Booby Traps are everywhere — from your OB’s office, to your pediatrician, your mom or best friend, and even cell phone apps. The Institute of Medicine released new report which makes recommendations that, when combined with grassroots efforts like our own, in addition to other government aspirations like the Surgeon General’s Call To Action, may mean we’re finally pointed in the right direction to be able to change things. The Institute of Medicine’s recommendations specifically tackle some Institutional Booby Traps that affect many, many Babes.

In addition to the ever-repeated nothing but breastmilk before 6 months, and continuation of breastfeeding in addition to complementary foods until at least one year recommendation from the AAP, they also want hospitals to follow AAP policy recommendations and to aim to qualify as Baby-Friendly. They also discourage health professionals from giving out formula, and want advertising of the products to the public to cease, in an attempt to really start encouraging our country to adhere to the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.

They also urge better access to quality lactation assistance in both hospital and health care settings. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding highlighted some of the severe lack of access to quality lactation care for women.

Hopefully with the acknowledgement from multiple sources that we are failing the 75% of moms who start out trying to breastfeed, we may be able to really start making changes. For example, putting more emphasis on the importance of breastfeeding consultation from experts could result in partial or even complete coverage by insurance companies for lactation consultants and equipment, maybe even via Medicaid programs, who often cover some of the women least likely to be successful in their breastfeeding attempts. They specifically recommend that there be no cost-sharing on lactation services. Whoo!

As long as recommendations like these go from paper to action, we might really have a chance at stopping some Institutional Booby Traps in their tracks. Do you think the IOM’s recommendations will be put into practice?

 

Sponsored by the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN).

"It is a time for awareness for all pregnant women, all mothers, and all women everywhere. The risks of surgery are not felt only by the women who have cesareans, but by our society as a whole. We owe those women the access to knowledge and the availability of information and support."

As the cesarean rates in the United States hit a record high of 31.8% of all births, many women are interested in learning more about cesarean section as well as vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).

VBAC comes in many forms. At its most basic, VBAC is simply the vaginal birth of a child after a previous cesarean. For some mothers, this is listed as a "procedure" and for others it takes the form of HBAC (Home Birth After Cesarean), WBAC (Water Birth After Cesarean) and VBAmC (Vaginal Birth after Multiple Cesarean) and on and on. And for some mothers, their plannned VBAC will become a CBAC.

ICAN supports mothers who do not want to be forced into unnecessary surgery.  Vaginal birth is the normal biological consequence of pregnancy, whether or not the mother has a prior cesarean. You deserve complete information about the risks of vaginal birth and elective cesarean so that you can make the healthiest choice possible for you and your baby. We're not here to make your choices for you. We're here to make sure that you understand that you HAVE the choice. After all, it is still your body and your baby.  Please browse the studies and articles at the left of the page to educate yourself. Who else is better qualified to weigh the research and evidence and determine it's importance in your life?

 

My expose last week, "

"  has ignited a long-overdue debate on how to stop Monsanto's earth killing, market-monopolizing, climate-destabilizing rampage. Should we basically resign ourselves to the fact that the Biotech Bully of St. Louis controls the dynamics of the marketplace and public policy? Should we seek some kind of practical compromise or "coexistence" between organics and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)? Should we focus our efforts on crop pollution compensation and "controlled deregulation" of genetically engineered (GE) crops, rather than campaign for an outright ban, or mandatory labeling and safety-testing? Should we prepare ourselves for a future farm landscape where the U.S.'s 23 million acres of alfalfa, the nation's fourth largest crop, (93% of which are currently not sprayed with toxic herbicides), including organic alfalfa, are sprayed with Roundup and/or genetically polluted with Monsanto's mutant genes?

Or should we stand up and say Hell No to Monsanto and the Obama Administration? Should we stop all the talk about coexistence between organics and GMOs; unite

,  mobilize like never before at the grassroots; put enormous pressure on the nation's grocers to truthfully label the thousands of so-called conventional or "natural" foods containing or produced with GMOs; and then slowly but surely drive GMOs from the market?

Of course "coexistence" and "controlled deregulation" are now irrelevant in regard to Monsanto's herbicide-resistant alfalfa.  Just after my essay was posted last week, the White House gave marching orders to the USDA to allow Monsanto and its Minions to plant GE Roundup-resistance alfalfa on millions of acres, from sea to shining sea, with no restrictions whatsoever.

"Bill Tomson and Scott Kilman of the

that Vilsack's rejection of a compromise proposal - partial deregulation, which was vehemently opposed by biotech companies and only tepidly accepted by non-GE interests - was the result of an Obama administration review of "burdensome" regulations."

"Sources familiar with the negotiations at USDA, who preferred to remain anonymous, told

they believe the White House asked Vilsack to drop proposed regulations so the administration would appear more friendly to big business."   -

This post-holiday gift to Monsanto from the White House is ominous. After the deliberate contamination of 20 million acres of U.S. alfalfa, we can then expect Monsanto and corporate agribusiness to call for GMOs to be allowed under the National Organic Standards. But of course let us hope we get another temporary reprieve from the same federal judge in California who halted the planting of GE alfalfa previously, since the USDA has still failed to demonstrate in their current Environmental Impact Statement that Monsanto's alfalfa is safe for the environment.

Organic Infighting

Whole Foods and others spent a lot of time this week on their blogs and on the Internet attacking me and the Organic Consumers Association for supposedly mischaracterizing their position on "coexistence" with Monsanto. In an internal company memorandum, marked "For Internal Use Only - Do Not Distribute" January 30, 2011, Whole Foods execs basically told their employees that the OCA is spreading lies to "uniformed consumers" in exchange for money and publicity. Quoting directly from the WFM company memo:

"Why is the OCA spreading misinformation? That's a hard question for us to answer. Perhaps because we don't share their narrow view of what it means to support organics, or perhaps because we do not support them with donations. Either way, it's a shame that an organization that claims to "campaign for health, justice and sustainability" can't simply tell the truth. This just confuses consumers. Despite all their noise, no industry leaders listen to the OCA - but uninformed consumers might. Their fear-mongering tactics, combined with the OCA's lack of transparency about its funding sources, underscore the fact that it is neither credible nor trustworthy. We can only assume their activities are intended for further fund-raising. "

After bashing the OCA, Whole Foods then goes on to admit that WFM stores are filled with conventional and "natural" products that are contaminated with GMOs (they neglect to mention to their staff that these conventional and "natural" products make up approximately 2/3 of WFM's total sales). Again quoting directly:

"The reality is that no grocery store in the United States, no matter what size or type of business, can claim they are GE-free. While we have been and will continue to be staunch supporters of non-GE foods, we are not going to mislead our customers with an inaccurate claim (and you should question anyone who does). Here's why: the pervasive planting of GE crops in the U.S. and their subsequent use in our national food supply.  93% of soy, 86% of corn, 93% of cotton, and 93% of canola seed planted in the U.S. in 2010 were genetically engineered. Since these crops are commonly present in a wide variety of foods, a GE-free store is currently not possible in the U.S. (unless the store sells only organic foods.)"

But of course we are not asking WFM to lie to or "mislead" their customers, to claim that all their products are GMO-free, or to sell only organically certified foods. On the contrary, we are simply asking them to abandon the "business as usual" industry practice of remaining silent on the scope and degree of contamination in the billions of dollars of non-organic food they are selling to unwitting consumers every year. What we are asking is that WFM ethically lead the way - in what is now a very unethical marketplace - by admitting publicly (not just in an internal memo) that a major portion of the non-organic foods they are selling (especially processed foods and animal products) are contaminated with GMOs. Then we want them to take the next step and announce that they will start labeling these GMO and/or CAFO foods truthfully, meanwhile pressuring their non-organic food suppliers to either reformulate products with non-GMO ingredients or start making the transition to organic.

Let us hope that WFM eventually does the right thing. It's unlikely WFM will adopt Truth-in-Labeling unless they get a massive amount of pressure from their customers, workers, and natural food competitors. But if we can build a grassroots Movement strong enough to convince WFM and other natural food stores to adopt Truth-in-Labeling practices, there will be enormous pressure in the marketplace for other larger supermarket chains to follow suit. However, if WFM and other grocery stores refuse to voluntarily label GMO and CAFO products, OCA is prepared to mobilize nationwide to press for mandatory labeling ordinances at the city, county, and state level.

To sign up as a grassroots coordinator for OCA's Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling Campaign go to:

Beyond Organic Infighting

The good news this week is that WFM, Organic Valley, Stonyfield, the National Coop Grocers Association and the Organic Trade Association have been making

. In a lengthy telephone conversation two days ago with Organic Valley CEO George Sieman, George told me how angry he was at me and the OCA, but he also said that Organic Valley was going to step up the fight against Monsanto. I said I was glad to hear this. I told him that OCA was going to do the same. I told him that our

is already attracting thousands of volunteers all across the USA and that we weren't going to give up until grocery stores, natural food stores, and coops start labeling conventional and "natural" products containing GMOs or coming from CAFOs.

