Maine Native People

I have been looking through old images online of the native people from Maine, and Im fascinated by them. The 4 distinct native american tribes that lived around here when white settlers arrived were the Mi’kmaq , Maliseet, Penobscot and Passamoquoddy. All are generally referred to together as Abenaki (or Wabenaki) which means “People of the Dawn”.

Newly emerging archaeological evidence slightly to our north seems to indicate that the native people here were visited much earlier by europeans than previously understood. Evidence seems to suggest that the scandinavian people who came here by boat looking for natural resources probably also spent some winters here and traded and most likely also befriended and interbred with the local native Americans.

I’m interested in their arts and crafts and the beaded designs which seem to be influenced both by other eastern tribes’ native woodland designs but also seem reminiscent of some Scandinavian motifs. Or was it the other way around? Check out the pointy elvish hats some of them wore.

Maliseet woman 1884, no name or location given.

Sockalexis Newell (1874-1952) at his home in Locke Mills, Maine.

 Penobscot girls, no date given.

Penobscot girl 1858

Mi’kmaq group including Madeline Toney (second from the right) near Bear River in Nova Scotia – 1910

 Chief Big Thunder , Maliseet – 1907

Penobscot , 1937

Traditional MikMaq hunting shelter.

Penobscot Chief Howard Ranco, 1933.

 Joseph Nicholas, wife Margaret Bassett Nicholas and child, 1921 Indian Village, Maine – Passamaquoddy

Passamoquoddy group 1910

Penobscot and Passamaquoddy group from Old Town, Maine at Plymouth, Massachusetts for the Plymouth Tercentenary Celebrations – 1921

Passamaquoddy women , 1910. No names or location given.

Chief Neptune , Passamaquoddy, 1921.

 

Gabe Paul in beaded costume, September 10, 1913

Mi’kmaq woman “Postcard photograph of Elizabeth , daughter of ‘Dr.’ Jeremiah Lonecloud, medicine man of the Micmac tribe.” Added: “This is probably Annie Gloade, Lonecloud’s mistress.

Micmac  family photo

Photograph taken circa 1880, is one of the earliest known photographic images of a member of the Mi’kmaq. Molly Miuse was born about 1810 to Joseph and Nancy (Malagash) Muise. In this photograph she is seen wearing the traditional peaked cap with a double curve design.

1901 photo of Mary Mitchell-Selmore (aka Big Mary) the wife of Sopiel Selmore – Passamaquoddy

Back row L-R: Edward Tremblay, John Sappier, Unknown Front row L-R: Noel Moulton, Edward Francis – Maliseet – c. 1900

 1871 -Christianne Morris (Micmac) was known for her exquisite work in the traditional arts, supporting her family by the sale of quillwork and basketry.
Her needlework, quillwork, splint basketry, and even a full-sized canoe and paddles all won first prizes at various provincial exhibitions. She once sold two beaded costumes to Indian Commissioner William Chearnley for the impressive sum of $300.

1866-Gabriel Acquin was known by a variety of names; Sachem Gabe and Noel Gabriel being the most verifiable. He was a Maliseet hunter, guide, interpreter and showman.

Micmac couple. The name “Micmac” is from the Micmac Mi:’maq, the plural form ofMi:k’mawaj, “one of high ability,” a word derived from Mi”k’amwesu, the name of a legendary forest dweller with supernatural power. At the time of contact, the Micmac occupied what is now eastern New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec. In historic times, the Micmac colonized Newfoundland.  Micmac also migrated in significant numbers from their Canadian reserves to cities and towns in Ontario, Quebec, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and new Jersey;  often spending years or decades in these places before returning to the reserves, often to retire.

1912 Cheif Neptune and wife, Passamaquoddy , Eastport

Passamaquoddy Native artist Tomah Joseph created delicate images on birchbark of the natural world. He lived each summer on Campobello Island , where he became close friends with the President Franklin Roosevelt. Through his artwork, Joseph remembered, retold and recorded the traditions of his ancestors.

Demonstrating a traditional Passamaquoddy dance in this photo from 1921 are Chief Horace Nicholas (far left), Joseph Nicholas (center), and Joseph Neptune (right).

 

Things I didn’t know about breastfeeding, part 3: The risks to children from artificial formula feeding

Increased risk of asthma Asthma risk is increased 300% in children at the age of six years, who are formula fed. Formula fed children are three times more likely to have recurrent wheezing. The evidence is clear and consistent that not breastfeeding puts infants at risk for asthma and atopy.

