Surviving Snowpocalypse 2011

Well, the Snowpocalypse is officially over, and by some miracle we've survived it. Our internet is actually down at the moment, but luckily, our phones are able to be used as portable modems, and since our area was recently graced with 3G access by AT&T, we actually can function at a reasonable speed. I'm impressed, and glad that Hubby remembered we can do that!

So besides the massive amount of snow, I've been delving into the realm of organic/raw food recently. A while back, we tried some organic milk - we balked at the price but figured it would be worth the change. Unfortunately, it spoiled pretty quickly, for no good reason from what I could tell (fridge settings were fine, etc), and that was our first (and last) dive into the world of organic milk. I never really looked into it, though, or made any real attempt to actually learn about organic milk and how it differs from regular milk past the obvious few things (the cows are likely grass-fed, no chemicals are used on their feed or on the cows).

So a quick Google search led me here, and let me tell you, for being the first site that pops up when you search, and I quote, "differences between regular milk and organic milk", this pretty much sucks. Yes, I said it. The general consensus of this site is that there are probably fewer chemicals and hormones used on the cows that produce milk that ends up labeled "organic" but in the long run, since both types of milk have to conform to government standards anyway, they're basically the same thing. Well, hell, if I wanted someone to tell me they were the same and neither was better than the other, for upwards of an extra two dollars a gallon, you can bet I'm going to be buying regular milk. Obviously my question has not been answered, so time to go a little farther.

My next hit: the National Dairy Council's PDF "Organic Milk FAQ". Sounds promising enough, except that the first phrase is, "In terms of quality, safety and nutrition, there’s no difference between organic and
regular milk.  Both contain the same combination of nutrients that make dairy foods
an important part of a healthy diet." ... You have to be kidding me. So, even according to the National Dairy Council, there's no difference between the two types of milk, except that organic milk happens to be much more expensive? It does note later on that, "The definition of organic milk refers to farm management practices, not to the milk itself." Which makes sense, I guess, except the differences in question are as follows: "Organic dairy foods must additionally meet the requirements of USDA's National Organic Program.  This includes using only organic fertilizers and pesticides, and not using rbST." Meaning that farmers whose milk is certified as organic aren't using dangerous chemicals on the cows or their feed, and aren't supplementing cows with artificial hormones to keep up their milk supply.

I think I'm finally getting somewhere.

Now, let me put a little disclaimer here: I'm no medical professional or scientist. My mother works in a hospital in their pharmacy and is a registered LPN in our state, and while I've been an appendage to the medical community my entire life and probably know a tad more than the average person, I'm certainly no expert. I don't know much about artificial hormones or the exact problems and side effects traced to certain chemicals. All I have going for me is my common sense and my Ghd (Google doctorate, haha), but the latter provides me and a host of other people with the ability to find out the exact repercussions of using too many chemicals, or prolonged exposure to, say, rbST. So let's learn a bit more about rbST in particular.

A search for "rbST hormone" takes me first and foremost to Wikipedia. I realize that a researcher has to be careful referencing Wikipedia; I remember all too well that because it can be publicly edited by anyone that educational institutions don't allow it to be referenced in official papers. At the same time, though, I believe that this public editing option makes Wikipedia USUALLY very reliable and up-to-date, something a good portion of other sites can't claim to be, since Wikipedia can be updated immediately with the most recent information, oftentimes within seconds or minutes of a new release of information or event.

That being said, the Wikipedia page on rbST is pretty straightforward. Monsanto first synthesized it using recombinant DNA technology, named it "Posilac", and that got sold off to yet another pharmaceutical company (namely, Eli Lilly and Company). Oh, and, "The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone. Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier."

Wait, WHAT?

Yeah, I guess I read that correctly. Posilac was banned by 27 other countries, but for whatever reason, the United States still thinks it's okay for usage in our dairy supply. Remember, it isn't just milk - because all that milk, organic or otherwise, is used to make like-labeled dairy products. So all of the non-organic cheese, pudding, butter, cream, yogurt, instant/evaporated/condensed milk products, plus the hundreds of other dairy products I DIDN'T list, all use milk that has Posilac - rbST - in it, unless the retailer or creator has specifically chosen NOT to use milk from cows treated with rbST (and unless the product happens to mention it on the label, you have no way of knowing if rbST has been used or not). I wonder what on earth made 27 other first-world countries - you know, the entire EU and then some - decide that Posilac is dangerous?

