The Motherwear Breastfeeding Blog

Sign this petition to get BPA out of baby bottles.

By now you've probably heard about Bisphenol-A, the estrogen-mimicking component of some polycarbonate plastics which is found in most baby bottles and some formula cans.  I posted about its health effects last year.

BPA has been in the news quite a bit this week, with a Los Angeles Times article reporting that the National Institutes of Health now expresses "some concern" that BPA may harm fetuses and infants, and with the news that the Canadian government yesterday banned BPA from baby bottles, deeming it a toxic substance.  There were reports that Walmart has started pulling bottles with BPA off shelves.  Nalgene announced that it would get rid of BPA in its bottles and started pulling remaining stock off the shelves, and Senator Charles Schumer announced he'd introduce a bill in the U.S. Senate to ban BPA from bottles, dental sealants, and food containers. 

The plastics industry representatives, through the years of debate, has maintained the BPA is safe, but it seems pretty clear that the market is going to have the last word on this one.  Nearly every family I meet these days has heard of BPA, and all of those Avent bottles I used to see pumping moms use have been replaced by Born Free and Medela bottles.  I might add that I started noticing moms making this switch before the federal reports started coming out.  We're such smart cookies.

So, while it seems to me that the manufacturers are already backed into a corner, we might as well take the opportunity to wag our finger at them.  After all, as late as Thursday a representative of the plastics industry was offering his "reassurance" that products made with BPA are safe.

Check out this Moms Rising petition which they'll send to the manufacturers of the major manufacturers of baby bottles, asking that they discontinue using BPA in their bottles.

Want to get email updates from the Motherwear Blog?  Subscribe here.  Want an RSS feed?  Click here.

 

Vermont Human Rights Commission finds that airline violated the law when forcing mother off plane.

Most of you probably recall the case of Emily Gillette (shown to the right), the New Mexico mother who was forced off of a Freedom Airlines plane in 2006 because she refused to cover up or stop breastfeeding.  The incident occurred in Vermont, a state which protects nursing mothers' rights to breastfeed in public places.  The case sparked the first nationwide nurse-in at Delta ticket counters.

The Vermont Human Rights Commission ruled this week that Freedom Airlines discriminated against Gillette.  The parties now have six months in which to reach a settlement agreement.  Though the flight Gillette was taking was a code-share between Delta Airlines and Freedom Airlines, the Commission did not charge Delta with discrimination. 

The Burlington Free Press reports:

"We are delighted that the commission found against Freedom," said Beth Boepple, a Manchester-based attorney who represents Gillette. "We're disappointed in the decision regarding Delta, but we understand why the commission arrived at that decision, even though we don't necessarily agree."

Freedom and Gillette have six months to negotiate a settlement. Boepple said Gillette's goal is to see airline policy put into place that protects other women from similar events; a written policy put into place that trains and educates employees; and to receive monetary compensation to at least cover legal and travel costs.

A ruling against Delta obviously would have had more far-reaching implications, but this news is still a positive step and may make other airlines take the issue seriously.

Want to get email updates from the Motherwear Blog?  Subscribe here.  Want an RSS feed?  Click here.

Nursing mother sentenced to night in jail or fine for postponing jury duty.

This story (video here) really surprised me:

A Maryland judge sentenced a breastfeeding mother to a night in jail or a $150 fine, after she asked to postpone her jury duty.

Elizabeth Jett's baby boy Henry was less than 12 weeks old when she was called for jury duty. "I think it’s a case of priorities. Taking care of your children should be your first priority. Jury duty can always come later," Jett said.

Jett asked to postpone and serve during the Summer, when Henry would be older and her mother, a full-time teacher, could take care of him and his five-year-old brother.

The Carroll County judge said Jett was in contempt of court, which Jett thought was unbelievable. "I was just shocked. I couldn’t even put it into words," she said.

Legislation that would allow nursing mothers with children under the age of two to be excused from jury duty was introduced for the second time. When the plan was proposed in 2004, many lawmakers shot it down.