We'll certainly see Organic Valley and the rest of the organic industry's pledge to fight GMOs put to the test in the near future, when the USDA unleashes genetically engineered sugar beets for nationwide planting. But given the need for a United Front, OCA would like to stress that Whole Foods Market is not the enemy. Wal-Mart and Monsanto are the enemy. Stonyfield Farm is not the enemy. The Biotechnology Industry Association, Archer Daniels Midland, and Cargill are the enemy. Organic Valley is not the enemy. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, Kraft and Dean Foods are the enemy. OCA wants the organic community to unite our forces, cut the bullshit about "coexistence," and move forward with an aggressive campaign to drive GMOs and CAFOs off the market.

Monsanto's Minions: The White House, Congress, and the Mass Media

The United States is rapidly devolving into what can only be described as a Monsanto Nation. Despite Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton's) campaign operatives in 2008 publicly stating that Obama supported mandatory labels for GMOs, we haven't heard a word from the White House on this topic since Inauguration Day. Michele Obama broke ground for an organic garden at the White House in early 2009, but after protests from the pesticide and biotech industry, the forbidden "O" (Organic) word was dropped from White House PR.  Since day one, the Obama Administration has mouthed biotech propaganda, claiming, with no scientific justification whatsoever, that biotech crops can feed the world and enable farmers to increase production in the new era of climate change and extreme weather.

Like Obama's campaign promises to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; like his promises to bring out-of-control banksters and oil companies under control; like his promises to drastically reduce greenhouse gas pollution and create millions of green jobs; Obama has not come though on his 2008 campaign promise to label GMOs. His unilateral approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa, overruling the federal courts, scientists, and the organic community, offers the final proof: don't hold your breath for this man to do anything that might offend Monsanto or Corporate America.

Obama's Administration, like the Bush and Clinton Administrations before him, has become a literal "revolving door" for Monsanto operatives. President Obama stated on the campaign trail in 2007-2008 that agribusiness cannot be trusted with the regulatory powers of government.

But, starting with his choice for USDA Secretary, the pro-biotech former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has let Monsanto and the biotech industry know they'll have plenty of friends and supporters within his administration. President Obama has taken his team of food and farming leaders directly from the biotech companies and their lobbying, research, and philanthropic arms:

Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods. Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Islam Siddiqui, Vice President of the Monsanto and Dupont-funded pesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is now the Agriculture Negotiator for the US Trade Representative. Rajiv Shah former agricultural-development director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation (a frequent Monsanto partner), served as Obama's USDA Under-Secretary for Research Education and Economics and Chief Scientist and is now head of USAID. Elena Kagan, who, as President Obama's Solicitor General, took Monsanto's side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, is now on the Supreme Court. Ramona Romero, corporate counsel to DuPont, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as General Counsel for the USDA.

Of course, America's indentured Congress is no better than the White House when it comes to promoting sane and sustainable public policy. According to Food and Water Watch, Monsanto and the biotech industry have spent more than half a billion dollars ($547 million) lobbying Congress since 1999. Big Biotech's lobby expenditures have accelerated since Obama's election in 2008. In 2009 alone Monsanto and the biotech lobby spent $71 million. Last year Monsanto's Minions included over a dozen lobbying firms, as well as their own in-house lobbyists.

America's bought-and-sold mass media have likewise joined the ranks of Monsanto's Minions. Do a Google search on a topic like citizens' rights to know whether our food has been genetically engineered or not, or on the hazards of GMOs and their companion pesticide Roundup, and you'll find very little in the mass media. However, do a Google search on the supposed benefits of Monsanto's GMOs, and you'll find more articles in the daily press than you would ever want to read.

Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. In a decade of Congressional lobbying, the OCA has never seen more than 24 out of 435 Congressional Representatives co-sponsor one of Kucinich's GMO labeling bills. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the outrageous "Citizens United" case gave big corporations like Monsanto the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Keep in mind that one of the decisive Supreme Court swing votes in the "Citizen's United' case was cast by the infamous Justice Clarence Thomas, former General Counsel for Monsanto.

To maneuver around Monsanto's Minions in Washington we need to shift our focus and go local. We've got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels. And while we're doing this we need to join forces with the growing national movement to get corporate money out of politics and the media and to take away the fictitious "corporate personhood" (i.e. the legal right of corporations to have all the rights of human citizens, without the responsibility, obligations, and liability of real persons) of Monsanto and the corporate elite.

Monsanto's Minions: Frankenfarmers in the Fields

The unfortunate bottom line is that most of the North American farmers who have planted Monsanto's Roundup-resistant or Bt-spliced crops (soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, or alfalfa) are either brain-washed, intimidated (Monsanto has often contaminated non-GMO farmers crops and then threatened to sue them for "intellectual property violations" if they didn't sign a contract to buy GMO seeds and sign a confidentiality contract to never talk to the media), or ethically challenged. These "commodity farmers," who receive billions of dollars a year in taxpayer subsidies to plant their Frankencrops and spray their toxic chemicals and fertilizers, don't seem to give a damn about the human health hazards of chemical, energy, and GMO-intensive agriculture; the cruelty, disease and filth of Factory Farms or CAFOs; or the damage they are causing to the soil, water, and climate. Likewise they have expressed little or no concern over the fact that they are polluting the land and the crops of organic and non-GMO farmers.

Unfortunately, these Frankenfarmers, Monsanto's Minions, have now been allowed to plant GMO crops on 150 million acres, approximately one-third of all USA cropland. With GE alfalfa they'll be planting millions of acres more.

The time has come to move beyond polite debate with America's Frankenfarmers, and their powerful front groups such as the American Farm Bureau, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "Coexistence" is a joke when you are dealing with indentured Minions whose only ethical guideline is making money. When I asked a French organic farmer a few years ago what he thought about the idea of coexistence with GE crops and farmers, he laughed. "If my neighbor dared to plant Monsanto's GM crops, I'd hop on my tractor and plow them up." Thousands of European farmers and organic activists have indeed uprooted test plots of GMOs over the past decade. Unfortunately if you get caught destroying Frankencrops in the USA, you'll likely be branded a terrorist and sent to prison.

Apart from direct action, it's time to start suing, not just Monsanto and the other biotech bullies, but the Frankenfarmers themselves. Attorneys have pointed out to me that the legal precedent of "Toxic Trespass" is firmly established in American case law. If a farmer carelessly or deliberately sprays pesticides or herbicides on his or her property, and this toxic chemical strays or "trespasses" and causes damage to a neighbor's property, the injured party can sue the "toxic trespasser" and collect significant damages. It's time for America's organic and non-GMO farmers to get off their knees and fight, both in the courts and in the court of public opinion. The Biotech Empire of Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta will collapse if its Frankenfarmers are threatened with billions of dollars in toxic trespass damages.

Monsanto's Minions: Retail Grocery Stores, Factory Farms, Restaurants, and Garden Supply Stores

It's important to understand where GMOs are sold or consumed, and who's selling them. Twenty-five percent of GMOs end up in non-labeled, non-organic processed food, the so-called conventional or "natural" foods sold in grocery stores or restaurants; while the remaining 75% are forced-fed to animals on non-organic farms, factory farms, or CAFOs (Confined Animal Feedlot Operations); or else sold internationally, often without the informed consent of overseas consumers. This means we need to identify and boycott, not only so-called conventional or "natural" foods containing soy, soy lecithin, corn, corn sweetener, canola, cottonseed oil, and sugar beet sweetener, but all non-organic meat, dairy, and eggs that come from factory farms or CAFOs. Once Truth-in-Labeling practices are implemented it will be relatively easy for consumers to identify and avoid products that are labeled "May Contain GMOs" or "CAFO."

Although most of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide sales are directly to farmers, a considerable amount of Roundup is sold in garden supply stores, supplying backyard gardeners, landscapers, and golf courses. Municipal and state governments also spray Roundup in parks and along roadways, while the DEA sprays large amounts of Roundup in rural villages in Colombia and the Andes, part of the insane and murderous War on Drugs.

Monsanto's Minions: Consumers

Millions of health, climate, and environmental-minded consumers are starting to realize that we must vote with our consumer food dollars if we want health, justice, and sustainability. Unfortunately, millions of others are still mindlessly consuming and over consuming processed foods, junk foods, and cheap, contaminated meat and animal products. The only guaranteed way to avoid GMOs completely is to buy organic foods or to grow your own, and stay away from restaurants (unless they are organic) and fast food outlets. Otherwise, if you are contemplating the purchase of a conventional or "natural" food check the ingredients panel carefully. Avoid all non-organic products that contain soy, soy lecithin, corn, corn sweetener, canola, cottonseed oil, and sugar beet sweetener.

