ChowBaby

I should start by telling you that I woke up feeling annoyed this morning. And, no, it has nothing to do with the time of the month. Ah, shit! Saying that makes it seem like it must have something to do with that time of the month, but I promise it doesn't.

See, last night I read about a new book written by a pediatrician and the chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia that presents a case against the link between vaccines and autism. Notice I'm not linking. I don't want to step into that fray today. Especially since it wasn't anything about either side of the vaccine debate that got me worked up. Instead, it was a (probably throwaway) quote by actress Amanda Peet who has become a spokeswomen for a vaccine advocacy group. Here's what she said:

“Where I live in L.A., there’s this child-rearing trend—only feed your kids organic food, detoxify your house. And there’s a lot of anticorporate fervor, anti-pharmaceutical company fervor.” She went on, "I'd have lunch with my friends who were moms, and they'd say they wouldn't vaccinate, or would space out their vaccinations and hadn't I heard?" 

Wait! How did organic food come into this? (And, side question: is detoxifying your house a bad thing?)

I think I know the answer to my own question. Organic has become trendy. Something no longer associated with an authentic movement, but with mega corporations that market over processed foods and questionable nutritional claims trying to get in on a new consumer interest. Organic products are often exorbitantly expensive (and, ironically, bringing the price down often means hoping that the big, bad companies who can produce and distribute on a scale that makes the whole enterprise more affordable get in the game). There is uncertainty over what organic even means and if the label can be trusted. This is related, at least in part, to the issue of industrial organic (which is also related to the fact that over sweet, over processed foods can be made with organic ingredients--i.e., organic doesn't necessarily mean healthy), and the fact that organic products can only be truly organic under particular conditions that are supposedly overseen by the USDA. You know, the same agency that also oversees industrialized meat production and processing. And that's worked so out well, right? And all this isn't just news of the past. Our soon-to-be secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack, who will oversee the USDA, has a history of supporting biotechnology and genetically modified foods. What are we to make of all this? Especially in a time when related government agencies have failed parents with their positions on bisphenol-A and melamine in our baby formula? Oh, there's more, but I'll spare you. Needless to say, I get it. I understand why you're skeptical. I am, too.

That's why, along with my wicked sense of humor (oh yea), I'm the first one to make fun of the whole obsessive mommy questioning, "Is it organic?" about every "O" shaped cereal and puffed fruit snack you try to hand a kid these days. Even though I'm one of those moms. And why, depending on my mood, I laugh or cringe every time I write a recipe for this blog and specify "organic" next to every single item in the ingredient list. But, let's take a moment and breathe. Or at least give me a moment to catch my breath. 

Organic means grown without the chemical pesticides, chemical fertilizers, sludge sewage, bioengineering, antibiotics, or ionizing radiation. I know that this requires diligent oversight that has been brought into question, but go with me for a minute. Seems pretty straight forward that we would want our government to ensure that our food is grown in as natural a ways as possible. If we can support natural growing techniques without jeopardizing health or food supply, we'd want to. Right? It would not only result in less toxic food, but also cleaner soil and water supplies. I'm guessing we're all, more or less, on the same page here.

Now, are organic products in the US actually less toxic and reliably grown on farms that have cleaner soil and help keep water supplies clean? Not an easy question to answer. I'd guess that, realistically, we can say "some". But some is better than none. And some can lead to many. Many leads to most. Support for organic farming and products both in the form of consumer purchase and activism can help push us towards stricter policy and oversight and greater organic supply. In the meantime, I get that most of us can't be cavalier about spending extra money on organic just to help push us towards a tipping point. (Though, for the record, I don't believe that's all your doing when you buy organic. I believe there is compelling evidence that an organic diet reduces the amount of toxins that you and your children take in.) If that's the case, you might want to consider buying organic just for your little ones (since they eat more fruits and veggies relative to their body weight and developing bodies cannot break toxins down as effectively as ours) or focusing on the dirty dozen (also listed here along with the 12 least contaminated foods, and on Greenopolis with some useful notes on why certain produce is safe to buy non-organic). If you can afford organic and are interested in considering pro-organic research data, here are some points that I find compelling:

