Activism Alerts - January 2004

• The Parents' Bill of Rights [1]
• AAP Vitamin D Recommendation Undermines Breastfeeding [2]
• Tell Pediatric Dentists to Say No to Coke Money! [3]
• Experimenting On Kids Lunches? [4]

The Parent's Bill of Rights

Now is the time for Congress to pass the Parents' Bill of Rights. Our nation's largest corporations resort to extreme measures to influence our children. They invade places previously were off-limits, like schools, to target children with ads. The ads cause children to nag and whine for products, sowing strife and stress in our homes. The ads help create an epidemic of marketing-related diseases in our children, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and eating disorders.

Fill out the Parent's Bill Of Rights form letter at www.commercialalert.org [5] and tell Congress to stop corporations from pitting children against their own parents and jeopardizing childrens' health, safety and education.

AAP Vitamin D Recommendation Undermines Breastfeeding

On April 7, 2003 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a clinical report recommending that all exclusively breastfed infants be supplemented with 200 International Units (IU) of vitamin D every day. According to the report, Prevention of Rickets and Vitamin D Deficiency: New Guidelines for Vitamin D Intake, "It is recommended that all infants, including those who are exclusively breastfed, have a minimum intake of 200 IU of vitamin D per day beginning during the first 2 months of life."

In fact, the AAP recommends 200 IU of vitamin D for everyone who drinks less than 17 ounces of formula or vitamin D-fortified milk each day: "Any child who is not consuming at least a pint of vitamin D-fortified milk should receive vitamin D. It is now recommended that even adults consume vitamin D in milk or vitamin pills."

The AAP recommends vitamin D supplementation because of what they call "continued reports of infants who have been diagnosed with rickets," and yet it fails to quantify these cases. In fact, there are so few cases of rickets in the US that there is no national database on its prevalence. While the AAP believes that cases are on the increase, many experts doubt that vitamin D supplementaion is the answer to sunlight deficiency. The AAP may be reluctant to recommend sun exposure because of its previous recommendation that all children wear sunscreen-which prevents the skin from making vitamin D-but other health authorities are not.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), "Some UV radiation is essential to the body as it stimulates the production of Vitamin D". There is no doubt that a little sunlight is good for you! But, 5 to 15 minutes of casual sun exposure of hands, face and arms two to three times a week during the summer months is sufficient to keep your Vitamin D levels high. Closer to the equator, where UV levels are higher, even shorter periods of exposure suffice."

What about dark-skinned infants? According to neonatologist, Michael Young, MD, " 'Dark-skinned' is a relative term given to far too many variations. Also, climate conditions, such as in cities with a lot of air pollution, can make sunlight a challenge for persons who are not as deeply pigmented."

Katherine Dettwyler, PhD, professor of anthropology and nutrition at Texas A&M University says that, "Most babies with light/medium skin tones need only a little outdoor time, while darker-skinned babies need more outdoor time." Let's get the kids outside more instead of giving them vitamin D."

While no known risks exist with the AAP recommended level of vitamin D supplementation, no research has examined the physiological effects of infant supplementation on exclusively breastfed babies or the societal impact of a universal recommendation that calls into question the integrity of breastmilk.

The AAP's report does not contain enough information for breastfeeding mothers to make informed decisions about whether or not vitamin D supplementation is appropriate for their infants. Furthermore, media reports of the AAP's recommendation are already conveying the inaccurate messages that human milk is "deficient" when sunlight deficiency is the real problem.

In fact, in the AAP news release, Nancy Krebs, M.D., FAAP, chair of the AAP Committee on Nutrition undermines breastfeeding, "The good news is that more babies are being breastfed, and we need to be reminded what extra considerations need to go with breastfeeding to best support the health of breastfed infants."

This statement seriously undermines the public perception of the integrity of exclusive breastfeeding and the vitamin D recommendation contradicts previous AAP statements on breastfeeding as well. In the December 1997 AAP statement, "Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk," the AAP stated, "In the first 6 months, water, juice, and other foods are generally unnecessary for breastfed infants. Vitamin D "may need to be given before 6 months of age in selected groups of infants (for infants whose mothers are vitamin D-deficient or those infants not exposed to adequate sunlight)."

And unfortunately, there is no good news about breastfeeding. Exclusive breastfeeding initiation rates are down. When the 1997 AAP statement on breastfeeding was issued, one of its authors, Ruth Lawrence, MD, stated, "Increasing both the rates of breastfeeding initiation and duration is a national health objective. We now have about 60 percent of mothers breastfeeding their newborns. We'd like to see that number rise to 75 percent. Currently only 21 percent of 5-month-olds are getting any breastmilk at all."

The Executive Summary of Selling Out Mothers and Babies: Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes in the USA published in 2001 by the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy tells another story. Only 47% of mothers initiate exclusive breastfeeding in the US and less than 12% are still breastfeeding at six months. Tragically, the breastfeeding rates of African-American mothers, those sure to be most affected by this recommendation, are already 20% lower than whites and Hispanics. All of these rates are dangerously lower than the Healthy People 2010 national health goals of 75% initiation, 50% continuation at six months, and 25% at one year. In their 1997 breastfeeding statement, the AAP recommended that all babies be breastfed for at least one year. The World Health Organization recommends two years.

