There’s no question that breastfeeding provides countless health benefits to infants and mothers alike, but a new study claims that breast milk is actually a lifesaver. The international humanitarian and development agency Save the Children’s latest report “Superfood for Babies“ estimates the lives of 830,000 babies could be saved if all women around the world breastfed their newborns immediately after birth.

The kerfuffle last year over Time magazine’s cover story Are You Mom Enough? obscured the real issue (and was ultimately denigrating not only to mothers and the choices we make, but to women in general), but Save the Children’s parody of that cover, shown here, hits home.

“Last year we saw a lot of handwringing in this country over how long is too long for moms to breastfeed. But the real scandal is that many moms around the world don’t get the support they need to start breastfeeding early — or even at all. It’s a choice all moms should have and in the developing world it can literally be a matter of life or death for their babies,” said Carolyn Miles, President and CEO of Save the Children.

Breastfeeding in the first hour after birth, or “the power hour” as Save the Children calls it, is critical. That’s when the mother produces colostrum, which is packed with nutrition and immune boosters.”It is, to all intents and purposes, a child’s first vaccination – and often makes the difference between life and death,” the report says. Breastfeeding immediately after giving birth more often leads to extended breastfeeding, the organization claims. And if mothers exclusively breastfeed for at least the first six months, her baby is less vulnerable to malnutrition and disease.

The fact is, malnutrition continues to be an underlying cause of child and infant mortality. In 2010, about a third of the seven million child deaths were due, at least in part, to malnutrition. The good news is that there has been substantial progress in reducing child mortality around the world. Five million fewer children died in 2011 than in 1990, and the largest annual decline in childhood death ever recorded was between 2010 and 2011. As the report states “The world is nearing a tipping point, the time at which the eradication of preventable child deaths becomes a real possibility.”

Since Save the Children’s report finds that breastfeeding is central to the fight against malnutrition and infant mortality, why then, don’t all mothers who are able to, breastfeed their babies? Save the Children’s investigation identified four serious barriers:

• Cultural and community pressures; for example, some countries think colostrum is “dirty” and should be thrown away
• A worldwide shortage of skilled health workers to help new mothers
• The lack of maternity leave and supportive workplace policies
• New evidence of direct marketing of formula to mothers and health workers in violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.

Save the Children found, for example, that women who had a skilled attendant at birth were twice as likely to initiate breastfeeding within the first critical hour. But with an estimated global shortage of three million health care workers, a third of mothers give birth with no skilled health worker present.

The organization also looked at policies in 38 industrialized countries. While most provide the recommended two thirds pay during maternity leave, it’s astonishing that in the United States, for example, there is still no requirement that new mothers be paid while on maternity leave.

Perhaps the report’s most appalling finding is the aggressive marketing of breast milk substitutes. Save the Children estimates the baby food industry is worth more than $36 billion today. In the next two years, that number is predicted to rise by 31%. Baby formula accounts for the majority of the industry, to the tune of $25 billion.

In an effort to set standards for and regulate the use of formula around the world, in 1981 the World Health Assembly established the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. Today’s provisions include that health workers are not allowed to hand out free samples, nor are they allowed to receive bonuses in exchange for promoting formula. In addition, the Code stipulates a ban on advertising formula and formula products. 84 countries have enacted legislation to date.

Save the Children looked into practices in 12 countries, which included original polling in Pakistan and China. 40 percent of the mothers interviewed in China claimed they had been contacted directly by baby food company representatives. In Pakistan, one third of health professionals surveyed said they’d been visited by a representative of a breast milk substitute company, and one tenth said they had received free samples of formula, nipples or bottles.

The International Baby Food Action Network found that in Sri Lanka, companies have been operating an incentives scheme for midwives, which include offers of money and foreign travel in exchange for selling baby formula to new mothers.

The report “specifically calls for an end to industry lobbying for the watering down of legislation on BMS [breast milk substitute] marketing and for some BMS companies to stop targeting health workers.”