Back to the Wikipedia page, and as a warning, I'm about to be pasting a LOT of stuff all at once (any added emphasis is mine).

"On September 30, 2010, a U.S. court of appeal found based on studies presented that there is a "compositional difference" between milk from rBSG-treated cows and untreated milk. The court found that studies have shown that rBST milk has: increased levels of the hormone IGF-1; lower nutritional quality when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and more pus in the milk (increased somatic cell counts), which "make the milk turn sour more quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality."


Use of BST is controversial primarily due to concerns over potential effects on animal and human health.

Animal health
Two meta-analyses have been published on rBST's effects on bovine health. Findings indicated an average increase in milk output ranging from 11%-16%, a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. The same study reported a decrease in body condition score for cows treated with rBST even though there was an increase in their dry matter intake.
A European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows. The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used. Health Canada prohibited the sale of rBST in 1999; the external committees found that, although there was no significant health risk to humans, the drug presents a threat to animal health, and, for this reason, cannot be sold in Canada.

Human health
Human health concerns centre around three areas:

• rBST and its byproducts
• increased levels of IGF
• secondary effects, e.g. the increased use of antibiotics to treat mastitis

IGF is produced by the cow in response to BGH injections, and it is this hormone which increases growth and milk production. Bovine and porcine IGF-I are identical to human IGF-I, while IGF-II differs among animal species.
IGF plays a role in the formation of new tumours and increased levels of IGF-1 may be linked to increased risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. However IGF is involved in many biological processes so it is not possible to assign a clear-cut cause and effect relationship. IGF-1 is not denatured by pasteurisation, so consumption of milk from rBST treated dairy cows will increase the daily intake of IGF-I.
Further association of IGF with breast cancer was provided by a 20-year epidemiological study begun in 1976, which was published in 1997."


So let's see if I'm understanding this properly. The National Dairy Council specifically states that there is absolutely no difference between the nutritional properties of regular milk and organic milk, and that neither is any more or less safe or healthy than the other, yet the use of rbST in regular milk (not all, but without labeling, you have no idea whether or not rbST has been used on the cows that the milk came from) is CLEARLY detrimental to not only the health of the animals it's used on, but on the humans that consume the milk and milk byproducts. And let me speak from experience on the mastitis side of things: I've had mastitis. I nursed through it, hallucinated through a very high fever, and ended up on some serious antibiotics to try to get rid of it (and soy lecithin to rid the subsequent blockages associated with it). It sucked beyond anything I could describe to someone who has never experienced it before, and when someone says that they stopped or almost stopped nursing because of a bout of mastitis, while I'm saddened, I understand. Mastitis is a bitch, a very painful and unyielding bitch. And I would not wish that upon a person, much less a poor cow.

I feel like somebody's lying somewhere (and I don't think it's Wikipedia).

So, basically, cattle treated with rbST make rather nasty pus-milk that has rbST secreted into it that we end up consuming ourselves.

There's no way in hell I can be okay with continuing to feed this to my family.

On to organic milk we go.

"Snowfall of epic proportions"

That's what the National Weather Service, CNN, our local stations, and every meteorologist under the sun says we can look forward to today through Wednesday morning. 12-14", maybe up to 18" for those a bit farther south than we, and I'll tell you what - I am NOT looking forward to this.

But it hasn't started yet, so for now, I'll let it slide.

The only other thing I have going for me right now is a series I was apparently unaware of until today that aired on Showtime, hosted and written by the lovable and inarguably coarse Penn & Teller. It's called "Bullshit", and I will warn you right now (in case the title doesn't) that there is a lot of inappropriate language being tossed around, but that doesn't really bother me.