The importance of exclusive breastfeeding cannot be overemphasized. It may be the key to the breastfed baby's high natural immunity. When anything - formula, baby food or vitamins - is introduced into the gut of an exclusively breastfed infant, her physiology is changed. Research has shown that there is a distinct immunological difference between the gut of a baby who is exclusively breastfed and the gut of a baby who is breastfed with formula supplementation. Supplementing with vitamin D risks compromising the breastfed baby's immunity and the nutrient can easily be obtained from a harmless amount of sunlight, its best source.

What to Do?

1.Become Informed
For help making an informed decision about vitamin D supplementation for breastfed infants, read "Sunlight Deficiency: A Review of the Literature" [6]by Cynthia Good Mojab, MS, IBCLC, RLC.

For a better understanding of the controversy surrounding the AAP's recommendation, read "The Politics of Vitamin D: Questioning Universal Supplementation" [7] by Katherine Barber and Mishawn Purnell-O'Neal.

To evaluate the AAP's clinical report and press release, read "Prevention of Rickets and Vitamin D Deficiency: New Guidelines for Vitamin D Intake" [8] and "AAP Report: Infants Need Vitamin D Supplementation" [9]

2. Speak Up
Let the AAP know what you think of its recommendation. Report media coverage in your community that undermines breastfeeding. Write a letter, make a phone call, send a fax, or send an email to the AAP:

The American Academy of Pediatrics
141 Northwest Point Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007-1098
USA
847-434-4000
847-434-8000 (Fax)
AAP Workgroup on Breastfeeding: breastfeed@aap.org [10]

Write a letter to the editor of your local paper and to national newspapers:

The New York Times
letters@nytimes.com [11]

The Wall Street Journal
wsj.ltrs@wsj.com [12]

The Washington Post
letters@washpost.com [13]

3. Share information with others.
Hold an information night in your community to inform mothers about the integrity of breastmilk. Help them to understand the politics of breastfeeding. The AAP is a trade organization that accepts donations from formula companies and while there are many member pediatricians who appreciate and vigorously support exclusive breastfeeding, there are others who do not understand its fragility. The AAP was severely criticized last year for selling the rights to distribute their breastfeeding book to a formula company. (See Mothering Nov/Dec 2002, page 23) Additionally, at least one formula company is expected to manufacture vitamin D supplements for infants and advertisements for vitamin D drops imply that breastmilk is lacking.

4. Tell or email a friend about this campaign.
Let others know about this so they too can write and organize.

Tell Pediatric Dentists to Say No to Coke Money!

The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) has entered a partnership for $1-million with the world's largest soft-drink company, Coca-Cola. According to a press release by AAPD, the grant from Coca-Cola will "support important clinical, basic and behavioral research" and "create public and professional educational programs, based on science, that promote improved dental health for children."

Regardless of what the money is used for, the AAPD is a captive of Coca-Cola, making it extremely unlikely that the AAPD will take positions antagonistic to the company, like opposing soft-drink machines in schools or supporting labeling of the added-sugar content of foods.

Children today are drinking many more soft drinks than are good for their diets and health. A recent study found that for each additional serving of soda or juice drink a child consumes per day, the child's chance of becoming overweight increases by 60%. And, while a number of different factors cause tooth decay, the American Dental Association -- the largest dental organization -- concludes that sugared soda increases the risk of tooth decay and the low pH of soda can cause tooth erosion.

It's hard to imagine a professional association of dentists choosing a more inappropriate partner to fund educational programs. The AAPD would have to be incredibly naive to believe that Coke's gift is inspired by a newfound desire to promote dental health. Coke's idea of education is spending billions 'educating' kids to consume caffeine- and sugar-laden soda. The AAPD has been willingly co-opted and for relatively little money in the scheme of things.

CLICK HERE [14] to send a letter to the AAPD leadership urging them to end this partnership and say no to Coke money!

Experimenting On Kids Lunches?

Do your kids eat a hot lunch at school?

Would you mind if that food was irradiated?

Because of yet another sneaky rider (an amendment to a bill; this one slipped into the 2002 Farm Bill) the USDA was mandated to reconsider their ban on irradiated food subsidy programs. USDA chose to have a comment period of only 30 days, during the holidays in November and December when people were busy with holiday affairs.

Two public interest groups cried foul. Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety objected to the brevity and timing of the comment period, as well as the idea of irradiating lunches. As the two groups pointed out, studies have shown that irradiation depletes vitamins and minerals, and creates harmful chemical byproducts, some of which have been show to promote tumor formation in rats and to cause genetic and cellular damage in human and rat cells (see article below). The only controlled study on children was held in 1975 with irradiated wheat, and it found mutagenic effects. No studies on children have been done since, mostly for ethical reasons. Instead, it seems the new plan is to allow a massive uncontrolled experiment on schoolchildren with irradiated lunches.

Even if questionable labeling requirements on retail food packaging are struck down, there will be no labeling of school lunches, and therefore parents and schools will not know if their children are receiving irradiated lunches.

Under pressure, the USDA decided to extend the comment period indefinitely. For information on how you can fax your comments, or to get a school action kit, go to www.organicconsumers.org/sos.htm [15]

You can also visit www.citizen.org/fax/background.cfm?ID=89&source=8 [16] for more information about irradiation and Public Citizen's response to the USDA.

Also check out the Organic Consumers Association extensive library of articles on Food Irradiation: www.organicconsumers.org/irradlink.html [17]

Taken from:
ORGANIC BYTES, a publication of:
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
6101 Cliff Estate Road
Little Marais, MN 55614
Phone: (218) 226-4164, Fax: (218) 226-4157