When did being a mother become so second rate?
Since the dawn of time woman's primary physical function was to be a mother. To reproduce and then nurture her child.
Since the increased usage of formula milk in the 1950s women have been told they can 'have it all' and 'be it all' and the pressure has been mounting. Motherhood is no longer enough, expectations are changing.
No longer is it good enough for a woman to spend all day breastfeeding her child. She is expected to be back at work, in her size 8's effortlessly juggling both motherhood and the career. Families arrive at the house of the new edition laden with presents and a stiff upper lip, ready to fawn over the baby and ask, 'is he good', 'does he sleep through yet'? With accusatory glances and the thought mother is not 'coping' if she isn't looking like a stepford wife, with a smile plastered on her face and the house clean and sparkling. Gone are the days when the women folk would rally round and do the chores whilst a mother caught up on some sleep. Instead of home-made casseroles and stew with hand-me-down baby clothes and last generation's knitted cardigans, it's the latest fashions from expensive stores and the assurance in the air that the boring baby part will soon be done, the tedious feeding routine will soon be over and baby will hit that magical milestone. The point they eat solid food and sleep through the night.
People sympathise with new mothers rather than rejoice and embrace the wonder that is a newborn child. It seems that in our 24/7 society only a baby should listen to the constraints of a clock. 4 hourly feeds and 12 hours a night is an aim, an ambition, rather than a stage or a guide and it is these pressures that lead us to wean early.
Society is failing our babies.
If a baby doesn't fit the pattern we desire too often the 'answer' is assumed to be weaning. Age becomes irrelevant, but in a time when we ignore the physiological norm of human kind, we push to one side the natural way to nurture a child. We claim that as creatures of a developing world we no longer need to feed all day to establish a milk supply, we can exchange breast for bottle and afford little worry to the risks of this. Natural antibodies passed through breast milk to prevent illness are not deemed necessary, after all don't we have the medication to cure the illnesses now? A full 12 hours sleep is what we expect to aid us in our return to work after minimal maternity leave. Having a child is now a hurdle to jump, a stone to step on, in our journey through life, promotion to promotion, rather than an achievement in its own right.
Yet we claim 'instinct' tells us our babies 'need' solid food, 'instinct' tells us there is something wrong with a baby who doesn't fit into our preferred routine. Surely 'instinct' is the drive we feel to comfort our baby when they cry? To nurse them when hungry and to protect them from danger. It is 'instinct' that tells a new born baby to nuzzle at a mothers breast, 'instinct' that makes a baby wake and cry for food when hungry, and 'instinct' that stops a baby from chewing and swallowing anything in their mouth until they are close to 6 months old, it is not 'instinct' but society that rushes our baby in to 3 meals a day, 12 hours a night because it is preferable for us.
Early weaning is a relatively new concept. For thousands of years mankind has waited to wean. Before formula milk, food processors and full time employment there was no rush to reach the next stage.
After all once breastfeeding was established and in a time where bed sharing was the norm it was easier not to wean. Rather than spending hours boiling, mashing and spoon feeding fruits and vegetables, the mother would simply nurse the baby until it was able to join the rest of the family and feed himself. It was also more financially sound to feed a baby a mother’s milk that was not only nutritionally rich, but free, in a time where good food and good health were sparse.
So why is it that woman now feel they have to be both mothers and career women? Does it stem from a time when women had to hold the fort whilst men fought for our country? Or is it just coincidence that over 70 years after formula milk was first invented it became so widely used at the same time that women in the workplace were becoming more socially accepted?
Would formula milk have taken off the way it did if women didn't feel they had to work like a man and parent like a mother? Would we wean so early if the people we turn to, parents, grandparents, friends and health professionals were not of a generation in which motherhood is not enough and a women with a promising career ahead of her is expected to make a choice between baby and promotion.
We say we can 'have it all' and 'be it all' but in reality this is not true. Mothers are made to feel that this role is secondary. A women who wishes to be taken as seriously as a man is expected to hand over childcare to another and to wean her child off the breast and train them to sleep as early as possible in order to enable her to put her all in to her job. Those who are stay at home mums are made to feel inferior and their fulfilment and intelligence questioned for wanting to give their time to their baby.
Society is failing our mothers.
In a world where we claim to have equality, who are we kidding?
Sunday 5 October 2008
Friday 3 October 2008
Bounty - freebies but at what price?
The Bounty packs handed out to pregnant women and new mothers in hospital seem innocuous enough to most, containing money off vouchers and free samples, pregnancy diaries, baby care guides and leaflets for all sorts of products. Bounty are a well known and well respected name to many new parents, running a website with advice, competitions, and forums.But these packs, and the company itself, are under scrutiny for their targeted advertising, and undermining of breastfeeding and safe weaning.
Hospitals in Tayside and Cornwall have stopped allowing Bounty packs to be handed out in hospitals, and in other areas the contents are being watched carefully. The Baby Friendly Initiative has refused to endorse Bounty's leaflets on breastfeeding, and their tactics have been criticised by the Baby feeding law group and Baby Milk Action.
Because, of course, you don't get something for nothing. The price you pay when you sign up for the freebies they offer is that you have signed up for targeted direct advertising from companies, including those who sell baby formula and foods.
