaphobia is a prejudice. An unreasonable, knee jerk reaction, to a specific set of people. It's harassment, and bullying.

.

And Facebook is not only condoning it, it's carrying it out on behalf of its account holders. It's set mothers and babies up for discrimination, and then acted out on the base impulses of its user group.

.

"Nothing to do with us!" they will say. "Photo broke rules, someone complained, we deleted it."

.

No matter what it was, and how clearly it is not obscene.

.

And the surge in deletions, no doubt from a surge in complaints, on the day of a protest against censorship, has no bearing, Facebook? Just like the fact that the photo you deleted is clearly a health education poster? Huh? .

.

Blind.

.

Blind prejudice.

.

Blind lactaphobia.

.

At an online community near you.

.

Being enforced by the company making money from social networking. Using their profits, to pay people, to bully those seeking to protect breastfeeding.

.

Wouldn't it be sweet, if that poster up there, suddenly appeared everywhere on Facebook? It's still on several profiles, and in several albums. Only my personally complained about one is gone. Got a Facebook account....? Click and save on the above image! :-)

.

On another note - do you recognise the poster? Any idea where it came from? It looks like a scan from a print source, so it may be quite old. If you have any idea where this one is from, and who produced it, which country it appeared in, please contact me.

.

I aim to let Facebook know exactly who they deleted, and which Government (likely) sponsored it.

.

This one, just as obscene, was sponsored by the Norwegian Government:

Go Norway!

.

Now, how can we persuade Norway to open up a Facebook account and post a profile picture...?

.

Edit: This is the photograph that was deleted from Facebook in 2007, that started the entire protest.

.

Can you see a fully exposed breast? Or can you just see the lactaphobe, lurking in the background, with their finger on the all powerful 'delete' button?

.

...as they did with the one above....

.

It's a women's rights site, and is collecting the photos and health education posters that have been deleted. You can make a personal statement about the photo. They only have a few on there at the moment. As I think it's an important component of social history, to record such details of lactaphobic censorship, I'd ask you to send your photos and pass the message on to others.
.

So far, many of them, like my second deleted photo from today, were only posted under 'friends only' or in the M.I.L.C. action site. Therefore it's a reasonable assumption, that trollers are making their way through the M.I.L.C. site and reporting photos.

.

Email your photos to info@tera.ca

.

As a ps... the poster from yesterday appears to be from a cohort of breastfeeding organisations in Argentina. I've also been told that currently, Brazil has a major billboard campaign running for breast cancer awareness, involving many shots of different sized and shaped breasts. No doubt the Brazilian children so exposed, will suffer serious sexual trauma their whole lives! And hopefully no breast cancer! :-)

Coach Carolyn

Let me start by saying I know a lot of you are going to disagree.. but I think Eastenders has done very well tonight, and in general, on the Roxy and breastfeeding storyline.

.

For those who don't watch soaps, or follow soap babies... Roxy is the 'blonde bombshell ditzy good time girl' with a good right hook in the current Eastenders.

.

Also, in classic soap portrayal, she has a Traumatic Incident late in pregnancy, and has a little preemie girl, Amy.

.

Amy is locked in a plastic box at the hospital, with various wires poking out of her. Roxy, not one of Nature's Mothers, find herself sighing over the plastic box, and becoming quite concerned for the little itty bitty thing in it. A passing nurse, asks her if she planned on breastfeeding.. "Yuck No!" says Roxy's face... Roxy intended to formula feed, thank you very much.

.

Nurse explains that it's good for the baby, and she can hand express... they are interrupted by a dramatic Is This The Real Father come to view plastic box moment.

.

Time passes, Roxy is heard to complain, in passing, that her nipples are in shreds and bleeding, and having Amy in the plastic box at the hospital is very hard work. (But it does allow her to have lots of moody moments on the square, pondering the Fatherhood, or otherwise, of Sean, the duped Dad. Jack, the real Dad, hovers moodily.)

.

Tonight, several months after Amy has been born, and freed from the plastic box and allowed home (to be kidnapped and threatened with death by fake Dad), Roxy takes her out and has a chat with a younger female character. (Unaware younger female character is her own niece.)

.

And they chat about motherhood. And Roxy says she not a very good mother, being a ditzy blonde good time girl. And the example she uses, about her lack of mothering skills, is breastfeeding.

.