Anyway, they did an episode on circumcision. I'm an intactivist, meaning that I believe that RIC (routine infant circumcision) is not only morally wrong but that the vast majority of the claims arguing FOR it are incorrect and, quite simply, false. I don't buy that I should be chopping a functional, healthy, NORMAL part of my infant son's genitalia off because there's a possibility that when he's 80 he won't be able to or will choose not to properly clean himself and will end up with an infection. I don't think that saying my sons should look like their father is a viable reason to circumcise them. I don't believe that incomplete research studies done on ADULTS in AFRICA, where HIV/AIDS is unquestionably a serious problem, should have absolutely any effect on whether or not my son remains intact from birth. I believe that the spread of STDs and other problems can be combated by teaching our sons and daughters that condoms are a good thing and that safe sex is the ultimate best option if you're going to be having sex with someone you aren't committed to. Last, but not least, I believe that male circumcision is akin to female circumcision, which is given the far more frightening and accurate name of "female genital mutilation", and that it's a sad state of affairs when the bodies of our daughters are protected from this travesty while our sons are still at risk.

Anyway, back to the episode.

I ended up watching the third part of it on YouTube, but unfortunately the first two parts had been taken down. Why? Something about inappropriate content, which floored me since in the final part the viewer gets to look at (not without warning, mind you) the restored penis and foreskin of an older gentleman, and a portion of a circumcision video that does indeed show the unblurred genitalia of a newborn boy. Whatever. So I looked up alternate places to watch it, because I think this is a rather good, succinct way of putting how I feel about circumcision, and I've come up with this link that I think works. I hope works. The quality isn't that great, and you'll need to turn your sound up (and push the green "play" button, not either of the "low" or "high" quality buttons), but you don't need to sign up for anything or download any bogus malware codecs, so I think it's a pretty good option. The video's about half an hour long, and I HIGHLY recommend you watch it - at the very least, the screams of a baby boy being strapped down and having part of his penis lopped off will stick with you long enough that if you're on the fence about circumcision, you'll have no problem deciding it's a barbaric process.

I mean, come on. Even a good portion of the Jewish community, the original circumcising group, is beginning to phase out this antiquated, outdated practice of mutilating their baby boys. That should be enough to show the rest of us that this "trend" needs to end.

Welcome to Sunday!

Well, the start of another week is upon us, and we're that much closer to spring. Unfortunately, winter hasn't finished rearing its ugly head, and starting tonight the Midwest is supposed to start getting some pretty brutal weather, my area especially - although only an hour south the accumulation of ice goes up about half an inch, so maybe in all honesty I'm lucky that almost a foot of snow is the ONLY real problem in the forecast for us.

Don't get me wrong, I do love snow. At Christmas and Yule. Otherwise I'm 100% against it. In my mind, there would be no snow after New Year's day and spring would start sometime in February. The winter blahs hit hard around here, and the kids are getting stir crazy. I'd take them outside more often, but A has developed an aversion to snow, mostly because he has difficulty getting his little legs up high enough in boots to properly step over the snow and put his foot down again. He ends up falling a lot, which is admittedly hilarious because he gives in and starts crawling until he realizes that the snow is cold and wet, and he's actually IN it. Then the screaming begins. I'm hoping at some point he figures out how to walk in it, but I don't think that will happen until next winter. By that time he'll be two. Yikes.

In other news, today I'd like to bring to your attention this lovely article over at Spoonfed: it's about food dyes, and I seriously think that anyone worth their salt should check it out. It's "The color of trouble" and it's rather insightful, if I do say so myself.

Why do I bring this up?

I have two nephews and a niece, and they have issues with red 40. I don't remember if it's just one of them or all of them, but in all honesty, a sensitivity is a sensitivity, and it's easier on everyone involved to cut something like that for the whole family than try to limit it simply for one child. Granted, they're all old enough now to be able to tell whether or not a product has red 40 in it, or to read the label to find out if they aren't sure. But my kids aren't. Neither one can read yet (although G can spell out the words he sees and ask what they are), so it's up to Hubby and I to keep a watch out for what they're eating.

Unfortunately, food dyes are still an elusive additive that's hard to avoid when you don't have the spending ability to get the more expensive (and innately more healthy) organic/additive-free foods. Of course there are things like fresh fruits and veggies that don't (or at least SHOULDN'T) get clouded by massive amounts of dyes, but anything boxed or packaged today is almost guaranteed to be touched by a dye here or there, regardless of its eventual color. Bread, biscuit mixes, fruit drinks - even things that tote the label of "100% juice" - all have a dye here or there. And, as Spoonfed mentions, even things like mouthwashes and toothpastes and lotions and soaps are typically filled with dyes. And we use them on our bodies, and on our kids' bodies, and don't usually bat an eye.