Increased risk of allergy Infants breast fed for the shortest duration (or never breast fed) have the highest incidence of atopy, eczema, food allergy and respiratory allergy. Eczema, an allergic reaction, is significantly rarer in breast-fed babies. A review of 132 studies on allergy and breastfeeding concluded that breastfeeding appears to help protect children from developing allergies, and that the effect seems to be particularly strong among children whose parents have allergies.

Reduced cognitive development Formula feeding has long-term detrimental effects on a person’s life through its influence on childhood cognitive and educational development, concludes this UK study. Regression analysis was used to determine that breastfeeding was significantly and positively associated with educational levels obtained by age 26 as well as cognitive abilities at age 53 years. (Richards M, Hardy R, Wadsworth ME. Long-tern effects of breast-feeding in a national cohort: educational attainment and midlife cognition function. Publ Health Nutr 5: 631-635, 2002)  Exclusively breastfed (without supplements) small for gestational age infants had a significant advantage in cognitive development without compromising growth.  Very low-birth weight infants who had never been breastfed were found to have lower test scores in over- all intellectual function, verbal ability, visual-spatial and motor skills than those who had been breastfed.

Increased risk of acute respiratory disease Breastfeeding was one of the key modifiable risk factors for lower respiratory infection in children under five years of age.  Formula-fed infants experienced more than three times the severity of respiratory tract illness and required more frequent hospitalization compared to infants who had been breastfed exclusively for four months or more.  Formula fed infants had double the rate of respiratory disease.

Increased risk of childhood cancers Formula feeding is known to increase the risk of cancer. This novel study found a significant level of genetic damage in in- fants aged nine to 12 months who were formula fed. The authors speculate that the genetic damage may play a role in the development of cancer in childhood or later life. They concluded that breastfeeding duration of six months or longer may protect against childhood acute leukemia and lymphomas.

Increased altered occlusion Never give artificial nipples of any kind if you want your child to have straight teeth! This is the message from this research on feeding, sucking and dentition. This retrospective study of 1130 preschool children (three to five years of age) looked at the impact of the type of feeding and non-nutritive sucking activity on occlusion in deciduous dentition.  Children with non-nutritive sucking activity and who were bottle-fed had more than double the risk of posterior cross-bite, while breastfeeding seems to have a protective effect on development of posterior cross-bite in deciduous dentition.

Increased risk of diabetes  Cow’s milk-fed infants had elevated levels of beta-casein antibodies when compared to breast- fed infants. They concluded that breastfeeding for the first four months prevented the production of antibodies and could have a preventive effect on the development of Type 1 diabetes. Early introduction of infant formula, solids and cow’s milk are factors shown to increase the incidence of Type I diabetes later in life. Swedish (517) and Lithuanian (286) children aged 0 to 15 years who were diagnosed with Type I diabetes were compared to non-diabetic controls. The results showed that exclusive breast- feeding for five months and total breastfeeding for longer than seven or nine months are protective against diabetes.  Data was collected via questionnaires in a case-control- led study consisting of 868 diabetic Czech children and 1,466 controls. This study too confirms that the risk for type I diabetes decreases with increased duration of breastfeeding. Formula feeding was associated with an increased risk – OR of 1.93. Breastfeeding for 12 months or longer reduced the risk significantly – OR of 0.42.

Increased risk of cardiovascular disease The authors concluded that for children born prematurely, formula feeding increases blood pressure in later life and that this conclusion can be extended to term infants as well.  Breastfeeding may have long term benefits for cardiovascular disease by reducing levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipid cholesterol.  Studies suggests that early exposure to breast milk may program fat metabolism in later life, resulting in lower blood cholesterol levels and therefore a lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Increased risk of chronic diseases Formula feeding dramatically increases risk of developing Celiac disease. This disease may be triggered by an autoimmune response when an infant is exposed to a food containing gluten proteins. A team of researchers looked at the breastfeeding patterns of 627 children with celiac disease and at 1254 healthy children to determine the effect of breastfeeding during the time of introduction of gluten-containing foods on the outcome of the development of celiac disease. An astounding 40 per cent risk reduction was reported for the development of celiac disease in children at two years of age or younger for those who were breastfed when dietary gluten was introduced. The effect was even more pronounced in infants who continued to be breastfed after dietary gluten was introduced, the authors noted. Children with CD were breastfed for a signifiantly shorter period of time. Children being breastfed at the time of gluten reduction had a 52 per cent reduction of risk for developing CD compared with children who were not breastfeeding at the time of introduction. continued breastfeeding limits the actual amounts of gluten received. Breastfeeding protects against intestinal infections. Infections can increase the permea- bility of the infant’s gut and therefore allow the passage of gluten into the lamina propria. Others have suggested that breastmilk IgA may reduce the im- mune response to ingested gluten or immune modulation may oc- cur through specific T-cell suppressive effects. Inflammatory bowel disease and Crohn’s disease are other chronic gastrointestinal conditions that are more frequent for those who are formula-fed. A meta-analysis on 17 relevant studies supports the hypothesis that formula feeding is associated with increased risks of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Increased risk of otitis media and ear infections US infants who were exclusively breastfed for four months or more had a 50 per cent reduction of episodes compared to infants who were not breastfed. breastfeeding even for a short period (three months) would significantly reduce the episodes of otitis media during infancy.