Millions Against Monsanto

We must draw hope from the fact that Monsanto is not invincible. After 16 years of non-stop biotech bullying and force-feeding Genetically Engineered or Modified (GE or GM) crops to farm animals and "Frankenfoods" to unwitting consumers, Monsanto has a big problem, or rather several big problems. A growing number of published scientific studies indicate that GE foods pose serious human health threats. 

what organic farmers and consumers have said all along: uncontrollable and unpredictable GMO crops such as alfalfa and sugar beets spread their mutant genes onto organic farms and into non-GMO varieties and plant relatives, and should be halted. 

Monsanto's Roundup, the agro-toxic companion herbicide for millions of acres of GM soybeans, corn, cotton, alfalfa, canola, and sugar beets, is losing market share. Its overuse has spawned a new generation of superweeds that can only be killed with super-toxic herbicides such as 2,4, D and paraquat. Moreover, patented "Roundup Ready" crops require massive amounts of climate destabilizing nitrate fertilizer. Compounding Monsanto's damage to the environment and climate,

, destroying essential soil microorganisms, degrading the living soil's ability to capture and sequester CO2, and spreading deadly plant diseases.

In just one year, Monsanto has moved from being Forbes' "Company of the Year" to the Worst Stock of the Year. The Biotech Bully of St. Louis has become one of

.

The biotech bullies and the Farm Bureau have joined hands with the Obama Administration to force controversial Fankencrops like alfalfa onto the market. But as African-American revolutionary Huey Newton pointed out in the late 1960's, "The Power of the People is greater than the Man's technology." Join us as we take on Monsanto and their Minions. Our life and our children's "right to a future" depend upon the outcome of this monumental battle.

Please sign up now as a volunteer grassroots coordinator for OCA's Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling Campaign:

Contrary to popular belief it is NOT necessary for a woman to have been pregnant to breastfeed.During pregnancy a woman's body produces increasing amounts of progesterone, estrogen (via the placenta), and prolactin (via the pituitary). These hormones prepare the woman's breasts for breastfeeding. Once her baby is delivered, progesterone and estrogen levels drop and prolactin levels increase and this results in the woman's milk production or lactation.A woman who is planning to build her family through adoption or via surrogacy can follow certain guidelines which are designed to mimic what happens during pregnancy and after the birth of a baby. The result for a woman who follows these guidelines is milk production or "induced" lactation. She will actually be inducing lactation and her breasts will begin to produce milk!Once the milk supply is established, milk continues to be produced on a "supply and demand" basis. Milk will continue to be produced as the baby continues to 'demand' milk. The more often and the more efficiently the baby withdraws milk from the his/her mother's breast, the more milk will be produced by the breast. As the baby suckles at the breast, a signal is sent to the brain from the breast to release oxytocin which initiates the milk ejection reflex (MER) and causes the milk to flow. The release of oxytocin and the emptying of milk from the breast causes the breast to produce more milk. And, so the circular feeding pattern and production of milk continues. Baby eats, breasts empty, breasts fill, baby eats......Studies have shown that the breastmilk of a mother who has induced lactation is compared to that of a birth mother's breastmilk at 10 days postpartum.There are two issues in nursing an adopted or intended baby. One is getting a baby to breastfeed. The other is producing breastmilk. It is important for mothers to set their expectations at a reasonable level. Since there is more to breastfeeding than breastmilk, many mothers are happy to be able to breastfeed without expecting to produce all the milk the baby will need. It is the special relationship, the special closeness, and the biological attachment of breastfeeding that many mothers are looking for. As one adopting mother said, "I want to breastfeed. If my baby also gets breastmilk then that's icing on the cake!"Adoptive and intended mothers CAN breastfeed. The International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) of Virtual Breastfeeding Help provide the "induced lactation" guidelines, technical assistance and support necessary to turn your dreams into reality!

My wife and i have been married for 22 years. We have entered a season of life when many parents are watching their children graduate high school. But we are joyfully celebrating the arrival of our first child, Connor, born last in December. We have traveled quite the twisted road to become Connor’s parents. Three failed Invitro Fertilization treatments set us back $45,000 and took a huge emotional toll. “Every time we found out my wife wasn’t pregnant, it was heartbroken,” !

By the mid-1990s we explored, but decided against, adoption. That’s when surrogacy became a real possibility. After catching an Oprah Winfrey episode on the subject, it seemed the perfect option. After so much time had passed and funds spent, we took the wheel without an agency – via the Internet.

The Yashoda Infertility & Healthcare Services in Mumbai, India and coordinator, Dr. Meenakshi Puranik, impressed us immediately with high standards and credentials.

We found out that YIHS takes care of the surrogate mother during the pregnancy. The surrogates live on site in apartments until the baby is born. The YIHS maternal care, they discovered, is all encompassing. Surrogates at YIHS have regular check-ups, medications and health insurance and the clinicians monitor their diets and healthy lifestyles from beginning to end. It was another bonus over the adoption process for us.

Shortly after consulting with the clinic early last year, we wired $10,000 YIHS to begin proceedings, knowing that they would forfeit that down payment if treatment were unsuccessful. We headed to Mumbai in April to begin immediately. (We didn’t tell anyone for a while.. people might have thought we were crazy to do this!) A couple of weeks later, the fertility treatment materialized into a parental dream come true. A healthy, 27-year-old woman was pregnant.  Thanks God! We were finally going to have our first baby.

We sent two more $3,500 installments to pay the clinic and reimburse the surrogate before Connor Robert Hui-Wee arrived on December 3. He was born two weeks premature, which added another $4,000 for additional care — a Cesarean section for the surrogate and two weeks of hospital care for our baby.

However, Connor was robust for a preemie, weighing in at six pounds two ounces. Mary rushed to India and Connor was immediately her own. They handed him to her that same day.  My wife was just ecstatic!! In addition, Mary got to meet the surrogate mother. She was very gentle and her face lit up when she met her.

I made it to Mumbai a couple of weeks later to escort our family back home. However, leaving the country with their newborn turned into an unplanned two-month scuffle with the embassy, immigration and other entities. They wanted all kinds of things from us that we didn’t bring — marriage certificate, utility bills, income tax returns and etc. And they also wanted a DNA test to prove that Connor was our biological child. It was so frustrating. No one told us any of this.

We lived in an apartment in India while we alternated trips to the U.S. and back before paperwork was finally in compliance. In February, Connor and us came home.

The financing for surrogacy alone was $22,000 and we saved about $15,000 in agency fees by going it alone. After months of delays, however, airfare, lodging and other expenses tipped the cost to $35,000.

Although we ran through many unexpected hoops during our surrogacy experience, we would not have it any other way.

Connor is a good baby and we’re so happy and we wouldn’t trade this for anything.

Though it has a happy ending, to call us experience traumatic is an understatement. From exorbitant agency costs for any kind of assistance to paperwork requirements we've never heard of after Connor was born, we have been through the gauntlet of Indian surrogacy and realized that we didn't want anyone else to suffer through the frustrations, pain, and fear we had to endure. Thus WeeCare Partners was born.

Taking our knowledge about all the things, great and small, that can go wrong in the process, we have made multiple trips to India to study the surrogacy process, the legal system, medical centers, and the American Embassy's requirements following birth. Partnering with the best medical and legal professionals, we have dedicated our self to helping families like your navigate the international surrogacy process, so that others can bring their babies into the world with a spirit of joy and relaxation.

Thank you for getting to know us!

We wish you best of luck, God Bless!

Sincerely,

Connor, Mary and Victor Hui Wee

Posted by

The Hui Wee Famliy!