So where does that leave those of us who can't always shell out the extra few bucks necessary to keep the dyes out?

Well, it leaves us inconvenienced, to a degree. Prepackaged foods are meant to make life easier and mealtimes faster. They're supposed to help us de-clutter our lives, but are the effects really worth it? Maybe. But probably not. A vast majority of the things that children eat that are riddled with food dye are things that aren't necessarily healthy for them in the first place - easier on parents, for sure, but not really healthy, no matter how many servings of fruits or veggies a serving of them supposedly replace. I'd go look through our cabinets right now to see how many things have food dye in them, but I worry that I would be completely disgusted but what I would see.

How do we get around this?

Well, first and most obviously by cooking homemade. Yes, it means more dishes and more effort and parents spending more time in the kitchen than they would probably like to. I know around here that Hubby is the main chef; I don't often cook, and when I do, it usually isn't anything like the admittedly awesome meals he makes (homemade chicken pot pie in heart shapes with actual hand-made dough?!) even if it's still at least edible. It means spending a little more at the store, maybe pre-planning meals for a week or two to make sure that when you go grocery shopping, you know that you're going to actually use the fresh ingredients you're buying there. It means doing things a little differently, but really, how much of a pain is it in the long run to do something that helps you AND your kids?

I think I'm excited about learning more about food dyes and just how bad they are for us, and then working harder to phase out the ones my kids still ingest on a daily basis. This should be fun.

My boys

Here is the small, sad, sick A:

 And the not-sick, big, rambunctious G:

Poor, poor baby

Yesterday everything was fine - but last night, A started spiking a pretty high fever and lost all interest in food. After doing all of the typical "bring down the fever" things I know how to do, and including infant off-brand Tylenol in the mix, he hit 103.9F - and we headed to the ER at 2AM. While we were there, he hit his highest fever yet of 104.9F. They did a chest x-ray, decided that he has very early pneumonia, and sent us home with azythromiacin and instructions to keep up the Tylenol. The poor kid has had a rough time of it, but so far the rest of us are still physically doing all right, and he's not dehydrated, even if he still isn't eating. He's still pretty lethargic, but at least now he's doing well enough that between naps and bottles and sad, sad faces, he's talking again and actually getting up occasionally and walking between Daddy and I.

So today's post will be short, and basically a big pat on the back for the Kawaii overnight dipes, because they are amazing and I am addicted.

I'm also in the midst of some pretty serious absorbency/stink issues that are making me insane. A has been in disposables the last couple of days as I power-wash and retest almost all our cloth to see if I've fixed the problem. It's a slow battle, one that is going to soon involve bleach in small amounts, as I feel I've tried everything else.

I'm also looking for fun ideas for G's fourth birthday party at the end of March. I need suggestions! Last year was the Wonder Pets. :D

Attachment parenting: My wake-up call

When we first found out we were expecting G, I was 20 and in college. He was a "happy accident"; we had been preventing because we weren't prepared for a child, but obviously fate had other plans. We amassed all the typical baby-things, thanks to gifts from friends, like strollers and a crib and a walker and all sorts of things. We intended to share our bedroom because we had no choice, but we were solidly of the belief that babies slept in cribs away from their parents. I was all for a natural, intervention-free birth (which unfortunately ended up not being the case), and was happy to try breastfeeding, but I was sure that if neither worked out it wouldn't be a big deal. I wasn't even against c-sections necessarily because of the health benefits of a drug-free labor and birth for mom and baby, but because I was (and am) afraid of major surgery and its after-effects. The only even remotely "crunchy" thing that we intended on doing was keeping our son intact. Otherwise, we were pretty sure that we would be playing it by ear, and that we had made our solid parenting decisions, and that nobody had a right to tell me that I would more than likely change my mind once our child had arrived.

Oh, how naive I was.