Roxy hated breastfeeding. It hurt. A lot. You're supposed to like it, but she didn't. This proves she's not a good mother. When she told the midwife her nipples hurt, the midwife ignored her. When she told the middle-class Mums down the clinic it hurt, they looked at her like she was mad. When she brought the bottle out... they warded off the evil! (Roxy uses crossed fingers and dramatic emphasis.)

.

They laugh and move on.

.

Now, as I said, I think a lot of you are going to drum me out of the Secret Lactavist's Cabal*, for this... (or perhaps, as a soon to be ex GoddessMother of The Breastfeeding Mafia (TM), I'll soon be sleeping with the fishes...) but I think Eastenders have done a good job here. I think Roxy's experiences have been portrayed in a very low key, and very authentic way. And I think in context, it's good.

.

Consider:

.

The last baby born on the Square was breastfed successfully. Albeit it was under a net curtain.

.

That mother's right to breastfeed her baby in the cafe (albeit under the aforementioned net curtain) was upheld in the story line.

.

Roxy it the absolutely typical stereotype of a new mother who was never going to breastfeed: working class, young, fashion conscious wild child. One who had already self-selected to formula feed during pregnancy, as breastfeeding was alien to her.

.

She expressed for her preemie. She tried to breastfeed. She persevered with expressing when her baby was in a plastic box, and she was in turmoil. She persevered with pain and cracked and bleeding nipples.

.

She asked for help. She wasn't given any. She gave up.

.

I don't see anything wrong with this sequence, in terms of a drama. In fact, I see a great deal right with it. I see the authentic experience of a lot of women, and I see it portrayed sensitively, and with some flair.

.

Therefore, I see it as a positive step in an excellent step forward for this particular drama. I'm especially excited, by Roxy's awareness, and discussion, of the class issue in breastfeeding rates. It raises debates, and allows them to be aired. And it leaves open room for the next working class mother in the Square, to win through somehow. (Last Mum to breastfeed under the net curtain, was middle class, even if married to a working class bloke - she was very middle class. So I feel real work is being done here.)

.

And I so hope that's what Eastenders does, as it carries on with its very subtle building up of real baby feeding issues, in it's very-not-suited-for-that-type-of-storyline-drama. (Babies and Mums have to separated a lot in soaps, so having one breastfed, is a real challenge! How could they be kidnapped and threatened with drowning/burning alive/being secretly brought up in Melbourne and called Sandra, if they were still breastfed!) Hopefully, as we progress, working class Mums on the Square, will breastfeed successfully, sans net curtain.

.

And the authentic story here -that of trying, even when you didn't think you could or should, but having an experience of pain, and being not listened to, is taken on board. This happens to women every day - and that needs recognised, and dealt with.

.

I look forward to another mother, in the Square, saying it hurts, and a friend dragging her to get help, and screaming and kicking and complaining 'down the clinic' that no one is listening to her friend when she says she's in pain.

.

If you agree with me, that Roxy's experience of breastfeeding has been A Good Thing, portrayed as it has... tell the BBC. It's really important to praise when things go right. As well as suggest improvements on what could have happened to make it work.. of course!

.

*Yeah, like me being a lactavist is a secret....

I received this email today, and my reply is after.

.

Looks, to me, like they Don't Get It.

.

Dear Morgan,

.
Thank you for giving me some time to work on the questions raised during last Friday's telephone conversation.

.
As a company, we endeavour to deliver honest, impartial advice and service that is fair and balanced to all customers, whichever feeding choice they make for their baby. Customer feedback is important as it enables us to consider changes when evaluating ranges, services and facilities, to offer a comfortable and convenient shopping experience for everyone.

.
The parent rooms in all of our new stores (Liverpool, Leicester & Cambridge) are depicted by a symbol of a baby. The facilities within these rooms now include a child friendly & adult toilet, wheelchair access, double buggy access, toddler safety seat and drinking water dispenser, all in addition to the original room features. Some of our older stores do still display the old parent room signage, however we are planning to update signange and facilities depending on the stores refurbishment programme.

.
The concerns you raised about our online visuals has been taken on board by the relevant teams and changes will take place shortly to improve the quality of our message to customers through this portal.

.
If you have any further questions or concerns regarding our initial conversation last week, please feel free to contact me.

.
Kind regards,
Emi O'Neill
Press & PR Officer

.

- - -

.

Thanks for your reply. I do feel this falls very short of engaging with the issues on breaking code, and promoting bottle feeding. Especially in light of other customers replying that they've complained before, and been told there is nothing wrong with the bottle symbol etc, and one mother actually been told to stop breastfeeding her baby in your store.