• The Environmental Protection Agency reports that children receive 50% of their lifetime cancer risks in the first two years of life.
• According to the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences, standard chemicals are up to 10 times more toxic for children than for adults. The fact is that children take in more toxic chemicals relative to their body weight than adults and their developing organ systems are less capable of detoxifying chemicals.
• According to the Food and Drug Administration, half of the produce currently tested in grocery stores contains measurable residues of pesticides.
• According to the Department of Health and Human Services, organophosphate pesticides (OPs) are now found in the blood of 95% of people tested. OP levels are twice as high in blood samples taken from children than in adults. Exposure to OPs has been linked to hyperactivity, behavior disorders, learning disabilities, developmental delays, and motor dysfunction.
• The Food and Drug Administration conducted laboratory tests of eight top-selling baby foods which revealed the presence of 16 pesticides, including three carcinogens.
• In blood samples of children aged 2 to 4 years, concentrations of pesticide residues are 6 times higher for those eating conventionally farmed fruits and vegetables when compared with those eating organic food.
• The Centers for Disease Control reports that one of the main sources of pesticide exposure for children comes from the food they eat.

(Source: Organic Consumers Association, US Government Fact Sheet)

Dr. Green, renowned "green" pediatrician, adds, "In 1993, a congressionally mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences expressed concern that existing methods of risk evaluation for pesticide exposure were failing children. More recently, the Consumers Union and Environmental Working Group have released studies confirming that children are overexposed even if their exposure is within legal limits. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandated a review of agricultural chemicals in light of this new information about risk assessment. Included in this act is a requirement to impose a 10-fold margin of safety to protect children when setting standards for the use of pesticides on food. While safety standards have become more strict, buying organic products, if they are available and you can afford them, and supporting organic agriculture may be your best protection."

Phew. Lots of info. I know. One last thing, though. The American Academy of Pediatrics. Despite what I believe are dubious positions on various child health and safety issues, I feel it would be irresponsible to not report the AAP's position that there is no evidence that "organic, natural, or health foods are any more nutritious or taste better than regular foods." You know, the same way a little bit of melamine in your baby's formula won't kill them. OH snap! (And, as a side note, a prerequisite for joining the AAP is dead taste buds.) But, seriously. While I couldn't find the full text of any of their source research without paying (which I didn't do), I've considered their position and thought that you might want to, as well.

There you have it. Why I buy into organic. But convincing you isn't my point. You being indifferent to, pro-, or anti-organic isn't what makes me mad. It's that damn Amanda Peet and her quote, which I feel was irresponsible.

First off, it's judgmental. And, sadly, baby and kids food tends to be a lightning rod for judgement. Breast milk or formula? Organic or not? All natural or processed? Homemade or store bought? And don't get me wrong--I've been a perpetrator as much as (okay, more than) I've been a victim. And I say that even as someone who was emotionally and physically pulverized by breast milk supply issues that forced formula on Isaac starting at 3-months-old. I guess that in a time like ours, when an obsession with self-awareness has intersected with a massive parenting industry that churns out books and products and advice, feeding is one of the last primal ways we have left to nurture our children. But I wish we could find more compassion for each other. And respect for natural food as a fundamental element of our existence and history.

I also find the comment to be dismissive of sound research on both sides of the issue (certainly the pro-organic side, but she also diminishes the anti-organic stance by chalking the whole thing up to some "in-the-know" privileged mommy trend). Lastly, I find it dangerous that she flippantly brings together the organic and vaccine debates. While there is some interaction--some parents promote organic, gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic children--there is no direct relationship between organic and vaccines (i.e., not all parents of autistic children who believe organic matters necessarily believe that vaccines caused their child's autism, and vice versa). These are not just fads that can be clumped together as part of some cockamamie natural movement. They are globally debated health and environmental issues that have sound research--and smart, informed, outspoken parents--on both sides of the debate. And we're all just doing our best to figure it all so we can make the best decisions we know how for our families.