In the winter, a mountainous region of California that the locals call the Grapevine is plagued by severe weather. The highway that winds through it is coated with snow and ice, making travel between central and southern parts of the state difficult and, sometimes, nearly impossible. During these stormy outbursts, Dr. Gregory Smith, who specializes in treating chronic pain and prescription drug abuse, can't make it from his office in Los Angeles to his Fresno clinic. Two years ago, his only options were to reschedule appointments or cancel altogether. But now, Smith uses his computer webcam to "see" his patients. He estimates the video technology enabled him to save 350 to 500 appointments this year. "It's almost as good as being there," said Smith, whose two clinics have more than 1,300 patients. Web-camera doctor appointments have their benefits and their drawbacks. Free online video-chat services let doctors check in quickly with patients, which can be more convenient for both. They let sick patients keep their germs at home, rather than bring them to an office. And doctors in some specialties, such as plastic surgery, use the technology to extend the reach of their practices by having e-consultations with patients in far-away cities. But nothing can replace real-life contact with a patient, doctors say. There are nuances to medical conditions that can be conveyed only during face-to-face interactions. While the pros and cons of video-chats are debated, one thing seems certain: With technology creeping into more areas of our lives, the number of people making such appointments will only increase. On the rise It's hard to quantify how many doctors now use webcams in their practices, because no agency tracks or requires doctors to report webcam use, said Gary Capistrant, senior director of public policy at the American Telemedicine Association (ATA). But "it's absolutely increasing," Capistrant told MyHealthNewsDaily, "and now that you've got those 4G phones where you can videoconference from your cell phone, it's going to be much more common." For some, the question is not whether to video-chat with patients, but rather how to strike a balance between video and real-life appointments. Smith won't use a webcam or Skype software exclusively to see patients who are far away, and prefers to have at least a few in-person appointments before agreeing to a webcam visit. But the technology is useful for quick check-ins if a patient doesn't have an appointment, he said. "If there's some pressing event, it's so convenient that you can say, 'I'll just Skype this guy for five to 10 minutes,'" Smith said. "Then, you can solve the problem right there instead of having to make another appointment." Under current laws, doctors must be licensed in other states if they are seeing patients outside of their home state on a more-than-occasional basis, according to the ATA. But as technology becomes more advanced, gray areas in the laws are likely to grow, Capistrant said, and doctors will need to be increasingly aware of medical laws in other states. To practice medicine right now - even over a computer - a doctor must be licensed in the state where he or she is physically located, as well as in the state where the patient is located, he said. But many doctors are licensed in more than one state, and some states have agreements with others to accommodate doctors who see patients across state lines, Capistrant said. Doctors also have to make sure their communication is secure and encrypted in some fashion in order to abide by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which ensures patient privacy, Capistrant said. "Doctors should inform the patient of what's involved and disclose any risk, but the patient is ultimately the one who can decide ... the level of protection they want on their medical information," Capistrant said. Further, video appointments may change the way doctors bill their patients. Currently, doctors can charge patients the same price for an in-person appointment as an Internet appointment. But as technology shortens the length of appointments - when they last, perhaps, only as long as it takes to answer a question with a text message - the system will need an update, Capistrant said. In the future, rather than micromanaging every appointment and procedure, he said, doctors may bill patients a single monthly fee that covers office appointments, webcam chats, e-mails and texts. A risk-benefit balance Risks to both the quality of care and patients' privacy rise when doctors use Skype to communicate with their patients, said Dr. Stuart Gitlow, an associate clinical professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Doctors have to be sure they aren't being lazy when occasional video chats with patients. Quite a few of his psychiatric patients have panic disorders, or develop anxiety when interacting in settings like a doctor's office. For those people, the prospect of an Internet appointment can help them feel at ease - and provide Gitlow with contextual information about his patients. "I can see the person and the room they're in, and you could even make the argument that I'm getting to see them in their own domain," he said. "I can see what they're wearing, if they're functional, taking care of the place. I get a perspective I don't get in the office." However, there are still some things that can only be garnered from an in-person visit, Gitlow said. He requires his patients see him face-to-face for most of their appointments. Using a webcam is "something that's an issue of convenience for a given patient, who I've already established [a] relationship with in-person," he said. The patient's side of the webcam Earlier this year, Aaliyah White, 24, an assistant to a sports agent in Providence, R.I., decided she wanted filler injected into the right side of her lips and in laugh lines around her face. Her Internet research to find a doctor led her to a YouTube video of Dr. Michael Escobedo, of Escobedo Esthetics in Austin, Texas, performing a cosmetic procedure on a patient from start to finish. Impressed by his skill, White called his office - she was willing to fly to Texas for a consultation, just as she previously flew to meet a Utah plastic surgeon for a breast augmentation. But Escobedo offered her a webcam appointment. An assistant in Escobedo's office gave White a time to log on to Skype, and soon she and Escobedo were face-to-face. "Before I even started talking, he said, 'I'm already seeing some of the problems that you want fixed,'" White told MyHealthNewsDaily. "He said, 'You probably want some filler on the right side of the lip, and the laugh lines.' He hit it, and he was on." Escobedo started doing webcam consultations at the start of this year, and has found they've expanded his reach. He now does about two Skype consultations a week with prospective patients, many of whom live in New York City or Los Angeles. "Patients would say, 'I wish I could see you, I wish you could see what I'm talking about,'" Escobedo told MyHealthNewsDaily. "It gives me a chance to see them and I can tell them, 'That's probably not something you want to do' or 'You should do it.'" Internet consultations also let him give more accurate price estimates for procedures. And they make it easier to follow up with the patient to see if the lift or injection has gone well, he said. Doctor-doctor connections Online video messaging has uses beyond the private practice. Dr. Thomas Lee, a pediatric ophthalmologist, uses Skype to help train doctors in Armenia to treat a rare eye condition called retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), a condition in premature babies that leads to blindness. In the United States, ROP has only been known since the 1940s, when incubators and neonatal intensive-care units (NICUs) became prevalent and allowed premature babies to live past a single breath, said Lee, who works at the Vision Center at Children's Hospital Los Angeles. In less developed countries, incubators and NICUs are only now becoming a reality, so doctors there are seeing ROP for the first time. Lee traveled to Armenia last summer to help train them. During the visit, he and his team left behind two retina cameras that can take close-up pictures of babies' eyes. Now, doctors there send retinal photos to Lee via Google Documents to verify cases of ROP. Lee and the Armenian doctors also meet weekly on Skype, he told MyHealthNewsDaily. "They take [a photo with] the retina camera, we evaluate and make a decision to treat," Lee said. "If the decision is to treat, then they do the laser treatment. And then after that, they e-mail us a picture post-treatment of what that looked like, so we can tell them if they were complete in their treatment." "It's a way for this country and the expertise in this country to assist medical education in foreign countries without leaving our home institution," he said. Pass it on: Doctors are turning to online video messaging as another way of meeting their patients' needs, but medical, legal and economic challenges lie ahead as this practice becomes increasingly common.

Babble.com/ceridwen

 1. Babies Don’t Suck On The Nipple New mothers will hear lots about getting a “good latch” in the first weeks of breastfeeding. There are some finer points to this, but the main thing is that babies do not “latch onto” (suck) the actual nipple. They suck on the pink part around the nipple which is called the areola. The full milk ducts are under the areola. When these are squeezed by the force of the baby’s sucking, the milk comes out through the nipple. If the baby sucks on the nipple, no milk ducts are being squeezed and soon mom will be in AGONY. And the nipples will become sore and even chapped and bloody. So get as much of that areola into the little baby’s mouth as you can. 2. The More You Feed, The More You Make If you feed frequently, your body will make lots of milk. If you feed infrequently and supplement with formula, your body will make less milk. It’s the simple law of supply and demand. Your body is smart: if the baby sucks (from hunger), it makes milk (to sate that hunger). But there’s a little more to it than that: Early, frequent feeding is crucial to establish supply in the first place. During the several weeks after birth, your body is getting some important information about what’s expected of it. Think of it like this: the milk factory is being built. If there’s a need for lots of milk — because the baby is constantly feeding — a big factory will be made. If there’s scant need, a small factory will be made. This is one key reason why all breastfeeding experts insist on feeding breastmilk exclusively for the first few weeks. No matter when you imagine yourself weaning the baby, if you’d like to have the option of feeding breastmilk for some period of time, it’s important to build the milk factory early on. It’s easier to switch to formula later, not so easy to switch to breastmilk if you’ve been feeding formula in the first month. If you want to breastfeed, make sure everyone in the hospital/birth center knows to let you feed “on demand” and “exclusively.”  If the baby is in the nursery and starts to cry or fuss and suck, looking for a food, the nurses should bring him immediately to you for a feeding. Another option is to have the baby “room in” (sleep in the room) with you. 3. Babies Nurse 8-12 Times In 24 Hours, But Not At Even Intervals The idea of a feeding schedule can be so appealing to a new mother who realizes full-well just how much her days and nights are going to be dominated by another person’s needs. However, when it comes to breastfeeding in the very early weeks, trying to get everything super planned can end up making a mother feel even more out of control. The fact is babies feed about 8-12 times in a 24 hour period, sometimes in what are called “cluster feedings,” or feedings that take place in quick succession. Since each feeding can take about 45 minutes, those periods of cluster feedings can make a new mother feel like she’s pretty much chained to the nursing chair for hours when they happen. So prepare: Have a book, water (always water!), the remote, snack, phone and whatever else you need at arm’s reach when you sit down to nurse. And try not to worry to much if your tiny newborn isn’t snapping to our adult schedules right away; they’re on baby-time for a while, so let it be. 4. If You Want To Breastfeed, Do Not Introduce Bottles Or Pacifiers In the First Few Weeks Babies can develop what’s called “nipple confusion” if they are fed from both an artificial nipple and a real one too early on. Nipple confusion should really be called Nipple Preference (and sometimes is) because the baby begins to prefer one nipple to the other. And the bottle is usually the winner. Artificial nipples are a little easier to suck from and babies can get used to that. They may adamantly reject the breast if they get too much bottle time too soon. An infant can be re-trained to enjoy nursing, but it’s not always easy. If you plan to nurse, leave the artificial nipples out of your baby’s mouth for the first few weeks. 5. Breastfeeding Is Hard At First I cannot emphasize this enough: it’s so different for the first few weeks than it is later on. There is a big learning curve for mother and baby — you both need to get into the rhythms and motions of feeding. Sure, it’s the most innate thing in the world — babies were born to suck and our bodies were made to produce milk.  But getting into the groove of holding your baby to the breast, and making sure she’s sucking in the most efficient way, can take some time. You both want it to work, but there’s always some trial and error along the way. And error usually results in sore nipples. Get lots of support from lactation consultants in the hospital or via neighborhood breastfeeding groups. Some pediatricians don’t know nearly enough about breastfeeding, and your OB/GYN or midwife is not seeing you anymore. This is unfortunate, because good support early on makes a big difference.