.

I'll pass your reply on in my blog, with a copy of my own reply.

.

Perhaps John Lewis needs to have a thorough look at its staff training, both in relation to the treatment of breastfeeding within your store (you can be sued under the Sex Discrimination Act for asking a mother to stop breastfeeding) and your ethical obligations under Code. In particular, you might want to look at how you record and note such complaints, as no one had any idea about breaching Code when I first contacted the company, and yet, clearly, many people have written in and complained before.

.

I'm sad that John Lewis is not taking this opportunity to move forward by removing the bottle feeding signs immediately. Such a small thing to do, to restore your customers' trust.

.

I will, of course, forward on my complaints about John Lewis breaching Code to Trading Standards and the Baby Law Feeding Group, and encourage other customers to do likewise.

.

kind regards

.

Morgan Gallagher

I've been contacted this week, about a series of 'infant feeding' events being held in various John Lewis stores across the country next week.

.

They're being held by Philips AVENT, a known code-breaking company. Avent holding promotions and events to sell their products, in a way that breaks code often, is not a surprise to anyone. What was a surprise, was that it would be done within John Lewis stores.

.

John Lewis is usually seen as a very ethically minded company. It is owned by its workers - its partners - and has a written constitution, that requires it to...

.

to obey the spirit as well as the letter of the law and to contribute to the well-being of the communities where it operates.. and that they ..must not take advantage of a customer's ignorance, and must do everything reasonably possible to put matters right if it inadvertently does so..

.

So you'd think they'd be a bit wary about working with a company so notorious for breaking code on its branding and promotions of bottles and teats.

.

The initial promotional info on the John Lewis website, quoted a 'special' demonstration at its Oxford Street store, by a qualified midwife, Saturday 17th January, as an 'educational event'. Now, I'm not an expert on Code, I just go by what I can fathom for myself as I go... but..

.

8.2 Personnel employed in marketing products within the scope of this Code should not, as part of their job responsibilities, perform educational functions in relation to pregnant women or mothers of infants and young children... seems pretty to clear to me!

.

Other huge areas of concern emerged, as I trawled through the various advert pages, on John Lewis's website, and in discussion with other mothers, I was told John Lewis use a symbol of a baby bottle, on their infant feeding rooms. ? I was also told by other mothers that some stores have direct connections with breastfeeding support agencies, and they felt the company was usually very breastfeeding supportive.

.

On investigation, I also discovered that Avent, and bottles, and bottle promotion events, are in a somewhat gray area in the UK. Whilst the promotion of formula itself, under code restrictions, is very clear in the UK, the UK has yet to sign up to the World Health Authority marketing standard for bottles. So whether or not Avent are going to be breaking UK regs on code, depends on what they do next week, in their presentations - more on that in a moment.

.

However, what is not in a gray area, is John Lewis's commitment to ethical and responsible trading. So should they be hosting such events, in this manner? The John Lewis promos state that.. John Lewis Baby feeding advisors will be on hand throughout the week, with plenty of invaluable product information to help guide parents through the products they really need and how to get the best from them through product demonstrations. So I was left wondering where the line was... what was John Lewis, what was Avent?

.

So I phoned John Lewis. They confirmed that Avent is doing the promotional presentations, and the store was only hosting the events. But that their own Nursery advisers will be on hand to help customers.

.

They were very helpful, actually, especially when blind-sided with the sheer complexity of the infant feeding issues. Within minutes of speaking to them, I'd opened up massive potholes in their path, about the ethics of what was going, and specific code violations - such as the 'educational event'.

.

There was also issues about stating that an Avent employed 'qualified midwife' would give advice on products etc ... was that ethical? In terms of Code, clearly not ... but what about in terms of the UK midwife professional standards? That one got gray area very quickly too - some cites from the code from the Nursing & Midwifery Code state midwives cannot use their professional qualifications to market products. Even with the cite, (7.2 of the NMC code) I couldn't find those words, only some similar but not exactly that phrase. So another gray area, in which unethical practices are allowed to flourish... another blog post there I feel...

.

But to get back to John Lewis.

.

I feel they've reacted really well. They actually took "educational event" out of their web promo, there and then, and reworded some of the blurb. I think this is a sign that they are taking the concerns of the ethics of these 'infant feeding sessions' on board. I explained that some mothers will be attending these events, specifically to look for code violations, and unethical marketing by Avent. John Lewis supports any mother who wishes to complain to anyone, and ask that if anyone is unhappy, to also contact them, and let them know of their concerns:

.