Increased risk of obesity 32,200 children aged 39 to 42 months. After elimination of confounding factors, socioeconomic status, birthweight and sex, the prevalence of obesity was significantly higher in the formula-fed children, leading to the conclusion that formula feeding is associated with an increase in childhood obesity risk.  Breastfeeding was found to be protective against obesity. The protective effect was greater when the infants were exclusively breastfed. 

Increased risk of death by diarrhea  In many parts of the world children still die from diarrhea, often due to unclean drinking water. These underdeveloped countries are where the heaviest advertising is pushed by the companies who profit from artificial infant formulas.  Compared with exclusive breastfeeding, children who were partially breastfed had a 4.2 times increased risk of death due to diarrheal disease. Formula feeding was associated with a 14.2 times increased risk for death due to diarrheal disease in Brazilian children. (Victora CG, Smith PG, Patrick J, et al. Infant feeding and deaths due to diarrhea: A case-controlled study. Amer J Epidemiol 129: 1032-1041, 1989)

Increased risk of gastrointestinal infections A comparison between infants who received primarily breast- milk during the first 12 months of life and infants who were exclusively formula-fed or who were breastfed for three months or less, found that diarrheal disease was twice as high for the formula-fed infants as for those who were breastfed.  Breastfeeding promotion in Belarus significantly reduced the incidence of gastrointestinal infections (by 40 per cent). (Kramer MS, Chalmers B, Hodnett ED, et al. Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT): A randomized trial in the Republic of Belarus. JAMA 285: 413-420, 2001)

Increased risk of death from acute respiratory infections Children who were partially breastfed or formula fed had a risk of acute respiratory infection death 2.4 times greater than exclusively breastfed infants. If children were predominantly breastfed the risk of death due to acute respiratory infection was similar to that of exclusively breastfed children.

Increased risk of postneonatal death Children who were formula fed and never breastfed had a 21 per cent greater risk of dying in the postneonatal period than those who were breastfed. Longer breastfeeding was associated with lower risk. 16 per cent of neonatal deaths can be prevented if all infants are breastfed from day one and 22 per cent can be prevented if breastfeeding is initiated during the first hour.

Increased risk of side effects of environmental contaminants A Dutch study showed that at six years of age, cognitive development is affected by prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins. An adverse effect of prenatal exposure on neurological outcome was also demonstrated in the formula-fed group but not in the breastfed group. Despite higher PCB exposures from breast milk, the study found at 18 months, 42 months of age, and at six years of age a beneficial effect of breast- feeding on the quality of movements, in terms of fluency, and in cognitive development tests. The data gives evidence that prenatal exposure to PCBs does have subtle negative effects on neurological and cognitive development of the child up to school age. The study also gives evidence that breastfeeding counteracts the adverse developmental effects of PCBs and dioxins.

Increased risk of nutrient deficiency Infants who were fed a soy-based infant formula brand in Israel during 2003 were hospitalized in intensive care units with severe encephalopathy. Two died of cardiomyopathy. Thiamine level of the formula was shown in analysis to be undetectable. The soy-based formula-fed infants admitted with symptoms indicating thiamine deficiency experienced quick improvement when treated with thiamine. (Fattal-Valevski A, Kesler A, Seal B, Nitzan-Kaluski D, Rotstein M, Mestermen R, Tolendano-Alhadef H, Stolovitch C, Hoffman C. Globus O, Eshel G. Outbreak of Life-Threatening Thiamine Deficiency in Infants in Israel Caused by a Defective Soy-Based Formula. Pediatrics 115: 223-238, 2005)

Increased risk of bacterial infections Use of artificial nipples of any kind may expose babies to alarmingly high levels of dangerous bacteria. Passifier and bottle use is associated with a significant increase in bacterial infections, including streptococcus, antibiotic resistant Klebsiella, which causes pneumonia, and MRSA, a staph superbugs that cause hard-to-treat skin and other infections. reports study coauthor R. Tom Glass, DDS, Ph.D., professor of Forensic Sciences, Pathology, and Dental Medicine at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Increased risk of illness from contaminated formula. Formula fed infants have increased risk of being sickened due to contaminated infant formulas, with bacterial contaminants such as enterobacter and cronobacter and other contaminants such as pesticides , hormones  , melamine and botulism.