Advertising of these products is known to have an effect on the feeding choices made by parents - that's why infant formula advertising is illegal almost globally. But Bounty and the companies they promote are clever. They exploit grey areas and loopholes, in the full knowledge that this could damage the breastfeeding relationship and encourage early weaning.
Bounty packs cannot by law carry advertising for, or samples of, infant formula. But in a recent survey by the Food Commission, 80% of new mothers reported receiving free samples of follow on milk once their babies were six months old, along with information that made them "feel guilty for not giving [their] six month old 'progress milk'" It is the belief of many that 'follow on milk' is an unnecessary product, invented for the sole purpose of having a product that can be advertised, thus putting the brand name into the minds of parents. Such advertising is deeply undermining of natural term breastfeeding and carries implications that follow on milk is in some way superior to breastmilk.
Bounty also boast of the success of their targeted advertising on their website, saying 83% of mothers say receiving a free sample will make them more likely to purchase a product.
With this in mind, Bounty send samples of baby food labelled 'suitable from four months' (in direct contravention of the WHO et al guidelines directly to parents, as their baby reaches 3-4 months, so appearing to encourage the introduction of solids 3 months early.
Hipp Organic used Bounty to "drive traffic to the HiPP website in order to increase awareness and understanding of the full product range, including the HiPP Organic milks range." Whilst not necessarily illegal, this kind of marketing is clearly very close to the line.
A common refrain from parents is, "If its so bad to wean early, why are the foods labelled as suitable from four months?"
The answer lies in profits, which many people will find deeply disturbing. Bounty should use its unique position and access to new parents in hospitals to help implement the guidelines, rather than consistently undermine them.
Hospitals in Tayside and Cornwall have stopped allowing Bounty packs to be handed out in hospitals, and in other areas the contents are being watched carefully. The Baby Friendly Initiative has refused to endorse Bounty's leaflets on breastfeeding, and their tactics have been criticised by the Baby feeding law group and Baby Milk Action.
Because, of course, you don't get something for nothing. The price you pay when you sign up for the freebies they offer is that you have signed up for targeted direct advertising from companies, including those who sell baby formula and foods.
Advertising of these products is known to have an effect on the feeding choices made by parents - that's why infant formula advertising is illegal almost globally. But Bounty and the companies they promote are clever. They exploit grey areas and loopholes, in the full knowledge that this could damage the breastfeeding relationship and encourage early weaning.
Bounty packs cannot by law carry advertising for, or samples of, infant formula. But in a recent survey by the Food Commission, 80% of new mothers reported receiving free samples of follow on milk once their babies were six months old, along with information that made them "feel guilty for not giving [their] six month old 'progress milk'" It is the belief of many that 'follow on milk' is an unnecessary product, invented for the sole purpose of having a product that can be advertised, thus putting the brand name into the minds of parents. Such advertising is deeply undermining of natural term breastfeeding and carries implications that follow on milk is in some way superior to breastmilk.
Bounty also boast of the success of their targeted advertising on their website, saying 83% of mothers say receiving a free sample will make them more likely to purchase a product.
With this in mind, Bounty send samples of baby food labelled 'suitable from four months' (in direct contravention of the WHO et al guidelines directly to parents, as their baby reaches 3-4 months, so appearing to encourage the introduction of solids 3 months early.
Hipp Organic used Bounty to "drive traffic to the HiPP website in order to increase awareness and understanding of the full product range, including the HiPP Organic milks range." Whilst not necessarily illegal, this kind of marketing is clearly very close to the line.
A common refrain from parents is, "If its so bad to wean early, why are the foods labelled as suitable from four months?"
The answer lies in profits, which many people will find deeply disturbing. Bounty should use its unique position and access to new parents in hospitals to help implement the guidelines, rather than consistently undermine them.
Guidelines - When and by who they were introduced.
I have heard time and again that the guidelines change 'all the time' or were 'different 1/2/3/4/5 years ago when I had my first baby'. This is simply not true.
Weaning guidelines changed from 4-6 months to 'around 6 months' in 2003.
Previous to this The COMA report ‘Weaning and the Weaning Diet’ (1994) recommended that:
“Breastfeeding is the best form of nutrition for infants. Mothers should be encouraged
and supported in breastfeeding for at least four months and may choose to continue to
breastfeed as the weaning diet becomes increasingly varied. The majority of infants
should not be given solid foods before the age of four months, and a mixed diet should
be offered by the age of six months" Which was the basis of the 4-6 months guidelines.
Concluding that weaning too early or too late
can result in behavioural and health problems and in family stress, COMA stated that:
‘Weaning should not start before neuromuscular coordination has developed sufficiently
to allow the infant to eat solids, nor before the gut and kidney have matured to cope with
a more diverse diet.’ Introduction of solid foods
The World Health Organisation revised its guidance in 2001, to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of an infants’ life. At the World Health Assembly, the UK represented by the Chief Medical Officer supported this resolution.
In 2001, the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) stated that there was
sufficient evidence that exclusive breastfeeding for six months is nutritionally adequate.