"... if parents or customers have any questions regarding the in-store event, they should contact the Customer Services team in the relevant branch. We are more than happy to receive queries from customers about any aspect of our business and as a responsible retailer we endeavour to obey the spirit as well as the letter of the law."

.

And, as I said, they have also already changed wording on their website (It's not all in place, so I don't know yet everything that might have been changed - but 'educational event' is gone.)

.

Beyond this, a huge discussion opened up on their own corporate attitude to breastfeeding. This got very very interesting, and I'm reporting it from my viewpoint - okay? I had an informal discussion with one person at John Lewis, and we talked over a lot of stuff. At no point, am I suggesting that anything I'm about to say here, is representative of John Lewis's opinion, or stating anything in any direction about what they think... but it was a very pertinent discussion.

.

Initially, the person I was speaking to, from my press office contact, was keen to state that John Lewis sought to give impartial advice on all aspects of infant feeding - and they supported breastfeeding but needed to be seen as fair and impartial. Mothers are free to choose. This is true. But my point, was that they had an ethical responsibility not to promote breastfeeding as 'equal' to formula feeding, but to protect breastfeeding, as the normal feeding method. Therefore breastfeeding, should be their default, their first line in text and image. So the infant feeding sign in their stores, should not be a baby bottle - it should be the International Breastfeeding Symbol.

.

Much of my discussion centred upon this John Lewis web page. Nothing to do with Avent, entirely JL's own. Go look.

.

Pretty shocking, ain't it? So very 'balanced and impartial'. I tried to explain to the nice person on the phone, why this page is so NOT balanced, so not 'impartial'. That the token acknowledgement at the beginning about 'the controversy' and then flowing full into picture of a mother formula feeding by bottle, and an assurance that John Lewis would sell you all the products you needed to satisfy a hungry baby was not 'impartial'. Where was the image of the breastfeeding baby? Where was the statements about not needing anything to breastfeed, but you and a baby? Where was the links to finding out more info on breastfeeding, if you needed it?

.

Again, this was all taken on board, and discussed really well. I explained I understood very well, that there was no profit in John Lewis telling people they didn't need any products to breastfeed successfully - they just needed a baby and a Mum. They said that wasn't an issue for them, as they never sell a product no one needs, and never attempt to.

.

And that struck us to the core with the problem with inviting Avent into their store like this.

.

They may not sell a product no one needs... would Avent, a code breaker, do the same?

.

Would John Lewis spot them doing it?

.

Would the seemingly benign statement.. Hi, we're here to show you everything you need to breastfeed successfully, we have pumps and breast pads and storage bottles and .... slip past the JL staff? Would the JL staff spot the huge issue here, that of sending messages to mothers that they needed all sorts of 'stuff' to breastfeed successfully? We discussed the huge ethical issue of companies such as Avent, saturating the market with the concept that every mother 'needs' a hand pump, and that 'breastfeeding starter packs' with pumps and bottles and teats are promoted as 'baby shower' gifts. We also discussed that pumps are a real sore thumb - not in code as the code's too old, but really, ethically, pump promotion is a huge problem.

.

That there is an entire world of subtlety, in the specific undermining of breastfeeding, as the norm. That companies, such as Avent, in my personal opinion, feed into this undermining, by how they promote pumps, bottles and teats as 'breastfeeding friendly'. How they position their product to the mother.

.

And that John Lewis, surely, should be protecting breastfeeding from such subtle attack? They should start every line on such pages as the Nursery page, with a comment about breastfeeding, and where to go for help and advice. And only then, having established that breastfeeding is normal and everyday, go on to give support and advice on other feeding methods?

.

That breastfeeding, is 'the default'. Anything less, is not protecting it. And, in fact, as we know, not doing this, means you are actually undermining breastfeeding, even if it's never occurred to you that's what you are doing?

.

So, for instance, now I look at the 'Nursery page'.. look at this wording:

.

There’s been a lot of talk, and quite a bit of controversy, about which is best for baby - breast or bottle. As far as we nursery advisors are concerned, the choice is yours.

.