Brian Frosh, Chair for the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, said the law would cause more people to try to postpone their duties, "If you start saying, we’re gonna excuse people for breastfeeding, you’ve gotta say ok to kidney dialysis, chemotherapy and all the other maladies that afflict the human condition." [emphasis added]

Frosh said the law already gives judges broad discretion to excuse residents from jury duty, "So what we want is for judges to use their discretion liberally."

I'd note here that had this mother been working, she would have been guaranteed time off from work under the Family Medical Leave Act, and that she simply asked to postpone her service, not be excused from it.  It's not clear to me whether pumping would have been an option, but even that would have required the agreement of the judge, since juries are kept together and breaks are at the discretion of the judge.  And of course not all babies take bottles, and not all women have success with pumping.

When I served on a jury a few months ago, the judge in the case did use her discretion liberally.  She asked each member of the jury pool if there was any reason why serving on the jury would present a significant hardship.  She cited as examples the need to care for children or elderly relatives, medical procedures, and even stated that since we live in an area with lots of colleges students, she would excuse any student who would miss class.

So, there are judges who understand this particular need of the "human condition," and are happy to accommodate it.  But clearly there are others who don't.  I appreciate the argument that specifically naming conditions can make things complicated.  But there also appear to be judges who don't have an adequate understanding of this issue to use their discretion in a manner most of us would find appropriate.  That's why 12 states (California, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Virginia) have laws that accommodate nursing mothers called for jury duty.

As for the argument that these laws create opportunities for more people - such as those undergoing chemotherapy or kidney dialysis - to postpone their service, isn't that what we would all want?

Want to get email updates from the Motherwear Blog?  Subscribe here.  Want an RSS feed?  Click here.

Can you guess which state doesn't protect breastfeeding in public?

There have been four incidents in the news recently regarding nursing in public, one each in New York, Florida, Texas, and Massachusetts.  Three of the four states have statutes protecting nursing in public.  See if you can guess which one does not.

In Florida a mother was told to stop breastfeeding at her older child's school.  

Outcome: The school's principal "later looked into Florida law on breast-feeding, and found he was off-base... He has since told staff members that breast-feeding is allowed at school."

In New York, a mother visiting a museum stopped to nurse her baby - under three blankets.  She was told to move to a bathroom or leave.  Area mothers later held a group show of support for the mother.

Outcome:  The museum director stated "the museum has no such policy prohibiting breastfeeding anywhere."  He believes that the person involved was not a museum staff member, and stated “We know that our staff is well aware about rule, regulations, about rights to breast feed anywhere.”

In Texas (video is worth watching), a mother getting her haircut at a salon was told that she couldn't breastfeed her child.  There were no other customers in the salon at the time, and the mother was had tried to nurse under a shawl and the salon's smock.  She left with her hair half-cut.  

Outcome:  The salon chain issued this statement: "We welcome mothers and children.  We do not have a policy against breastfeeding. This employee acted incorrectly."

In Massachusetts, a mother eating with her family at a restaurant was told she couldn't breastfeed in an adjoining empty banquet hall.  She asked if she could have a private space to nurse, and was told no by the manager. 

Outcome:  Restaurant management stated that they never heard her mention breastfeeding.  A waitress stated that the mother was told she could nurse in the banquet hall, but not eat there.

 

Want to get email updates from the Motherwear Blog?  Subscribe here.  Want an RSS feed?  Click here.

Help needed on federal breastfeeding legislation.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney's Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2007, H.R. 2236 would protect breastfeeding and pumping women from discrimination in the workplace, create tax incentives for employers who establish lactation programs for employees, and create a tax deduction for breastfeeding equipment. 

H.R. 2236 currently has 23 co-sponsors, but needs 200 to move forward.  You can see a list of current co-sponsors here.

To urge your representative to co-sponor the bill, use this link from Moms Rising.  If you live in Massachusetts (where only two of our Reps are sponsors) you can also use this link from the Children's Hospital advocacy page.

Photo credit:  Cairo Mama, who attended last May's rally in support of the bill. Want to get email updates from the Motherwear Blog?  Subscribe here.  Want an RSS feed?  Click here.