We conclude by arguing that much more emphasis must be given to breastfeeding as part of global efforts to improve child survival. We make recommendations for all actors including policy-makers in low-income countries, donor governments, companies that manufacture substitutes for breast milk and the multilateral institutions and processes that are under way in 2013. All of these players have a responsibility to take action on breastfeeding and achieve the progress needed. If the right steps are taken we could see an end to preventable child deaths in our lifetime.

This is not just a developing world versus the developed world problem. Yes, the issues of malnutrition impact the developing word far more acutely, than they do, in say, the United States, but there’s the very real issue of the stigma still attached to breastfeeding, one of which the Time magazine cover took full advantage. Couple that with the fact that American mothers have the weakest protections in the industrialized world when it comes to maternity leave policies, and it’s no wonder that breastfeeding is often perceived as controversial. The good news is that just over a week ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that breastfeeding rates in the U.S. are rising, the bad news is that the report also warns that American mothers are not getting the support they need if they choose to breastfeed.

“Women everywhere should have all the support and information they need to make the best choices for themselves for the health and survival of their children,” Miles said.

As Save the Children points out, “breastfeeding saves lives. It’s the closest thing there is to a ‘silver bullet’ in the fight against malnutrition and newborn deaths.” We need to do everything possible to support mothers who want to breastfeed their babies.

Save the Children is calling on Americans to tell Secretary of State John Kerry to renew the U.S. commitment to the 1,000 Days Partnership, a critical 2010 global nutrition initiative which is set to expire this coming June. You can check it out here.

830,000 Reasons Why Breast Is Best | Care2 Causes.

I recently saw the Canadian produced documentary ‘Pink Ribbons Inc’, a very thought-provoking film asking whether breast cancer pink ribbons have become a profit-making rather than disease-eliminating industry. The film has had a big impact on me and I believe that part of Butterfly Collection’s job is to be responsible to your breast health as well as your comfort and style so I want to share with you some of the themes from the documentary.

Pros of the Film

1. It raised questions about how many chemicals in our food and cosmetics mimic the hormone estrogen,  something that is linked to breast cancer. 90% of the 100,000 commercial chemicals in the US have never been tested for their effects on human health – we’re eating and wearing some of these chemicals!
2. It asked whether we’ve become too used to the Pink face of breast cancer and forgotten the ugly reality which should make us want to demand better legislation about our consumable products and environment.
3. It showed a group of women who will die from breast cancer talking about how alienated they feel from the breast cancer fund raising because it doesn’t resonate with the reality of breast cancer. (Check out this incredible photographic tribute to women facing breast cancer http://www.thescarproject.org/)

Cons of the Film

1. The commentators didn’t come down on the women who walk, run etc for The Cure however, they implied that they were being completely pink-washed with the warm and fuzzy marketing. It neglected to acknowledge that the reason Pink resonates with these women is because it represents the love they feel for their sisters, mothers, aunts, grandmothers, friends etc. The warm and fuzzy part is the love we feel for one another and that’s why millions of women around the world want to get out and fund raise.
2. They went a bit overboard on the sinister background music while a lone runner pounded the roads of San Fransisco.
3. There wasn’t quite enough clear direction on the things women can do TODAY to change the breast cancer funding and knowledge available to them.

 

How Quickly Things Got Off Track
The original breast cancer awareness ribbon was salmon coloured and attached to a postcard made by Charlotte Haley, a woman whose family had been widely affected by cancer, and distributed to her family and friends. The postcard read “The National Cancer Institute’s annual budget is $1.8 billion, only 5 percent goes for cancer prevention. Help us wake up our legislators and America by wearing this ribbon.” The original message was all about cancer prevention and research transparency.

Estee Lauder wanted to buy the rights to Charlotte’s ribbon to use as the symbol for fund-raising, Charlotte said no, it was a symbol of demanding rights and change not money.  Estee Lauder changed the colour to Pink and so was born one of the most successful marketing campaigns of all time.

Pink Product Overload
Over the last few years there has been an alarming increase in the number of ‘pink products’, many of which are obviously not breast health friendly; the most frightening example is a pink ribbon bucket from KFC! Although the specific causes of breast cancer are not known it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that filling your body with saturated fat isn’t part of ‘The Cure’! So why are we jumping into bed with anyone willing to donate a few dollars to The Cure?