Academic Articles and further reading: 

Akobeng A K et al. Effects of breast feeding on risk of coeliac disease: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Arch Dis
Child 91: 39-43, 2006

Arifeen S, Black RE, Atbeknab G, Baqui A, Caulfield L, Becker S, Exclusive
breastfeeding reduces acute respiratory infection and diarrhea deaths
among infants in Dhaka slums. Pediatrics 108: e67, 2001

Armogida, Sheila A.; Yannaras, Niki M.; Melton, Alton L.; Srivastava, Maya D.
Identification and quantification of innate immune system mediators in
human breast milk. Allergy and Asthma Proc 25: 297-304, 2004

Armstrong, J. et al. Breastfeeding and lowering the risk of childhood
obesity. Lancet 359:2003-2004, 2002

Bachrach VRG, Schwarz E, Bachrach LR. Breastfeeding and the risk of
hospitalization for respiratory disease in infancy. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.
157: 237-243, 2003

Baker JL, Gamborg M, Heitmann BL, Lissner L, Sørensen TIA, Rasmussen KM. Breastfeeding reduces postpartum weight retention. Am J Clin Nutr. 88: 1543-1551, 2008

Beaudry M, Dufour R, Marcoux S. Relationship between infant feeding and
infections during the first six months of life. J Pediatr 126: 191-197, 1995

Bener A, Denic S, Galadari S. Longer breast-feeding and protection against
childhood leukaemia and lymphomas. Eur J Cancer 37: 234-238, 2001

Betrán AP, de Onís M, Lauer JA, Villar J. Ecological study of effect of breast feeding on infant mortality in Latin America. BMJ. 2001 Aug 11;323(7308):303–306. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Boersma ER, Lanting CI. Environmental exposure to polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins. Consequences for longterm neurological and
cognitive development of the child. Adv Exp Med Biol 478:271-287, 2000

Broor S, Pandey RM, Ghosh M, Maitreyi RS, Lodha R, Singhal T, Kabra SK. Risk
factors for severe acute lower respiratory tract infection in under-five
children. Indian Pediatr 38: 1361-1369, 2001

Cesar JA, Victora CG, Barros FC, et al. Impact of breastfeeding on admission
for pneumonia during postneonatal period in Brazil: Nested casecontrolled
study. BMJ 318: 1316-1320, 1999

Chen A, Rogan WJ. Breastfeeding and the risk of postneonatal death in the
United States. Pediatrics 113: 435-439, 2004

Chiaffarino F, Pelucchi C, Negri E, Parazzini F, Franceschi S, Talamini R,
Montella M, Ramazzotti V, La Vecchia C. Breastfeeding and the risk of
epithelial ovarian cancer in an Italian population. Gynecol Oncol. 98: 304-
308, 2005

Daniels M C, Adair L S. Breast-feeding influences cognitive development of
Filipino children. J Nutr. 135: 2589-2595, 2005

Dell S, To T. Breastfeeding and Asthma in Young Children. Arch Pediatr
Adolesc Med 155: 1261-1265, 2001

Dewey KG, Heinig MJ, Nommsen-Rivers LA. Differences in morbidity
between breast-fed and formula-fed infants. J Pediatr 126: 696-702, 1995

Duffy LC, Faden H, Wasielewski R, Wolf J, Krystofik D. Exclusive
breastfeeding protects against bacterial colonization and day care
exposure to otitis media. Pediatrics 100: E7, 1997

Duncan B, Ey J, Holberg CJ, Wright AL, Martines F, Taussig LM. Exclusive
breastfeeding for at least 4 months protects against otitis media.
Pediatrics 91: 867-872, 1993

Dundaroz R, Aydin HA, Ulucan H, Baltac V, Denli M, Gokcay E. Preliminary
study on DNA in non-breastfed infants. Ped Internat 44: 127-130, 2002

Edmond KM, Zandoh C, Quigley MA, Amenga-Etego S, Owusu-Agyei S,
Kirkwood BR. Delayed breastfeeding initiation increases risk of neonatal
mortality. Pediatrics 117: 380-386, 2006

Fattal-Valevski A, Kesler A, Seal B, Nitzan-Kaluski D, Rotstein M, Mestermen
R, Tolendano-Alhadef H, Stolovitch C, Hoffman C. Globus O, Eshel G.
Outbreak of Life-Threatening Thiamine Deficiency in Infants in Israel
Caused by a Defective Soy-Based Formula. Pediatrics 115: 223-238, 2005