The FDA is poised to approve the sale of genetically engineered salmon in U.S. supermarkets - even though scientists warn it could harm human health.

But there's something even fishier going on. The agency wants to put this salmon on the market without requiring labels that it is genetically engineered. That means you won't know the difference between a mutant salmon and one that grew up naturally - leaving you in the dark about exactly what it is you're eating.

Tell the FDA that you demand the right to know what's in your food! The agency is hiding behind technicalities in the labeling law, when it only has to declare that genetically engineered salmon is 'materially' different - and should be labeled as such.

Please tell the FDA that you want genetically engineered food labeled. Consumers have the right to know what they're buying - and eating!

We have only until November 22, 2010, to generate the hundreds of thousands of comments that will be necessary to press President Obama and Food & Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to promise to label genetically modified salmon - if they decide to let this Frankenfish be sold in U.S. grocery stores and restaurants.

We need you to reach out to friends, family members and colleagues who don't yet know about the health and environmental risks associated with the production of genetically engineered animals for human food.

Submitted by

Contrary to popular belief it is NOT necessary for a woman to have been pregnant to breastfeed.

During pregnancy a woman's body produces increasing amounts of progesterone, estrogen (via the placenta), and prolactin (via the pituitary). These hormones prepare the woman's breasts for breastfeeding. Once her baby is delivered, progesterone and estrogen levels drop and prolactin levels increase and this results in the woman's milk production or lactation.

A woman who is planning to build her family through adoption or via surrogacy can follow certain guidelines which are designed to mimic what happens during pregnancy and after the birth of a baby. The result for a woman who follows these guidelines is milk production or "induced" lactation. She will actually be inducing lactation and her breasts will begin to produce milk!

Once the milk supply is established, milk continues to be produced on a "supply and demand" basis. Milk will continue to be produced as the baby continues to 'demand' milk. The more often and the more efficiently the baby withdraws milk from the his/her mother's breast, the more milk will be produced by the breast. As the baby suckles at the breast, a signal is sent to the brain from the breast to release oxytocin which initiates the milk ejection reflex (MER) and causes the milk to flow. The release of oxytocin and the emptying of milk from the breast causes the breast to produce more milk. And, so the circular feeding pattern and production of milk continues. Baby eats, breasts empty, breasts fill, baby eats......

Studies have shown that the breastmilk of a mother who has induced lactation is compared to that of a birth mother's breastmilk at 10 days postpartum.

There are two issues in nursing an adopted or intended baby. One is getting a baby to breastfeed. The other is producing breastmilk. It is important for mothers to set their expectations at a reasonable level. Since there is more to breastfeeding than breastmilk, many mothers are happy to be able to breastfeed without expecting to produce all the milk the baby will need. It is the special relationship, the special closeness, and the biological attachment of breastfeeding that many mothers are looking for. As one adopting mother said, "I want to breastfeed. If my baby also gets breastmilk then that's icing on the cake!"

Adoptive and intended mothers CAN breastfeed. The International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) of Virtual Breastfeeding Help provide the "induced lactation" guidelines, technical assistance and support necessary to turn your dreams into reality!

 Pregnancy can be tough on your body, mind and sometimes your physical health. It is crucial to give your body all of the tools it requires while your baby grows. A simple vitamin D test can help eliminate some of the risks associated and help you have a healthier pregnancy. For everyone, vitamin D contributes to the functions of the immune system, insulin regulation, heart health, brain function, and muscle strength; research also suggests this robust vitamin could reduce the risk of developing cancer.  For women who are pregnant we see its importance in a new study that shows women who develop preeclampsia (a condition related to increased blood pressure and kidney problems) during pregnancy have low levels of vitamin D.  When you consider the benefits of such an accessible vitamin, it becomes obvious that everyone should make sure they get their daily allowance. The problem is that the RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance) for vitamin D is not enough to achieve optimum health and if you are pregnant, you need more than you think.Vitamin D is the one vitamin that our body can produce, but it does so only when our skin is exposed to sunlight. Women with darker skin are prone to vitamin D deficiency because this process is not as efficient for them.  Although there are some vitamin D rich foods out there, their benefit is minimal in comparison to sun exposure. Talk to your doctor about increasing your vitamin D levels and don’t be so reluctant to skip the sunscreen when you take an afternoon stroll.  And as it gets chillier, what’s more relaxing then reading or napping near a sunny window. It’s especially important to be mindful of this in the months while you’re pregnant and nursing to give your baby a strong start and you, a healthier pregnancy.How vitamin D prevents pregnancy complications. Vitamin D is not just a simple vitamin.  It produces multiple internal effects that repair and maintain many body organs.  This includes regulating proteins in the placenta that are involved with preeclampsia. What’s more, research shows that women who take 4,000 IUs of vitamin D each day reduced their risk of developing high blood pressure, diabetes, and preeclampsia – serious complications in pregnancy – by a significant 30 percent.  Research has uncovered a few more benefits of taking higher doses of vitamin D:

Optimizing vitamin D levels is crucial.  As it stands right now, the recommended daily allowance for vitamin D is 400 IU.  Many experts believe this level is way too low and for pregnant women, and recommend around 4,000 IUs – that’s 10 times the current recommended dosage.

Over 67% of the women involved in the research had vitamin D levels less than 20 ng/ml, a serious state of vitamin D deficiency.  Over 87% of newborns were deficient as well.  That’s why the researchers recommend optimizing vitamin D to all expectant mothers so that they safeguard their own health, and their babies’ health as well. However, don’t assume your doctor will automatically test your vitamin D level during your prenatal visits.  You will have to ask, as it’s not standard practice.  Findings from the latest research may soon make it mandatory, but for now, you must be proactive and let your doctor know you’re concerned.  You should strive for a minimum blood level of 50 ng/ml.  It’s likely your results will state you are in the normal range even your below 50 ng/ml because, just like the RDA, the lab reference ranges are far too low. In the meantime, talk to your doctor about increasing your vitamin D allowance to 4,000 IUs a day.  If you spend less than one hour in the sun each day, you could need as much as 10,000 units a day. Your health and your baby’s well-being could depend on it.

It’s so easy to take our lungs for granted. This organ is solely responsible for oxygenating our body’s trillions of cells and expelling our respiratory by-product carbon dioxide whenever we breathe, yet this most important of roles for our survival is not given much of a thought (and the fact that breathing is an involuntary process doesn’t help much in keeping the lungs top of our minds).

When our lungs contract an infection, we literally feel it in every breath we take. And since the lung is one of the few organs directly exposed to the environment, it can be potentially bombarded by any number of nasty infectious agents such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and mycoplasma. What happens when our lungs get infected? The microscopic air sacs of our lungs become inflamed and filled with fluids (mucus and pus), inhibiting oxygen from penetrating into our bloodstream, while preventing toxic carbon dioxide from being expelled. That’s pneumonia—you drown in your own body fluid and get your blood poisoned at the same time.

It’s a chilling scenario that, sadly, happens too often among the very young and the elderly—those whose immune systems are either not yet fully armed, so to speak, and those who have theirs weakened by old age, various vices (such as smoking) and other diseases. The good news is pneumonia is preventable. Here are six ways for you, the youngest members of your family, and your elders to most effectively avoid contracting the disease.

1. Exclusive breastfeeding during the infant’s first six months of life. This is not just an old wives’ tale. Even the World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding for no less than six months for newborn infants as a primary means to prevent a host of serious diseases, including pneumonia. The British Medical Journal published a study involving 152 infants aged 28 to 364 days in Pelotas, southern Brazil. Infants who were not being breastfed were 17 times more likely to be admitted to hospital for pneumonia than those being breastfed (without resorting to formula milk).

2, 3 and 4. Wash your hands often (especially before eating or carrying an infant), avoid smoking (especially around children or the elderly) and minimize indoor pollution (by keeping your indoor spaces well ventilated with fresh circulating air). The Global Action Plan in Prevention and Control of Pneumonia has stressed these three habits, aside from breastfeeding, that would best prevent infants and the elderly from contracting pneumonia.