I was less than a month short of 21 years old when G arrived on March 29, about two weeks before his estimated due date of April 16th, 2007. His birth was odd; my water spontaneously broke at about 2 AM on the 27th, and Hubby and I panicked and ran to the hospital after I spent a good half hour standing in the shower, leaking like nobody's business while he threw together bags and made a few phone calls. After that, we waited for 18 long hours to see if I would have any contractions on my own, and despite a number of positions tried and a lot of walking, we got nowhere. Without the help of any knowledgeable birth assistants, only the well-meaning hospital staff, and with the urging of my mother, we gave in and started the pitocin. Who knows if things would have been different if I would've had access to a doula. 36 hours after my water broke, G was born. His cord was wrapped once around his neck, his APGAR scores were great, and after being home less than 24 hours after being released we were called back in because he was heavily jaundiced. A lack of education and a lot of problems led to him being exclusively formula-fed before two months of age.

The strangest part came when we brought him home and all he wanted was to be held, hugged, and in constant contact with us. We tried keeping him in his crib at night, and were greeted by hours of high-pitched screaming from a baby who slept so much better when he was in our bed. He loved being in a carrier, loved being cradled and talked to, and generally messed up every preconceived notion we had about how a baby should be carried and where a baby should sleep. When he was in his crib he was miserable, angry, and never stopped crying. On more than one occasion of our attempt at getting him to sleep alone, he vomited on himself and his crib. I looked all of this up online after "giving up" one more time and bringing G into our bed again, expecting to be told to ignore my instinct to bring him back to our bed and to sleep with him safely beside me, sure that I would find page after page of parents who had experienced the same thing and had found some secret. I had no idea whether or not I was doing the right thing by calming my baby and myself by bringing him into our bed with us - I was just sure that it was somehow wrong. Babies belonged in cribs, right?

Except everything I found referenced my parenting preferences as "attachment parenting". I saw pages telling me I was right, and that I was following my parental instincts when I brought my son in to sleep with us. I learned about parents who had been in my shoes, who had been so sure of what should be done, only to find that things were completely different. I learned about parents who used the cry it out method of teaching newborns to sleep alone in separate rooms and cribs, about parents who left their babies alone to cry for hours on end and who offered no solace, no comfort when they went about cleaning up the vomit and tears that ensued. I began to feel as though leaving my baby alone in his crib to cry and scream was abandonment, that I was showing him he would never be able to depend on me or any other adult to tend to his needs when he was unable to do so himself. I began to inexplicably find myself getting angry when I read about parents who used CIO methods on their kids, who refused to carry their babies, who insisted that infants who bed shared or co-slept and who were carried instead of pushed around in strollers would become spoiled children and adults who were unable to care for themselves.

It became second nature for me to carry my son in a carrier. Although we no longer shared the bonding experience of breastfeeding, we bed shared and wore him, and found ourselves with a happier baby who tolerated us better, and whom we could in turn better tolerate. The screaming fits and long nights were over, the resentment was gone. The change was night and day.

So when we found about a year and a half later that yet another form of birth control had failed us, we didn't ask questions. The birth, while not completely intervention-free, went much better with the assistance of a local doula. Although we still had a myriad of problems with breastfeeding, we made it for months longer than we had with G. We wore him in carriers and slings, we used cloth diapers (and still do!), we fed him organic baby food and started solids with him on a case-by-case basis when he was ready for them, or seemed interested. Although we do all vaccinations but influenza, I learned significantly more about vaccines, their contents, and how they've changed in the last two decades. We bed shared from day one.

We are now the proud parents of two well-adjusted, happy boys. G spends most of the night in his own bed in his own room, now, but still comes into our room early in the morning and snuggles up in our bed with us. A sleeps in our bed still, and we expect he'll be closer to two years old before we start working on getting him into his own bed, too - about the same age G was when we started moving him into his own bed. Our kids are not spoiled, they aren't overly dependent on us, they aren't coddled. They are brilliant, both over the 80% range for height and weight, both well-proportioned. A will eat almost anything (I attribute this to a more varied diet while pregnant and the fact that he was breastfed longer), G is more picky. They are both ahead of their peers, both fearless, both amazing kids with wild imaginations.

And they have taught me that kids need their parents to care for them the same way we have for centuries: by using cloth on their bottoms, sharing cloth on our beds, and keeping cloth around them to keep them close to our hearts.