Fernandes TA, Werneck GL, Hasselmann MH. Prepregnancy Weight, Weight Gain during Pregnancy, and Exclusive Breastfeeding in the First Month of Life in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J Hum Lact. 28: 55-61,2012

Ford RPK, Taylor BJ, Mitchell EA, et al. “Breastfeeding and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Int J. Epidemiol. 1993;22:885-890, 1993

Frye C, Heinrich J. Trend and predictors of overweight and obesity in East
German children. Int J of Obesity 27: 963-969, 2003

Groer M W. Differences between exclusive breastfeeders, formula-feeders,
and controls: a study of stress, mood and endocrine variables. Biol. Res
Nurs. 7: 106-117, 2005

Guise JM et al. Review of case-controlled studies related to breastfeeding
and reduced risk of childhood leukemia. Pediatrics 116: 724-731, 2005

Hoppu U, Rinne M, Salo-Vaeaenaenen P, Lampi A-M, Piironen V, Isolauri E.
Vitamin C in breast milk may reduce the risk of atopy in the infant. Eur J of
Clin Nutr 59: 123-128, 2005

Ivarsson, A. et al. Breast-Feeding May Protect Against Celiac Disease Am J
Clin Nutr 75: 914-921, 2002

Kac G, Benício MHDA, Velásquez-Meléndez G, Valente JG, Struchiner CJ.
Breastfeeding and postpartum weight retention in a cohort of Brazilian
women. Am J Clin Nutr 79: 487-493, 2004

Kerkhof M, Koopman LP, van Strien RT, et al. Risk factors for atopic
dermatitis in infants at high risk of allergy: The PIAMA study. Clin Exp
Allergy 33: 1336-1341, 2003

Klement E, Cohen RV, Boxman V, Joseph A, Reif s. Breastfeeding and risk of
inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J
Clin Nutr 80: 1342-1352, 2004

Cochi SL, Fleming DW, Hightower AW, et al. “Primary invasive Haemophilus influenzae type b disease: a population-based assessment of risk factors.” J Pediatr 108:997-896, 1986

Kramer MS, Chalmers B, Hodnett ED, et al. Promotion of Breastfeeding
Intervention Trial (PROBIT): A randomized trial in the Republic of Belarus.
JAMA 285: 413-420, 2001

Malcove H et al. Absence of breast-feeding is associated with the risk
of type 1 diabetes: a case-control study in a population with rapidly
increasing incidence. Eur J Pediatr 165: 114-119, 2005

Martin RM, Ness AR, Gunnelle D, Emmet P, Smith GD. Does breast-feeding in
infancy lower blood pressure in childhood? Circulation 109: 1259-1266, 2004

Martin R, Middleton N, Gunnell D, Owen C, Smith G. Breast-Feeding and
Cancer: The Boyd Orr Cohort and a Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 97: 1446-1457, 2005

Mitchell EA, Taylor BJ, Ford RPK, et al. Four modifiable and other major risk factors for cot death: the New Zealand Study. J Paediatr Child Health 28 Suppl 1:S3-8, 1992

Monetini L, Cavallo MG, Stefanini L, Ferrazzoli F, Bizzarri C, Marietti G, Curro
V, Cervoni M, Pozzilli P, IMDIAB Group. Bovine beta-casein antibodies in
breast-and bottle-fed infants: their relevance in Type 1 diabetes. Hormone
Metab Res 34: 455-459, 2002

Oddy WH, Peat JK. Breastfeeding, Asthma and Atopic Disease: An
Epidemiological Review of Literature. J Hum Lact 19: 250-261, 2003

Oddy WH, Peat JK, de Klerk NH. Maternal asthma, infant feeding, and the
risk for asthma in childhood. J. Allergy Clin Immunol. 110: 65-67, 2002

Okamura C, Tsubono Y, Ito K, Niikura H, Takano T, Nagase S, Yoshinaga K,
Terada Y, Murakami T, Sato S, Aoki D, Jobo T, Okamura K, Yaegashi N. Tohoku.
Lactation and risk of endometrial cancer in Japan: a case-control study. J
Exp Med 208: 109-115, 2006

Owen GC, Whipcup PH, Odoki JA, Cook DG. Infant feeding and blood
cholesterol: a study in adolescents and systematic review. Pediatrics 110:
597-608, 2002

Rao MR, Hediger ML, Levine RJ, Naficy AB, Vik T. Effect of breastfeeding
on cognitive development of infants born small for gestational age. Arch
Pediatr Adolesc 156: 651-655, 2002