Motherwear's letter to the Massachusetts legislature.

Here is a letter Motherwear recently sent, along with letters from our local breastfeeding task force, local Moms Rising/Motherwoman group, and 100 individuals, to the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health in support of Senate Bill 78.  This bill would provide legal protection for breastfeeding in public, and require employers to accommodate pumping mothers in the workplace.

The bill has passed out of the committee, given a new number, and will soon be headed to the House, where it died last year.  You can weigh  in on this bill, too, through the Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition's advocacy page.

Dear (Senator or Representative):

On behalf of Motherwear International, Inc., I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Senate Bill 78, "An Act Relative to the Public Health Benefits of Breast Feeding."

Motherwear has been supporting breastfeeding for over 24 years.  We publish the only catalog exclusively for nursing moms.  Motherwear's commitment to nursing doesn't stop at the clothing.  We want all women to feel empowered with the knowledge they're giving the best possible start to their babies.

At the root of our mission is our desire to support breastfeeding women and create a nurturing environment for them and their families.  We want to help women foster a long and satisfying breastfeeding relationship with their babies, educate others about the benefits of breastfeeding, and empower more mothers to nurse their babies longer.

We are dismayed that Massachusetts is one of only a handful of states that does not protect mother nursing their children in public.  We believe that a woman should not be forced to delay feeding her hungry child because of fear of how she will be treated.  Children should not be required to be fed while their mothers are perched over public toilets in cramped bathroom stalls.  Passage of legislation to protect the rights of mothers to breastfeed will send a powerful message that the State of Massachusetts recognizes the individual and societal benefits of nursing.

We also support this legislation because it requires that employers make reasonable accommodations for mothers who want to pump in the workplace. 

If a woman is to be able to successfully breastfeed her child, it is imperative that her rights to feed her child in the optimally beneficial way be protected.

Please vote YES on the passage of Senate Bill 78.

Sincerely,

Jeanne Taylor, CEO

Motherwear International, Inc.

Philippines Milk Code decision - defeat or victory?

Some of you may remember that the Philippines has recently been a battleground in the fight over aggressive marketing of formula in the developing world.

This year the Philippines Supreme Court reviewed the Philippines Milk Code, which was adopted in 2006 and immediately challenged by the formula companies.  UNICEF Philippines produced a video on this topic called "Formula for Disaster" this year, where you can view some of the ads (picture to the right was taken from the film).

UNICEF estimates that 16,000 children die each year from not breastfeeding in the Philippines, and aggressive marketing has led to a significant decline in breastfeeding rates in the last ten years. 

Last month the Supreme Court released its decision.  The press portrayed it as a defeat for breastfeeding advocates, but UNICEF Philippines was pleased with the outcome.  Alexis, who works for UNICEF Philippines and writes the blog Keep Abreast, has allowed me to repost her response to the Supreme Court decision. 

The long-awaited Supreme Court decision on the Philippine Milk Code was finally issued on Tuesday, 9 October. What followed was a stream of news reports claiming that the Supreme Court decision was a blow to breastfeeding advocates. "Supreme Court lifts ban on advertising of breastmilk substitutes," the headlines screamed.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. There never was such a ban, because as soon as the regulations were promulgated, the milk companies asked the Supreme Court to place it on temporary restraining order, which the Supreme Court GRANTED. The code had been suspended all this time, milk companies continued to market and advertise and peddle their products with impunity ... until last Tuesday.

In fact, the Supreme Court decision was in favor of the Department of Health. The Supreme Court lifted the temporary restraining order on the code - with a few exceptions - which means that the code is now in effect, with the exception of sections which call for the complete prohibition on advertising of formula. 

Here is, in part, what the Supreme Court upheld:

Advertising, promotion or other marketing materials for breastmilk substitutes need to be approved by the Inter-Agency Committee and should not contain, among others, terms like "close to mother's milk", pictures or texts that idealize infant and milk formula.  Any health and nutrition claims, false or misleading information or claims of products are prohibited.

Breastmilk substitutes have to follow labeling requirements, in both English and Filipino, which include a message on the health hazards of the unnecessary or improper use of infant formula and other related products.