The Fairy Pink-Mother
The company behind all the Pink Ribbon affiliations (including the KFC debacle) is Susan G Komen for The Cure (most recently under fire for stopping funds for breast cancer screening at Planned Parenthood centers – facilities that largely provide abortions so SGK is being accused of political rather than budgetary decisions). The film looks closely at the activities and motivations of this company and asks whether advances in breast cancer research are being harmed not helped because SGK has lost sight of ending not perpetuating breast cancer.

Great resources at Worldwide Breast Cancer website

North American has one of the Highest Breast Cancer Rates
Breast Cancer rates are higher in North American and Western Europe than the rest of the world. Because the rates are so high in Canada, America, the UK and parts of Western Europe you’d expect a lot of money is being spent on working out which environmental factors have an impact on breast cancer rates, right? Wrong.

Does the Pink Ribbon Prefer ‘The Cure’ over ‘The Cause’?
Over a billion dollars has been raised for all sorts of different researchers looking for a cure. A cure would of course be an incredible breakthrough and change the face of mortality rates across the world. The pharmaceutical company that finds a cure will literally make billions so the stakes are financially high and this is the biggest reason the focus is on The Cure and not The Cause of breast cancer.

 

If we still don’t know The Cause why are we focused on The Cure?
The short answer is, Money. Firstly, pharmaceutical companies can make billions from a cure but they won’t make a penny if it turns out we can eliminate The Cause. Secondly, studying which environmental factors contribute to breast cancer would include poking around the manufacturing processes and chemicals used by companies like Revlon, Avon and Ford all of which generate millions of sales from Pink Ribbon activities. 

The Vicious Pink Circle
Some of the major players in Pink Ribbon fund raising could also be some of the biggest sources of chemicals in our daily lives that are causing the very problem they’re promoting the cure for. It’s like buying cigarettes to find a cure for lung cancer. If big players like Susan G Komen continue to distribute funds in a way that doesn’t upset their biggest sponsors then we may never get to the root of the problem.

Revlon’s pink ribbon slogan, ‘The Beauty of Giving’, probably best sums up the vicious circle of some breast cancer fund-raising tactics.

1. The beauty of giving is that you can keep giving (or buying makeup in this case) as long as there’s a cause to buy for.
2. By making breast cancer more ‘beautiful’ in a pink bow it doesn’t seem as scary or urgent to solve so we keep buying products (that potentially cause the problem).
3. By giving some sales proceeds to charity Revlon can avoid being asked to research whether chemicals in their make-up contribute to breast cancer, because no-one’s going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Five Things you Can Do To Change Things
The message that struck me most is that we need to shift from finding a Cure to finding the Cause. Something has changed in the last 40 years to cause more women to get breast cancer – we can find out what that something is and prevent it from killing women. Prevention may very well be The Cure.

1) Download this Think Before You Pink Toolkit to find out how to spend your pink ribbon dollars effectively

2) In the US there are no restrictions used on body care products. You can demand change by contacting your Representative and asking them to support the Safe Cosmetics Act.

3) Canadians can demand changes in cosmetics laws by filling in this super easy pledge at Environmental Defense.

4) Become familiar with Dr Susan Love’s website, it has a no-nonsense approach to preventing, treating and researching a cure for breast cancer. Read her take on the Race for the Cause not the Cure.

5) Join the campaign for Safer Cosmetics, including getting toxic chemicals out of baby products.

I’ll be doing a follow up blog with more info on the cosmetics side of this story – I for one rely on my war-paint but I’m not willing to risk my life on looking fabulous. I’ve found some great companies doing beautiful (inside and out) work in the cosmetics and beauty industry.

Pink Ribbons Inc is jam-packed full of details about the fund-raising methods, disposal of funds and general ‘pink-washing’ that keep us from eliminating breast cancer from our lives. For those of you who are able to go and see it I highly recommend it, for everyone else I hope some of the points in this blog get you thinking in a new way about our role in demanding a cure for a disease that kills 59,000 women in North America every year. xx