Richards M, Hardy R, Wadsworth ME. Long-tern effects of breast-feeding in
a national cohort: educational attainment and midlife cognition function.
Publ Health Nutr 5: 631-635, 2002

Saarinen UM, Kajosarri M. Breastfeeding as a prophylactic against atopic
disease: Prospective follow-up study until 17 years old. Lancet 346: 1065-
1069, 1995

Sadauskaite-Kuehne V, Ludvigsson J, Padaiga Z, Jasinskiene E, Samuel
U. Longer breastfeeding is an independent protective factor against
development of type I diabetes mellitus in childhood. Diabet Metab Res Rev
20: 150-157, 2004

Singhal A, Cole TJ, Lucas A. Early nutrition in preterm infants and later blood
pressure: two cohorts after randomized trials. The Lancet 357: 413-419, 2001

Smith MM, Durkin M, Hinton VJ, Bellinger D, Kuhn L. Influence of
breastfeeding on cognitive outcomes at age 6-8 year follow-up of very
low-birth weight infants. Am J Epidemiol 158:1075-1082, 2003

Stuebe AM, Rich-Edwards JW, Willett WC, Duration of lactation and
incidence of type 2 diabetes. JAMA 294: 2601-2610, 2005

UK Childhood Cancer Investigators. Breastfeeding and Childhood Cancer. Br
J Cancer 85: 1685-1694, 2001

Van Acker J, de Smet F, Muyldermans G, Bougatef A. Naessens A, Lauwers
S. Outbreak of necrotizing enterocolitis associated with Enterobacter
sakazakii in powdered infant formulas. J Clin Microbiol 39: 293-297, 2001

Victora CG, Smith PG, Patrick J, et al. Infant feeding and deaths due to
diarrhea: A case-controlled study. Amer J Epidemiol 129: 1032-1041, 1989

Vreugedenhill HJI, Van Zanten GA, Brocaar MP, Mulder PGH, Weisglas-
Kuperus, N. Prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenols and
breastfeeding: opposing effects on auditory P300 latencies in 9-year old
Dutch children. Devlop Med & Child Neurol 46: 398-405, 2004

Walker, M. J Hum Lact June 1993 vol. 9 no. 2 97-107

Weir E, Powdered infant formula and fatal infection with Enterobacter
sakazakii. CMAJ 166, 2002

Weyerman M et al. Duration of breastfeeding and risk of overweight in
childhood: a prospective birth cohort study from Germany. Int J Obes
advance online publication February 28, 2006

Wright AL, Holberg CJ, Taussig LM, Martinez FD. Relationship of infant
feeding to recurrent wheezing at age 6 years. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 149:
758-763, 1995

Young TK, Martens PJ, Taback SP, Sellers EA, Dean HJ, Cheang M, Flett B.
Type 2 diabetes mellitus in children: prenatal and early infancy risk
factors among native Canadians. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 156: 651-655, 2002

Effect of breastfeeding on infant and child mortality due to infectious diseases in less developed countries: a pooled analysis. WHO Collaborative Study Team on the Role of Breastfeeding on the Prevention of Infant Mortality. Lancet. 2000 Feb 5;355(9202):451–455. [PubMed]

César JA, Victora CG, Barros FC, Santos IS, Flores JA. Impact of breast feeding on admission for pneumonia during postneonatal period in Brazil: nested case-control study. BMJ. 1999 May 15;318(7194):1316–1320. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Taylor B, Wadsworth J, Golding J, Butler N. Breast-feeding, bronchitis, and admissions for lower-respiratory illness and gastroenteritis during the first five years. Lancet. 1982 May 29;1(8283):1227–1229. [PubMed]

Wright AL, Holberg CJ, Taussig LM, Martinez FD. Factors influencing the relation of infant feeding to asthma and recurrent wheeze in childhood. Thorax. 2001 Mar;56(3):192–197.[PMC free article] [PubMed]

Howie PW, Forsyth JS, Ogston SA, Clark A, Florey CD. Protective effect of breast feeding against infection. BMJ. 1990 Jan 6;300(6716):11–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Wright AL, Holberg CJ, Martinez FD, Morgan WJ, Taussig LM. Breast feeding and lower respiratory tract illness in the first year of life. Group Health Medical Associates. BMJ. 1989 Oct 14;299(6705):946–949. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Holberg CJ, Wright AL, Martinez FD, Ray CG, Taussig LM, Lebowitz MD. Risk factors for respiratory syncytial virus-associated lower respiratory illnesses in the first year of life. Am J Epidemiol. 1991 Jun 1;133(11):1135–1151. [PubMed]