5. It’s not just what you breathe in, it’s also about what you eat. Nutrition is the key. Nutritionist Phyllis Balch, CNC, author of “Prescription for Nutritional Healing,” strongly urges these measures:

Integrate into your diet raw fruits and vegetables.

Take protein supplements sourced from vegetables, such as a free-form amino acid complex (amino acids are building blocks of proteins. Soy is an excellent source of non-dairy protein).

Drink plenty of fresh juices. Liquids help to thin out lung secretions.

If you can, occasionally fast on pure juices, fresh lemon juice and distilled water.

Include “green” drinks in your diet (e.g. fresh, organic wheatgrass), or Earth Source Greens and more from Solgar green drinks, for example), or take chlorophyll in tablet form.

Published: October 26, 2010

Denture wearers will get a tax break on the cost of adhesives to keep their false teeth in place. So will acne sufferers who buy pimple creams.

Stuart Isett for The New York Times: A breast pump and various accessories can run about $500 to $1,000 for most mothers a year.

Readers' Comments

People whose children have severe allergies might even be allowed the break for replacing grass with artificial turf since it could be considered a medical expense.

But nursing mothers will not be allowed to use their tax-sheltered health care accounts to pay for breast pumps and other supplies.

That is because the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that breast-feeding does not have enough health benefits to qualify as a form of medical care.

With all the changes the health care overhaul will bring in the coming years, it nonetheless will leave those regulations intact when new rules for flexible spending accounts go into effect in January. Those allow millions of Americans to set aside part of their pretax earnings to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses.

While breast-feeding supplies weren’t allowed under the old regulations either, one major goal of the health care overhaul was to control medical costs by encouraging preventive procedures like immunizations and screenings.

Despite a growing body of research indicating that the antibodies passed from mother to child in breast milk could reduce disease among infants — including one recent study that found it could prevent the premature death of 900 babies a year — the I.R.S. has denied a request from the American Academy of Pediatrics to reclassify breast-feeding costs as a medical care expense.

In some respects, the biggest roadblock for mothers’ groups and advocates of breast-feeding is one of their central arguments: nursing a child is beneficial because it is natural.

I.R.S. officials say they consider breast milk a food that can promote good health, the same way that eating citrus fruit can prevent scurvy. But because the I.R.S. code considers nutrition a necessity rather than a medical condition, the agency’s analysts view the cost of breast pumps, bottles and pads as no more deserving of a tax break than an orange juicer.

Many mothers’ groups and medical experts say that breast milk provides nutrition and natural supplements that prevent disease, and would like to see its use expanded. Hospital accreditation groups have been prodding maternity wards to encourage parents to feed only breast milk until a child is 6 months old.

The new health law does include one breakthrough for nursing mothers, a mandate that they be permitted unpaid breaks to use breast pumps. Spurned by tax authorities, breast-feeding advocates say they will return to Congress to get a tax break, too.

“There’s been a lot of progress in the past few years making the public, the medical establishment and even Congress recognize the health benefits of breast-feeding,” said Melissa Bonghi, a lactation consultant in Bainbridge Island, Wash. “But I guess the I.R.S. will just take a little longer.”

With the new regulations set to take effect in two months, millions of American workers now in the open enrollment period at their employers have to determine whether, and how much, to set aside for 2011. More than 20 million people have flexible spending or other tax-exempt health care savings accounts, and the programs are projected to cost the federal Treasury about $3.8 billion this year and $68 billion over the next decade.

The most far-reaching change involves over-the-counter medicines. Since 2003, most of them have been eligible expenses, making flexible spending accounts so popular that some plans issued debit cards that allowed users to make purchases without having to file for reimbursement later.

As of Jan. 1, however, over-the-counter medications — including allergy remedies, cough suppressants or even pain relievers like aspirin or ibuprofen — will be eligible only if they are prescribed by a doctor. That change is so drastic that the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, which represents 37,000 pharmacies, last week asked the I.R.S. for a two-year delay in that regulation, to allow merchants to recalibrate the computer systems that determine which products are eligible for purchase with flexible spending account debit cards.

Many factors, including the length of maternity leave, affect how long a woman breast-feeds.

According to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 75 percent of the 4.3 million mothers who gave birth in 2007 started breast-feeding. By the time the baby was 6 months old, the portion dropped to 43 percent, and on the child’s first birthday, to 22 percent.

A study released this year by Harvard Medical School concluded that if 90 percent of mothers followed the standard medical advice of feeding infants only breast milk for their first six months, the United States could save $13 billion a year in health care costs and prevent the premature deaths of 900 infants each year from respiratory illness and other infections.

“The old adage that breast-feeding is a child’s first immunization really is true,” said Dr. Robert W. Block, president-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “So we need to do everything we can to remove the barriers that make it difficult.”

To continue breast-feeding once they return to work, many mothers need to use pumps to extract milk, which can be chilled and bottle-fed to the child later. The cost of buying or renting a breast pump and the various accessories needed to store milk runs about $500 to $1,000 for most mothers over the course of a year, according to the United States Breastfeeding Committee, a nonprofit advocacy group. Lactation consultants, who can cost several hundred dollars, also would not be an eligible expense.

Roy Ramthun, a former Treasury Department official, said that tax officials’ reluctance to classify those costs as medical expenses stemmed from a fear that the program might be abused.

“They get very uneasy about anything that smacks of food because they fear it will open up all sorts of exceptions,” said Mr. Ramthun, who runs a consulting company that specializes in health savings accounts. “It’s a matter of cost and of protecting the integrity of the tax code.”

Bills introduced last year by Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, and Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, would have allowed nursing mothers to claim the tax break. But breast-feeding advocates say that effort, like many before, was undone by economic and cultural factors.

“Everyone says they support breast-feeding, but getting businesses and Congress to act on it has been surprisingly difficult,” said Barbara Emanuel, executive director of the breast-feeding advocacy group La Leche League International. “We get resistance from the formula companies and cultural resistance, so it can be hard to get nursing mothers the support that everyone agrees they deserve.”

Unless the law changes, some mothers may ask their pediatricians for a note that breast-feeding is medically necessary. Jody L. Dietel, who works for a company that processes claims from flexible spending accounts, says that many patients who receive orthodontic procedures have used such a tactic.

“Orthodontia is really so you have nice, straight teeth,” said Ms. Dietel, chief compliance officer for WageWorks. “But the doctors write notes warning that the patient’s jaw might be damaged without treatment or their overbite could cause health problems, and it becomes an eligible expense. For breast-feeding there are two components, too: nutritional and preventative medicine.”

October 18, 2010 

“My baby eats all the time! I think I need to give him formula to satisfy him.” “When my baby falls asleep with a pacifier, he seems much more satisfied, but I’m always engorged.” “No matter how often she eats, I feel like she wants to eat again in 10 minutes! I must not have enough milk.” It’s a very common issue: mommies think that because their breastfed baby just wants to eat and eat (and eat and eat), that they’re either not producing enough milk, or the baby just needs way more than mom can make. I’m here to tell you, in most cases, it’s just not true! Babies have this neat hormone in their system that tells them when they’re full (high levels) and hungry (low levels). It’s called cholecystokinin (CCK), and it aids in digestion and gives feelings of satiation and well-being in mom and baby. When a baby nurses for a good amount of time, their levels rise and they may get that milk drunk look or just fall asleep. After a nice little nap, their CCK levels drop a bit, so they want to nurse again. They may not actually drink, but just suck until they fall back asleep. Giving a pacifier can trick this hormone, since it’s created by sucking, but can mess with your supply, and make baby cranky when she wakes up. Breastfeeding your baby when she’s fussy is the best way to restore those full CCK levels and make a happy baby once again. It’s been found that babies with colic have lower levels of CCK in their systems, usually because of an abnormal amount of spitting up. These babies may need a pacifier to help calm them and raise their CCK, when nursing just won’t cut it. The most important thing to remember when using a pacifier is “If you have to, use it, don’t abuse it, quickly lose it.” (Dr. Sears) CCK is nature’s alarm clock; a very well organized “schedule” to keep your baby well fed and build up your supply. So keep feeding that baby on cue, don’t give that unnecessary bottle or pacifier, and you’ll find yourself in a happy nursing relationship for months (or years) to come. 