Milk companies are prohibited from giving financial or material inducements or gifts of any sort to promote products to health workers and to any member of the general public.

Milk companies are prohibited from conducting or being involved in any activity on breastfeeding promotion, education and production of materials on breastfeeding, or to use women's classes as venues to market their brands or company names.

Milk companies are prohibited from forming part of any policymaking body involved in the advancement of breastfeeding.

These are but a few of the "gains" that breastfeeding advocates have obtained through the Supreme Court's ruling.  So you see, contrary to what the press has been reporting, we breastfeeding advocates have gained much more than we lost. All in all, the Supreme Court decision was a victory for breastfeeding in the Philippines.  Now we face the work of ensuring the implementation of the Milk Code.

Want to get email updates from the Motherwear Blog?  Subscribe here.  Want an RSS feed?  Click here.

What are your politics?

I often hear how closely divided we are politically here in the U.S., and sometimes it seems like there are no issues on which the left and right can agree.

But recently Jen at The Lactivist and I have been thinking about how breastfeeding, as an issue, seems to have appeal to women on both the left and the right. 

She and I are a good example of this, actually.  We're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but we seem to think alike when it comes to breastfeeding and some other parenting issues.

So, I thought I'd put up a poll asking you to identify yourself politically.  We considered asking for political party affiliation, but settled on the categories below.  If you have ideas on why breastfeeding crosses the political divide, or if you don't think it does, leave us a comment!

Note:  This poll may take a few seconds to load.  If it doesn't, please refresh the page.  You may also need to use Explorer to open the page to get it to work.

A surprise in the mail.

Raenyn from Illinois, shown to the left with her daughter Sasha, sent me an email when she got something unexpected in the mail - a card from the First Lady of Illinois, Patricia Blagojevich, which reads:

"Dear Illinois Mother:
    Congratulations on the new addition to your family. As a mother of two young daughters, I know how special this time can be, and want to take a moment to make sure you know about a new state law that directly affects you.
    The new law makes it illegal to prohibit women from breastfeeding in public places. It is every woman's right to breastfeed her child in any place, public or private.
    Please help spread the word to all mothers that prohibiting them from breastfeeding in public places is not only wrong, it is now illegal. Again, congratulations.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Blagojevich, First Lady"

Nice surprise, huh?  But I can't figure out how they know that they're writing to nursing moms.  Or maybe they're sending it everyone.  Your thoughts? 

Want to get email updates from the Motherwear Blog?  Subscribe here.  Want an RSS feed?  Click here.

"Formula for Disaster."

In the early 1990's I lived in the Philippines for a year. I loved it. It's a gorgeous, diverse country, and I made some wonderful friends.

It's also a battleground in the fight against aggressive marketing practices used by pharmeceutical companies to promote formula in developing countries. A new film by UNICEF Philippines called "Formula for Disaster" tackles this topic. The film is broken into five parts on YouTube, and I linked to the third part.

In most developing countries there is a strong culture of support for breastfeeding. But in the Philippines that tradition is falling apart. According to the WHO, the length of exclusive breastfeeding has declined from an average of 1.4 months in 1998 to just 24 days in 2003. Only 16% of babies are exclusively breastfed for 4-5 months.

Here in the U.S., where the question of "breast vs. bottle" is framed in terms of choice, we tend to forget that in the developing world, where water supplies are often contaminated, infant feeding is often a question of life or death. The WHO says that in the Philippines 16,000 child deaths per year are attributable to inappropriate feeding, including the used of infant formula.

The Philippines has a "milk code" which prohibits aggressive marketing practices, but violations are rampant. And recent efforts to strengthen the code were met with opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. You may recognize a few of the tactics because they're used here, too.

"Formula for Disaster" is part of a multi-pronged effort to "restore the breastfeeding culture" in the Philippines, which includes creating "breastfeeding friendly malls" and the recent record setting national nurse in.

Thanks to blog reader Alexis, who works at UNICEF Philippines and keeps a personal blog on breastfeeding in the Philippines, for alerting me to the new film!