Beaudry M, Dufour R, Marcoux S. Relation between infant feeding and infections during the first six months of life. J Pediatr. 1995 Feb;126(2):191–197. [PubMed]

Cushing AH, Samet JM, Lambert WE, Skipper BJ, Hunt WC, Young SA, McLaren LC. Breastfeeding reduces risk of respiratory illness in infants. Am J Epidemiol. 1998 May 1;147(9):863–870. [PubMed]

Saarinen UM, Kajosaari M. Breastfeeding as prophylaxis against atopic disease: prospective follow-up study until 17 years old. Lancet. 1995 Oct 21;346(8982):1065–1069. [PubMed]

Oddy WH, Holt PG, Sly PD, Read AW, Landau LI, Stanley FJ, Kendall GE, Burton PR. Association between breast feeding and asthma in 6 year old children: findings of a prospective birth cohort study. BMJ. 1999 Sep 25;319(7213):815–819. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Oddy WH, de Klerk NH, Sly PD, Holt PG. The effects of respiratory infections, atopy, and breastfeeding on childhood asthma. Eur Respir J. 2002 May;19(5):899–905. [PubMed]

Newnham JP, Evans SF, Michael CA, Stanley FJ, Landau LI. Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1993 Oct 9;342(8876):887–891. [PubMed]

Marks GB, Dunn SM, Woolcock AJ. An evaluation of an asthma quality of life questionnaire as a measure of change in adults with asthma. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Oct;46(10):1103–1111. [PubMed]

Elder DE, Hagan R, Evans SF, Benninger HR, French NP. Hospital admissions in the first year of life in very preterm infants. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999 Apr;35(2):145–150. [PubMed]

Holme CO. Incidence and prevalence of non-specific symptoms and behavioural changes in infants under the age of two years. Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Feb;45(391):65–69. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Bauchner H, Leventhal JM, Shapiro ED. Studies of breast-feeding and infections. How good is the evidence? JAMA. 1986 Aug 15;256(7):887–892. [PubMed]

Wright AL, Bauer M, Naylor A, Sutcliffe E, Clark L. Increasing breastfeeding rates to reduce infant illness at the community level. Pediatrics. 1998 May;101(5):837–844. [PubMed]

Ball TM, Wright AL. Health care costs of formula-feeding in the first year of life. Pediatrics. 1999 Apr;103(4 Pt 2):870–876. [PubMed]

Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Shannon FT, Taylor B. Breast-feeding, gastrointestinal and lower respiratory illness in the first two years. Aust Paediatr J. 1981 Sep;17(3):191–195. [PubMed]

Wright AL, Taussig LM, Ray CG, Harrison HR, Holberg CJ. The Tucson Children’s Respiratory Study. II. Lower respiratory tract illness in the first year of life. Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Jun;129(6):1232–1246. [PubMed]

Paradise JL, Elster BA, Tan L. Evidence in infants with cleft palate that breast milk protects against otitis media. Pediatrics. 1994 Dec;94(6 Pt 1):853–860. [PubMed]

Dewey KG, Heinig MJ, Nommsen-Rivers LA. Differences in morbidity between breast-fed and formula-fed infants. J Pediatr. 1995 May;126(5 Pt 1):696–702. [PubMed]

Eiger MS, Rausen AR, Silverio J. Breast-vs. bottle-feeding. A study of morbidity in upper middle class infants. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1984 Sep;23(9):492–495. [PubMed]

Chandra RK. Prospective studies of the effect of breast feeding on incidence of infection and allergy. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1979 Sep;68(5):691–694. [PubMed]

Saarinen UM. Prolonged breast feeding as prophylaxis for recurrent otitis media. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1982 Jul;71(4):567–571. [PubMed]

Wilson AC, Forsyth JS, Greene SA, Irvine L, Hau C, Howie PW. Relation of infant diet to childhood health: seven year follow up of cohort of children in Dundee infant feeding study. BMJ.1998 Jan 3;316(7124):21–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Myers MG, Fomon SJ, Koontz FP, McGuinness GA, Lachenbruch PA, Hollingshead R. Respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses in breast- and formula-fed infants. Am J Dis Child. 1984 Jul;138(7):629–632. [PubMed]

Rubin DH, Leventhal JM, Krasilnikoff PA, Kuo HS, Jekel JF, Weile B, Levee A, Kurzon M, Berget A. Relationship between infant feeding and infectious illness: a prospective study of infants during the first year of life. Pediatrics. 1990 Apr;85(4):464–471. [PubMed]

Jones CA, Warner JO. Breast milk as an alternative source of cytokines for offspring. Clin Exp Allergy. 2000 May;30(5):599–601. [PubMed]