                                                                     

                                                                               

Another Study About Early Puberty – What’s the Chemical Connection? Janelle Sorensen Tuesday, August 10, 2010 ShareThis You hear it all the time, kids grow like weeds. And, an increasing body of research is revealing that kids are growing up faster than ever before. According to a new study published in Pediatrics, young girls are increasingly reaching puberty earlier — putting them at increased risk for breast cancer and type 2 diabetes as well as a laundry list of psychological impacts and high-risk behaviors. How much faster are our girls growing up? In the United States in the early 1800s, breast buds and menarche arrived around ages 13 and 16 respectively. Those changes now come aroundages 9 and a half and 12 and a half! Lead author of this newest study, Dr. Frank Biro, is cited in Time Magazine as speculating that the primary driver behind this shift “may be overweight and obesity, because estrogen is sequestered in fat tissue. But environmental exposures to chemicals — including pesticides and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like bisphenol A (BPA), commonly found in plastics, and phthalates, which are contained in many personal-care products — could also play a role.” This is the latest in a growing body of evidence showing that both girls and boys are developing earlier than ever before and that common chemicals in everyday products are suspect. In an in-depth article from The Economist’s Intelligent Life magazine, aptly called Puberty Blues, author Fiona Neill highlights the complexities of the issue saying, “the debate over EDCs is mired in controversy, akin to the debate over global warming, with environmentalists on one side, big business on the other, and scientists caught in the middle. It is a particularly tricky area of research because we are all now exposed to a cocktail of EDCs in our daily life. This makes it hard to measure how any individual compound might affect the endocrine system. It is almost impossible to measure individual exposure. And it’s likely that this chemical cocktail is passed from mother to baby in the womb.” Endocrinologist Professor Niels Skakkebaek, a pioneer in the field and one of the first scientists to warn of the dangers of endocrine disrupting chemicals, is quoted at length about EDCs and early puberty. “Children are extremely sensitive to hormones before puberty,” says Skakkebaek, “because they are producing so little that small amounts can make a difference.” Skakkebaek’s list of key suspects include, phthalates, Bisphenol A, parabens, and phyto-oestrogens (“like lavender, fennel and tea-tree, and perhaps most significantly, given its widespread use in America, genistein in soya”). Neill also cites Skakkabaek as saying “American children have a particularly high exposure to EDCs because 80% of American beef is still treated with growth promoters. In most cases a tag containing a mix of natural sex hormones (a combination of oestrogen, testosterone or progesterone) and synthetic hormones (zerinol, trenbolone and melengestrol) is implanted as a pellet in the ear of beef cattle in order to get the calves to grow and gain weight faster.” What Can You Do? It’s better to be safe than sorry. We know little about how the human body copes with the chemicals that have become ubiquitous in our daily life. Until we understand the impacts of this chemical cocktail more clearly, you can prevent exposures by taking these simple steps: Eat healthy. Diet is a major exposure route for EDCs. Phthalates are often found in fatty foods such as milk, butter, and meats – so reduce your consumption of these foods or opt for low-fat options. Fats are important for child development, though, so look for plant-based options like avocados, flax seed, walnuts, and almonds. Bisphenol-A is used in the lining of canned foods so opt for fresh or frozen. Choose USDA certified organic beef instead of conventionally-raised to avoid exposure to growth hormones. Moderate soya consumption. (Consult with your pediatrician about significant dietary changes.)

 

To All Post Adoptive Families and Your Children

 (An informal gathering of adoptive families with children)

 

When:

Sunday, September 26th

 

Time:

 1pm-4pm

(No cost)

 

Place:

Vista Del Mar Child & Family Services

Shuken Auditorium **Directions attached

3200 Motor Avenue, LA 90034

 

Our objective is to help you create your personal Adoptive Family Social & Support and Play Groups.  We will help families to connect with one another based on the ages of their children as well as by location and interests.

 

Experienced Adoption/Play Group Coordinators & Facilitators will provide insight into the benefits of Adoption Friendship groups, give instruction on how to get started, offer suggestions for activities and programs, answer questions, and share informational hand-outs.

 

Studies confirm that participating in Adoption Groups provides a wealth of benefits to adoptees and their families. We hope that you can join us for a fun and productive afternoon.

 

An RSVP (even if it’s last minute) including the age(s) of your child(ren) will be greatly appreciated so we can plan for supplies, activities and hand-outs.   (Childcare will be available and free)

RSVP to Elizabeth at earkin@vistadelmar.org or 310-836-1223, ext. 482

 

Please bring your favorite snack

If there's ever a time to be thoughtful about your diet, it's during your pregnancy and postpartum period. The nutrients that you take in are what builds and feeds your baby essential that you give it only the best. Here are 50 foods that nurses agree on for next or expecting moms. They pack a nutritional punch for pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women.

Now more than ever, it's essential that you stay hydrated to provide your baby with the water it needs.

Increase your water consumption: Whether you're pregnant or breastfeeding, you need to up your water consumption.

100% fruit juice: Although actually eating fruit is ideal, fruit juice is a good substitute for sodas and other drinks with empty calories.

Proteins are the building blocks for your baby. Eat these foods to make sure you're getting enough.

Chicken: Chicken offers moms a good, low-fat source of much-needed protein.

Peanut butter: Peanut butter is filling, full of folate, and a good source of protein.

Unprocessed meats: Meats in their natural, but fully cooked, state are an excellent source of protein.

Soy: While you're dealing with morning sickness, soy can help you get the protein you need.

Couscous: Flavor up couscous or eat it plain to get protein in pregnancy.

Although hormones may have your system backed up, you can stay regular with the help of these fiber-full foods.

Raspberries: Enjoy some tart raspberries for sweetness and fiber.

Apple: Grab an apple on your way out the door for some fiber on the go.

Figs: Figs pack in an amazing amount of fiber, calcium, and iron.

Bananas: Bananas can fill you up with both fiber and potassium.

Build collagen, healthy skin, and bones with this important vitamin.

Oranges: Many women crave oranges in pregnancy, and it's no wonder why-oranges are packed with the Vitamin C you need.

Lemon: Satisfy your sour craving and a need for Vitamin C with lemons.

Green pepper: Get your Vitamin C by throwing some green peppers in your salad.

Orange juice: Orange juice can give you Vitamin C, folic acid, potassium, and more for pregnancy.

Watermelon: Watermelon offers a hydrating, Vitamin C-packed treat.

Strawberries: Throw some strawberries in your smoothie or salad for Vitamin C.

Ward off common birth defects by eating these foods rich in folic acid.

Asparagus: Folic acid can be found in asparagus.

Corn: On the cob, creamed, or even frozen, corn can give you the folic acid your baby needs.

Spinach: This dark green leaf is full of folic acid.

Peas: Peas are good for naturally occurring folate.

Beans: Beans are great for protein, folate, and complex carbohydrates.

Chickpeas: Enjoy some hummus to get your serving of folic acid.

Zinc is great for keeping away colds drug-free in pregnancy, plus the careful building and functioning of DNA.

Eggs: Eggs aren't just great for protein-they can pack in the zinc you need for breastfeeding.

Mozzarella: Mozzarella cheese is packed with zinc for moms.

Lobster: Crack open a lobster for a tasty serving of zinc.

Protect your bones and give your baby's teeth and bones a good start by loading up on calcium rich food.

Yogurt: Yogurt is a good source of protein and calcium, and tastes great with fresh fruit and nuts.

Milk: Lowfat milk offers so much per serving, especially calcium and protein.

Go nuts: Almonds and hazelnuts can provide you with some of your calcium needs.

Raw vegetables: Many raw vegetables offer a good serving of calcium.

Broccoli: Broccoli isn't just a great source of calcium-it has Vitamin C, folate, and B6.

Long-lasting carbohydrates can offer fullness and the energy you need to keep going.

Oatmeal: This fiber-full breakfast and snack is great for carbohydrates, too.

Whole grain bread: Whole grain bread can give you a good dose of fiber and nutrition while offering healthy carbs.

Whole flour: Whole flour offers a great way to get your zinc.

Popcorn: A handful of air-popped popcorn offers fiber and useful carbs.

Blueberries: Keep your energy levels high with these berries that are packed with antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals.

Whole grain cereal: Whole grain cereal is easy to eat and full of good carbs, vitamins, and other nutrients.

Brown rice: Brown rice can give you long-lasting energy.

Be sure you're getting enough iron to keep your energy levels up.

Lean beef: Lean beef is a good source of protein and iron.

Artichokes: Add artichokes to pastas and salads for an iron boost.

Dried fruit: Dried fruit like prunes and raisins are great for iron.

Mollusks: Enjoy mollusks including oysters, clams, and scallops for iron.

Eat these foods for Vitamin A, which is essential to embryonic growth.

Carrots: Carrots don't just help your eyesight-they're packed with the Vitamin A you need.

Cream cheese: Spread some cream cheese on a fortified whole grain bagel for a little tasty Vitamin A.

Sweet potatoes: Enjoy a sweet potato baked or even as sweet potato fries to pack a Vitamin A punch.

These foods with fatty acid are incredibly valuable for growth and development of your baby.

Seeds: Seeds an supply your body with essential fatty acids.

Flaxseeds: Flaxseeds are a good source of Omega 3 fatty acids.