Poor Amanda Peet. She probably doesn't even remember saying the quote. And I can imagine how she meant it differently than I took it. (See? Compassion. And I'm not being sarcastic!) But she is a public person and has chosen to be a spokeswoman. With great power comes great responsibility. I hope she'll be more careful about how she speaks about her issue at hand. And, if she did mean her comment the way I took it, I hope she'll consider (re-consider?) the research on organic as carefully as she did the research on vaccines. If she ends up feeling the same way and wants to talk about it publicly, maybe she'd be willing to speak more specifically so that moms, like me, who are interested in the issue can reflect on a new, educated, parent-centric point-of-view. Because those are always helpful, even when we disagree. 

-S

related posts:
obama's food policy & choice of tom vilsak for agriculture secretary
dr. alan greene goes organic--is all organic really better
US (non) regulation of baby products
top foods to buy organic
Tree Hugger's "Green Basics" overview on organic food (including criticisms of organic)

it's about time. though still not enough and not fast enough. but something is better than nothing, for sure. here's the article from today's New York Times.

-S

happy belated thanksgiving, y'all! we're back in the office and out of our tryptophan haze. as i settled in with my double latte this morning (i was up way too late for a woman with a toddler!) and caught up on headlines, i came across a sad story about how diluted formula nearly killed a baby in florida.

the gist of the story is that a mom was thinning her baby's formula to make it last longer because she can't afford enough. additionally, she was feeding the baby water in between feedings to help keep him sated. apparently, what this is common. in fact, i found this definition of water intoxication (ie, water poisoning) from the 2002 McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine which specifically states, "it is common in infants living in poverty, whose parents 'stretch' powdered formula by adding water."

the mom in this florida case had no idea how much harm her money-saving ways could cause her baby. and without that knowledge, i can imagine any parent who can't afford enough food for their child feeling scared and pressured to think of ways to make their baby's sustenance last. i commend her for going public with this story. it must have been hard to do. but it highlights important, but less frequently talked about infant feeding information that, sadly, may be more relevant to more people as we weather hard economic times.

with that, here's a quick rundown of some facts on introducing water to your baby:

• common wisdom is that babies younger than 1-year-old, especially breast fed babies (breast milk is 80-90% water), do not need water
• but it is often said that you can begin introducing small amounts of water, especially to formula fed babies, at 6-months-old (consult with your pediatrician to determine when and how much water to give your baby)
• never give water to an infant younger than 6-months-old (unless otherwise instructed by your pediatrician)
• any age- and health-appropriate water intake should not serve as a substitute for breast milk and/or formula, which should always be made according to the manufacturer's instructions
• in fact, it's often suggested that sips be offered after meal time so that water doesn't interfere with baby's appetite for breast milk and/or formula
• too much water, which includes any water given to children younger than 6-months-old (unless otherwise indicated by your pediatrician), can cause serious health problems (immature kidneys expel sodium along with excess water, so giving infants too much water causes a sodium imbalance that can disrupt brain activity and cause, among other things, seizures)

if you are looking for ways to give this holiday season (and beyond!) you might consider donating formula to a local food bank (Feeding America--formerly America's Second Harvest--offers this food bank locator) or your local WIC (Women, Infant, Children) agency (WIC is state-run so the best way for you to locate a nearby agency is to google "WIC + [your state]"). formula is exceedingly expensive but vitally important to any infant whose mother is not exclusively breast feeding. any help struggling moms can get is help that can ensure the health and safety of their babies.

i know... heavy post following a holiday weekend, but i brought it around to giving and the holiday spirit, right?! now let's carry that on beyond december because we're all in this together...

-S

a friend who's toddler kept getting croup recently mentioned that she believes her son has been in much better health (and croup-free) since she switched him to goat's milk. fascinated (after all, i am greek), i began doing research.

apparently, goat's milk is the milk of choice in most of the world (not just greece!). and many adults who have cow's milk allergies can tolerate goat's milk, though it's not exactly clear why (nor is it as clear when it comes to very young children).

there seem to be two issues at hand: allergy & intolerance and nutrition. oh, there's also a matter of over-industrialized dairy in this country, but i'll leave that to you (or another post one day soon).

allergies and intolerance
while goat's milk tends to be more easily digested, it's composition (not nutritional profile--i'll get to that in a second) is pretty similar to cow's milk. one way that goat's milk is different, though, is that its fat globules don't cluster the way that they do in cow's milk. many, including dr. sears believe this is an explanation for why some people who have a hard time digesting cow's milk can more easily digest goat's milk.