This statement, I'd argue, undermines breastfeeding. It does not state that the NHS and WHO, and UNICEF, recommend breastfeeding. It creates an illusion, that breastfeeding and formula feeding have equal status. It designates the 'controversy' as some argument about mother's choice. There is no 'controversy' in those terms. It's a terrible abrogation of responsibility, on giving impartial advice - for it pretends impartial is somehow about not stating facts and known health advice.

.

You don't even have to move into the territory of discussing 'the controversy' to make this statement breastfeeding protective, as opposed to breastfeeding belittling....

.

The NHS, WHO and Unicef recommend breastfeeding for the health of you and your baby. Mothers are free to choose to breastfeed, or to formula feed. If you want helpful links on advice on breastfeeding, click here. If you wish to look at some of our breastfeeding support products, such as breast pads etc, click here. If you need help and advice on formula feeding, click here. If you want to look at some of our formula feeding support products, click here. We have highly trained staff in all our stores, able to help you in your infant feeding needs, and we never try to sell you a product you don't need.

.

It's not that hard. Put it side by side with a photo of a breastfeeding baby and mother, and you can still have your formula fed baby there too. (Although, I don't know it that's against Code, actually! :-)

.

So, two points to make:

.

1) John Lewis are aware that some customers have concerns over this event, and their breastfeeding portrayal overall. They have said they take this on board, and they will put work into looking at the issues, and seek to find a way forward that means they operate ethically, and remain fair and impartial to all their customers. Do your bit - let them know what your concerns are, and talk to them directly.

.

2) Avent are having stands in John Lewis stores over the next week, starting Monday. And ten stores will have promotional events on Saturday 17th with an Avent 'special advisor'. Do your bit. If you are attending, take notes, listen and pay attention - specifically when pumps and pumping are mentioned. Look for the moments where Avent 'support breastfeeding', and make such excellent statements as "No mother needs any product to breastfeed successfully." and "Some mothers find expressing milk is useful to them. Hand expression is free and quick and easy." and then watch them press 'play' on the hand expression video they've thoughtfully brought with them.

.

As opposed to any suggestion that mothers need products, need pumps, tips on how to pump, with no mention of hand expression. Any comments such as "Pumping can free you to go out and do things, and allow your partner to bond with the baby by feeding the baby your milk." In other words, any comments that pumps and their bottle products 'free you up' from the demands of breastfeeding. I know, they would never do that, would they? Position breastfeeding as The Thing You Must Escape From, to have a happy life? They'd never present breastfeeding as restrictive, selfish (depriving the poor Daddy of his feeding time) and something that will impinge upon the mother's lifestyle - and hey presto, they can help by 'freeing' her from the need to hold her baby to feed it! Dang it, I'm so suspicious!!!

.

Pay particular attention to any mentions of formula, or follow-on milk. Write notes, take photos if the store lets you. Watch how Avent use the bottles and talk about them in their displays. Especially words that compare their bottles, teats etc, to 'breastfeeding'. Remember, formula fed babies require as much protection as we can give them: mothers don't need to be told a product 'is as good as' or 'close to breastfeeding'. They just need to know if it will feed their baby safely and that they can clean it to a high standard.

.

If they do say something you object to, or that breaks code - report it to the Baby Feeding Law Group. And for code violations - Trading Standards.

.

And copy John Lewis head office into things. They can't respond to us, if we don't talk to them. I'll leave the final words with Miriam Labbock...

.

For optimal feeding to be considered normative behavior we must shift from discussing breastfeeding as a benefit and change to the recognition that lack of breastfeeding is a risk behavior. Babies who are not breastfed are more likely to develop allergies, have lower IQs, die of SIDS, be obese as children and as adults, and have risk factors for cardiac disease in later life. They will have an increased risk of certain cancers, as will their mothers who did not breastfeed. Perhaps, most importantly, these non-breastfed babies will have deficient immune systems, rendering them more susceptible to a wide variety of diseases and less able to fight the infectious diseases that they do experience.

.

Miriam H. Labbock,

MD, MPH,

IBCLC

Senior Advisor,

Infant & Young Child Feeding and Care UNICEF (2001-2005)

Professor of the Practice of Public Health in the Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill

.

EDIT:

.

ps I'm really glad you're sending me your stories about complaints you've made to John Lewis about breastfeeding symbols etc, in store, and how things haven't changed so far. But really, John Lewis need to see your comments, not just me! Please consider adding your comment below. You don't need to sign up with blogger, send it in under 'anonymous' and just write your name in the last line. You don't need to have an account with either Google, or Blogger to comment. :-)