An open letter to Facebook

Recently, I've heard word that Facebook has been openly deleting the pages and profiles of users who have posted pictures of themselves breastfeeding their children. There are a few protest pages that demand these groups, profiles, and individuals be allowed back onto Facebook, or that their original profiles be restored, and I am inclined to agree 100% that Facebook has no reason to claim that these pictures overstep their terms of use. Breastfeeding is NATURAL, it is NORMAL, and it is NOT disgusting, nor should it be something that women should be discouraged from doing in public.

I am an intactivist. I am pro-breastfeeding, public and private. I believe in a baby's rights to be given the best they can get, and to remain healthy, happy, and whole.

That being said, I'd like to present an open letter that ANYONE is free to use to send their message to Facebook that breastfeeding is not inappropriate. Feel free to edit as you please, add your name, your own comments, and your own research - all I ask is that if you share it on Facebook or your blog, please do so with a link back here, so as I get my blog back up and running, I can help get the word out on my passions as well.

Here you go!
-----------

To the Powers that Be of Facebook,

Every day thousands of people around the world make choices as to what they include on their personal Facebook pages. Mothers, fathers, minors, and the elderly alike post pictures of themselves and their families, sometimes including scenes of both women and men wearing clothing that would be considered inappropriate in public. These scenes sometimes lead to employers choosing to terminate employees who shared inappropriate photographs on Facebook. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Facebook is a very important, very influential social networking site, and that what is posted on an individual's profile can make or break the opinions of others.

We ask, then, in all seriousness, why Facebook does not seem to bat an eye at pictures of scantily-clad 16-year-olds wearing little more than they were born with, posing on beaches or in houses alike, but insists on immediately removing pictures - or deleting entire profiles - of individuals who include pictures of proud mothers nursing their babies.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the importance of breastfeeding. The WHO suggests that babies should be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, then continued with appropriate complementary foods up to two years of age. Breastmilk is the single most natural first food for any baby, promotes sensory and cognitive development, and protects the nursing baby against infectious and chronic diseases and can even reduce infant mortality due to common childhood illnesses. It contributes to the mental and physical health and well-being of the nursing mother, can help space out children, and can even reduce the risks of some types of cancer in the mother.(1)

The influences of breastfeeding also go well beyond the first few years of a child's life. Breastfed children have been shown to have lower blood pressure than their formula-fed counterparts, lower cholesterol, and higher performance in intelligence tests. There are fewer cases of obesity and type-2 diabetes among breastfed children.(2) These are effects that last well into adulthood and positively influence a child's life, without question.

Why, then, are breasts outlawed? Those of us who go out into public on a semi-regular basis are guaranteed to see more flesh revealed on any given day than we would on a typical breastfeeding mother. On TV, women bare themselves to make headlines - in real life, a breastfeeding mom bares a breast when necessary to feed her child. To be perfectly honest, those of us who have breastfed children are sick and tired - no, insulted and hurt - that Facebook goes as far as not only comparing us to underdressed teenagers, but has the audacity to treat us with more scrutiny. Breasts ARE NOT OBSCENE. A society that has been taught to overreact to any amount of flesh will quickly jump to accuse breasts of being wild, crazy partiers who just want to pass out on your couch for the night. Trust us, though: All they want to do is feed babies.

It doesn't matter what you call them. Breasts, boobs, tatas, whatever - they serve a purpose, an important one at that, and the other few million breastfeeding mothers out there who are feeding their babies as we speak would agree. Facebook has an opportunity here to speak out and help share the physical, mental, and emotional values of breastfeeding by doing nothing more than allowing us the same right you give to all the teenagers out there who would happily post pictures of themselves in bikinis (and in doing so actually show off far more skin than a breastfeeding woman can at any one time)! All we ask is equality and support. So what will it be? Will Facebook step up and acknowledge the importance of breastfeeding, and grant mothers and supporters the opporunity to share with friends, family, and the world how proud they are to be providing their children with the best and most natural source of nutrition out there? Or will you sit back and censor breastfeeding while gals in the Bahamas share bikini shots from the beach?

It's your choice. All we ask is that you do the right thing.

Sincerely,

The undersigned



References:
(1): WHO article on breastfeeding (http://www.who.int/child_adolescent_health/topics/prevention_care/child/nutrition/breastfeeding/en/index.html)
(2): Excerpt from WHO article, "Evidence on the long-term effects of breastfeeding" (http://www.who.int/child_adolescent_health/documents/9241595230/en/index.html)