Shrimp: Throw some shrimp on the barbeque, in your salad, or in your pasta to up your Omega 3 fatty acid intake.

Salmon: Salmon is a powerhouse full of DHA, and an even help your mood.

Treat yourself now and then for a mommy pick me up.

Dark chocolate: For new moms, dark chocolate full of antioxidants just might be the ticket to busting a bad mood.

(Original Protocol March 2004; Revision #1 March 2010)

Resource : The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine Protocol Committee

Storage of Human Milk

1. Freshly expressed human milk may be stored safely at

room temperature (10–298C, 50–858F). Different studiessuggest different optimal times for room temperature

storage because the studies vary greatly in the cleanliness

of milk expression technique and the room

temperature during the study. Warmer ambient temperatures

are associated with faster growing bacterial

counts in stored milk. For room temperatures ranging

from 278C to 328C (298C¼858F), 3–4 hours may be a

reasonable limit.3,12,13 For very clean expressed milk

with very little bacteria, 6–8 hours at lower room temperatures

may be reasonable.2,14–16

2. Very few studies have evaluated milk storage safety at

158C (598F), which would be equivalent to a blue-ice

pack in a small cooler. Hamosh et al.12 suggested that

human milk is safe at 158C for 24 hours, based on

minimal bacterial growth noted in the samples from

their study.

3. Several studies have demonstrated the safety of refrigerating

human milk (48C, 408F), either by evaluating the

bactericidal capacity of stored milk as a marker for milk

quality or by measuring bacterial growth in the stored

milk samples. Bactericidal capacity of stored refrigerated

human milk declines significantly by 48–72

hours.17–19 However, studies of expressed human milk

with little contamination at the time of expression

demonstrate safe, low levels of bacteria growth in milk

at 72 hours15 and even after 4–8 days of refrigeration.

1,2,20

4. Freezing expressed human milk (48C to 208C) has

been demonstrated to be safe for at least 3 months.

Vitamins A, E, and B, total protein, fat, enzymes, lactose,

zinc, immunoglobulins, lysozyme, and lactoferrin

are generally preserved when freezing human milk.21–23

A few studies have found a significant decrease in vitamin

C levels in frozen milk after 3 months.24,25 Bacterial

growth was not found to be a problem in frozen

milk for at least 6 weeks.26 Antibacterial activity of

frozen human milk is preserved for at least 3 weeks.27

The basic principles of freezing dictate that frozen foods

at 188C (08F) are indefinitely safe from bacterial contamination,

although enzymatic processes inherent in

food could persist, with possible changes in milk

quality.28 Frozen human milk should be stored in the

back of the freezer to prevent intermittent rewarming

due to freezer door opening. All containers with human

milk should be well sealed to prevent contamination.

5. After a container is filled with human milk, space

should be left at the top of the container to allow for

expansion with freezing. All stored containers of

human milk should be labeled with the date of milk

expression and the name of the child if the milk will be

used in a child-care setting. It is typical for infants in

daycare to take 60–120mL (2–4 ounces) of human milk

at one feeding. Therefore, storing human milk in 60–

120-mL increments is a convenient way to prevent

waste of defrosted=thawed human milk.

6. Try to avoid adding warm milk to already cooled or

frozen milk, in order to prevent rewarming of the already

stored milk. It is best to cool down the newly expressed

milk first before adding it to older stored milk.

7. Stored human milk may have an altered smell and taste

because of the activity of lipase, an enzyme that breaks

down fat into fatty acids. This breakdown of fat aids the

infant in the digestion of human milk, particularly for

preterm infants, and is not harmful,28,29 although some

infants may refuse to drink it. Heating milk to above

408C is not advised because this will result in loss of

enzyme activity.

Using Stored Human Milk

1. Fresh milk is better than frozen milk. Use the oldest

milk in the refrigerator or freezer first.

2. The baby may drink the milk cool, at room temperature,

or warmed. Infants may demonstrate a preference.

3. It is best to defrost human milk either in the refrigerator

overnight, by running under warm water, or setting it

in a container of warm water. Studies done on defrosting

human milk in a microwave demonstrate that

controlling the temperature in a microwave is difficult,

causing the milk to heat unevenly.30 Although microwaving

milk decreases bacteria in the milk much like

pasteurization does, microwaving also significantly

decreases the anti-infective quality of human milk,

which may reduce its overall health properties for the

infant.

4. Once frozen milk is brought to room temperature, its

ability to inhibit bacterial growth is lessened, especially

by 24 hours after thawing.27 Previously frozen human

milk that has been thawed for 24 hours should not be

left out at room temperature for more than a few hours.

5. There is little information on refreezing of thawed

human milk. Bacterial growth and loss of antibacterial

activity in thawed milk will vary depending on thetechnique of milk thawing, duration of the thaw, and

the amount of bacteria in the milk at the time of expression.

At this time no recommendations can be made

on the refreezing of thawed human milk.

6. Once a baby begins drinking expressed human milk,

some bacterial contamination occurs in the milk from

the baby’s mouth. The duration of time the milk can be

kept at room temperature once the baby has partially

fed from the cup or bottle would theoretically depend

on the initial bacterial load in the milk, how long the

milk has been thawed, and the ambient temperature.

There have been no studies done to provide recommendations

in this regard. Based on related evidence

thus far, it seems reasonable to discard the remaining

milk within 1–2 hours after the baby is finished feeding.

7. Expressed human milk does not require special handling

(such as universal precautions), as is required for

other bodily fluids such as blood. It can be stored in a

workplace refrigerator where other workers store food,

although it should be labeled with name and date.33

Mothers may prefer to store their milk in a personal

freezer pack.

8. Uncontaminated human milk naturally contains nonpathogenic

bacteria34,35 and is important in establishing the

neonatal intestinal flora. These bacteria are probiotics—

they create conditions in the intestine that are unfavorable

to the growth of pathogenic organisms.35 If a mother

has breast or nipple pain from what is considered to be

a bacterial or yeast infection, there is no evidence that

her stored expressed milk needs to be discarded. Human

milk that appears stringy, foul, or purulent should

not be fed to the baby.

Regards,

Zatul Hijanah Ramzi

Lactation Counselor/ Columnist for Mami & Baby Magazine

Just a quick heads up on a new and insidious marketing tactic being employed

by Nestle, owner of the Gerber brand of formula. The wonderful Blacktating

blog informed us on May 14 of a new type of formula marketing tactic

employed by Nestle/Gerber, the House Party. House Party is an internet based

mechanism to entice people to host a party for a particular product brand,

in this case Gerber formula. Prospective hosts apply on-line at the House

Party website, HouseParty.com, and if selected, the host receives free

products for themselves and product samples to distribute to their friends,

family, and neighbors that they invite to this party (reminiscent of

Tupperware parties). Essentially, Nestle/Gerber recruits salespeople who are

not hired employees but peers of the targeted market. Guests at this party

receive a Gerber insulated backpack filled with numerous coupons and samples

of Gerber products. The host receives a box of gifts for herself and samples

including infant formula to display for all participants. Hosts are

encouraged to take photos of the party and provide (glowing) comments on how

much fun they had and how people gushed over Good Start formula. Who has

breastfeeding parties?!!!

This is a clever way to put into practice what a growing body of research is

showing about how people process information when making decisions,

including health decisions for themselves and their family. Research has

shown evidence regarding the striking persuasive power of anecdotal comments

from friends and family. Even a weakly offhand positive comment about an

inferior product has proven more powerful than research-based evidence and

statistics. Mothers are putting more stock in what their friends say about

formula than they are in what we say about breastfeeding.

This may make it more important for us to consider alternative interventions

to mitigate the effect of powerful anecdotal biases. Anecdotal manipulation

of health decisions is a powerful marketing tactic for both infant formula

manufacturers and for us to consider when helping mothers make infant

feeding decisions. Some health providers ask mothers to "think like a

scientist" when presented with information on the differences between health

outcomes when using infant formula or breastmilk. In other words, the mother

is oriented to think in a different manner to make her judgement and

decision. Decision aids are also helpful (videos of mothers talking about

breastfeeding, visual aids, etc). Counterarguments to formula feeding also

include asking mothers to engage in an exercise to orient their thinking to

and write down reasons why the reliability of certain types of information

might be called into question. Perhaps we need to direct mothers' thinking

in a different manner when talking about breastfeeding, supplementation, and

the use of infant formula.

It is so frustrating to me to work with mothers and see them make inferior

choices based on what their friends tell them. These house parties represent

yet another perfect example of marketing research at its finest. It makes me

wonder if we need to really take a closer look at changing the way we

approach how we present information to mothers regarding infant feeding. The

hours we spend talking about the health benefits can be completely undone at

a house party where other mothers gush over how great formula has been to

their life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                     and

 

 

                        and

                        Kohl, now