Following WHO’s revised guidance, Hazel Blears (then Minister for Public Health) announced the Department of Health’s recommendation on breastfeeding in May 2003.
(as reproduced from department of health infant feeding recommendation may 1st 2003) This is also supported by The Royal College
of Midwives and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors’ Association so any Health Visitors agreeing with or suggesting weaning earlier than 26 weeks is in fact, going against their authority.
Weaning guidelines changed from 4-6 months to 'around 6 months' in 2003.
Previous to this The COMA report ‘Weaning and the Weaning Diet’ (1994) recommended that:
“Breastfeeding is the best form of nutrition for infants. Mothers should be encouraged
and supported in breastfeeding for at least four months and may choose to continue to
breastfeed as the weaning diet becomes increasingly varied. The majority of infants
should not be given solid foods before the age of four months, and a mixed diet should
be offered by the age of six months" Which was the basis of the 4-6 months guidelines.
Concluding that weaning too early or too late
can result in behavioural and health problems and in family stress, COMA stated that:
‘Weaning should not start before neuromuscular coordination has developed sufficiently
to allow the infant to eat solids, nor before the gut and kidney have matured to cope with
a more diverse diet.’ Introduction of solid foods
The World Health Organisation revised its guidance in 2001, to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of an infants’ life. At the World Health Assembly, the UK represented by the Chief Medical Officer supported this resolution.
In 2001, the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) stated that there was
sufficient evidence that exclusive breastfeeding for six months is nutritionally adequate.
Following WHO’s revised guidance, Hazel Blears (then Minister for Public Health) announced the Department of Health’s recommendation on breastfeeding in May 2003.
(as reproduced from department of health infant feeding recommendation may 1st 2003) This is also supported by The Royal College
of Midwives and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors’ Association so any Health Visitors agreeing with or suggesting weaning earlier than 26 weeks is in fact, going against their authority.
Introduction
Welcome and thanks for reading.
I'm starting this blog because of the early weaning culture we seem to have in our midst.
I post on a parenting forum regularly where a few times there have been people discussing early weaning. On this forum more informed people have given links and facts as to why this isn't advised and on the whole the posters have rethought the issue and decided to wait.
I had thought, based on these experiences, that that was the norm, and the act of weaning earlier than necessary was over-exaggerated.
Until I came across the BOUNTY forums.
In the last three days, myself and others had noticed an influx of early weaning posts. Even an 'early weaning club' which advocates and even encourages mothers to wean their babies when they feel they are ready. Often with the reasoning that they ' know their babies best'.
A number of times I have posted the reasoning, facts and links to respected sources behind the guideline age of 26 weeks for weaning your child.
My posts have been removed.
I have even been banned from the site three times.
I have contacted BOUNTY about this matter, as have others, and not one of us has had our emails acknowledged.
Yet the 'early weaners club' is allowed to continue.
I have been told time and again on these threads that I'm 'interfering' or that it's their baby therefore none of my business.
I wish this were true.
Yes, it is their baby they are feeding early, but as with all information posted on an internet site it is freely available to anyone who wishes to read it.
This includes new mothers who do not know about the risk of early weaning. This, in my honest opinion, is irresponsible, at the least.
It is because of these ladies that have not yet made a decision regarding when they will be weaning their babies, or are unsure of the reasoning behind the guidelines that I will continue to post on Bounty (no matter how many times they ban me), and have started this blog.
I am not a Health Professional, and do not expect my word to be taken as gospel, so I shall, wherever possible, link to articles/papers by respected Health Organisations that back up what I am saying.
I'm starting this blog because of the early weaning culture we seem to have in our midst.
I post on a parenting forum regularly where a few times there have been people discussing early weaning. On this forum more informed people have given links and facts as to why this isn't advised and on the whole the posters have rethought the issue and decided to wait.
I had thought, based on these experiences, that that was the norm, and the act of weaning earlier than necessary was over-exaggerated.
Until I came across the BOUNTY forums.
In the last three days, myself and others had noticed an influx of early weaning posts. Even an 'early weaning club' which advocates and even encourages mothers to wean their babies when they feel they are ready. Often with the reasoning that they ' know their babies best'.
A number of times I have posted the reasoning, facts and links to respected sources behind the guideline age of 26 weeks for weaning your child.
My posts have been removed.
I have even been banned from the site three times.
I have contacted BOUNTY about this matter, as have others, and not one of us has had our emails acknowledged.
Yet the 'early weaners club' is allowed to continue.
I have been told time and again on these threads that I'm 'interfering' or that it's their baby therefore none of my business.
I wish this were true.
Yes, it is their baby they are feeding early, but as with all information posted on an internet site it is freely available to anyone who wishes to read it.
This includes new mothers who do not know about the risk of early weaning. This, in my honest opinion, is irresponsible, at the least.
It is because of these ladies that have not yet made a decision regarding when they will be weaning their babies, or are unsure of the reasoning behind the guidelines that I will continue to post on Bounty (no matter how many times they ban me), and have started this blog.
I am not a Health Professional, and do not expect my word to be taken as gospel, so I shall, wherever possible, link to articles/papers by respected Health Organisations that back up what I am saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)