some intolerance issues may be related to allergies. initial studies suggested that some of the proteins in cow's milk that cause allergic reactions are relatively absent in goat's milk. more recent studies have debunked that, concluding that... you guessed it... more research is needed to understand the role that proteins might play in milk tolerance. in fact, this article which i landed on from the Kelly Mom entry on goat's milk suggests that many researchers believe that infant's who are sensitive to cow's milk can also have serious allergic reactions to goat's milk.

nutrition
one of the first things i looked for when i started researching was a straight nutritional comparison of goat's and cow's milk. it may not seem at first glance like there is much difference, but there is. and it's meaningful. goat's milk has greater levels of vitamin A, riboflavin, calcium, potassium and niacin. awesome. it also has less iron, zinc, B6, and B12. (and, remember, folate is water soluble vitamin B.) not awesome, for infants especially.

it's important to consider these nutritional differences in the context of your or your child's specific health needs and overall diet before deciding which milk is the better option. you can also get a detailed profile of goat's milk at one of my favorite food research resources, World's Healthiest Foods.

the bottom line
everything i read suggests that children under 1 should never be given goat's milk (or cow's milk, of course) in lieu of breast milk and/or formula. and children under 3 who are allergic to cow's milk may also prove to be allergic to goat's milk. dr. greene provides specific guidance in his answer to a mom who asks about giving goat's milk to her cow's milk and soy sensitive 6-month-old.

if you have an older child who eats a well balanced diet and doesn't have any major health issues (or perhaps ones that might be well served by the nutrients in which goat's milk is abundant--check with your pediatrician), it seems that goat's milk is a fine addition (or substitution) to consider. and, if you're concerned about the impact of a massive cow dairy industry and the over-processing of cow's milk in the US, then it's something definitely worth looking into for older, lactose tolerant children.

as for isaac, my favorite (and the world's most willing) food guinea pig, he loved goat's milk. we've been switching between that and cow's milk effortlessly for a few weeks now and all is fine. (except when i can only find goat's milk for my coffee... then, not so fine. we're not in greece anymore, dorothy.)

-S

Two articles from the New York Times that demonstrate how America is at the tail end of the curve when it comes to regulating products for our babies...

Article on how Simulac’s organic formula is the sweetest on the market thanks to sucrose/cane sugar:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/19formula.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1211284994-CWVayD3WEUMzCLUqOWJdtg

Op ed piece that rounds out the latest on BPA regulation here & in Canada: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20tue2.html?ref=opinion

-S

This is crazy and upsetting! DHA is a growing trend, especially in baby food, and we happen to know (b/c we did research to determine whether or not we want to add DHA to ChowBaby foods) that the research does NOT definitively support safe benefits. We understand the desire to offer parents the best and most nutritious options. But we also believe that until the research is definitive, encouraging a natural and organic balanced diet of whole foods is the best thing we can do. We see this as confirmation. Read on and decide for yourself.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-15-2008/0004792586&EDATE=

On a personal note, I ended up supplementing with Bright Beginnings w/ DHA, named in this article, when I faced terrible breast feeding challenges that forced me to begin supplementing Isaac at a mere 5-months-old. (We’d been traveling and, by the time I realized that my supply had gone down to 1 oz between both breasts and no supplements, prescriptions, teas, feeding on demand, natural supplementing systems, or constant pumping—all of which I did for two insane months—helped.) It’s painful to read this. How discouraging to know that none of the research we do around making the best decisions for our babies matters if we can’t trust companies to do their due diligence around what’s best and safest for the public.

-S

From the NY Times. Parents packed a ton of extra food and formula in case of delays (which seems to be happening more and more). Apparently, the TSA thought they had more than the “reasonable quantitiy” allowed for a flight of 2 ½ hours.

The most interesting point here is that they don’t sell baby food or formula beyond security in airports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/business/19road.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

-S

An older article, but very interesting! Such validation for the way that both Michelle and I have been feeding Atticus and Isaac... and building ChowBaby.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9646449/

-S