Hasselbalch H, Engelmann MD, Ersboll AK, Jeppesen DL, Fleischer-Michaelsen K. Breast-feeding influences thymic size in late infancy. Eur J Pediatr. 1999 Dec;158(12):964–967. [PubMed]

Hamosh M. Bioactive factors in human milk. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2001 Feb;48(1):69–86.[PubMed]

Things I didn’t know about breastfeeding – part 2: Maternal Health Risks of Formula Feeding

Most people are at least vaguely aware of many of the health risks for babies and children associated with formula feeding. 90 % of mothers today disregard current recommendations and choose not to breastfeed, or to start feeding formula within the first few days or weeks. The risks of formula feeding for babies are numerous. Increased rates of childhood obesity, increased incidence of asthma, ear infections, severe lower respiratory infections, SIDS, type 1 and 2 diabetes, lymphoma, crohns disease, childhood leukemia, necrotizing enterocolitis are just some of the health problems formula fed infants are at increased risk for.  Along with numerous health benefits, even better brain development is linked with full term breastfeeding. Still, the benefits to the health of the mother are often overlooked or disregarded.

Lactation is a continuation of the physiologic process started with conception and pregnancy, and choosing not to bother with it increases many short and long-term health risks problems for moms.  Health care professionals rarely emphasize these risks in prenatal or pediatric care.  I see multiple posters on the walls promoting vaccination at the pediatricians office, and not a single one promoting breastfeeding. Formula feeding infants after giving birth puts women at higher risk for not only breast cancer, but ovarian cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, post-partum depression, obesity,  and many other serious health conditions.

Current US breastfeeding rates are suboptimal and result in significant excess costs and preventable infant deaths.  Formula feeding results in 911 preventable infant deaths, and $13,ooo,ooo,ooo.oo per year in health care costs. Suboptimal breastfeeding costs us another $17.4 billion a year, resulting from premature deaths and direct preventable medical costs for mothers (the preventable deaths in moms are primarily caused by breast cancer and hypertension) . I always feel that i need to write these numbers out to  fully absorb them and all their zeros : $17,400,000,000.00  each year could be saved if women would only breast feed their babies for a few months. 

The mechanisms behind many of the increased disease risks are still not entirely clear, and more research is definitely needed.  Researchers think that by not breastfeeding, and not participating in a process that the body prepares for during pregnancy, many crucial systems can go out of whack. And the effects for mothers can last for decades, long after nursing children are grown.

Immediately after birth, the detachment of the placenta and suckling of the baby causes oxytocin to be released from the mother’s pituitary gland. This hormonal process signals the breasts to release milk to the baby, and simultaneously contracts the uterus. Women who have had multiple children often experience more discomfort with this postpartum cramping with each consecutive child. (my own memory of these is that they were worse than the labor cramps after my second child, I had no pain medication during labor, but needed to alternate ibuprophen and acetominophen in the first days following that birth. )  The resulting contractions prevent postpartum hemorrhage and rapidly shrink the uterus back to its original size. It hurts,but serves a purpose. This cramping over the first couple of days postpartum is the one time that the statement “nursing should never hurt” does not apply.

Formula feeding dramatically increases the risk of breast cancer for mothers, yet we almost never see any mention of this in main stream media promotions of breast cancer awareness, which often claim to be engaged in a “race for the cure”.   In more than one state in recent years, I have seen entire newspapers printed on pink paper during breast cancer awareness month, yet not a single word anywhere in the pages mentioned breastfeeding. Most of the info dispersed broadly proclaims “early detection saving lives” with routine mammograms rabidly promoted.  One of the largest and most meticulous studies of mammography ever conducted, involving 90,000 women and lasting a quarter-century, found that the death rates from breast cancer and from all causes were the same in women who got mammograms and those who did not. The mammograms’ only discernible impact was to elevate the diagnosis rate by 22%, or “overdiagnose” patients who were suffering from nonlethal forms of cancer and therefore could have avoided surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation treatments.  What this means is, up to one third of all diagnosed breast cancers, or 50,000 to 70,000 cases a year are being treated that would not ever progress. What this means is, thousands of women each year undergo drastic treatment for tumors that might never have affected their health.  For each woman’s life saved by a mammogram, 10 other women will undergo dramatic and unnecessary surgeries.

Breastfeeding on the other hand IS well known to be a highly effective preventative factor with breast cancer, yet no one ever wants to talk about it.  There is no argument;  studies from the US, the UK, China, Japan, New Zealand and Mexico… from scientisits all over the world, in fact over 50 well documented controlled scientific studies have now shown that women who breastfeed their children clearly have reduced risk of developing breast cancer,  and that the longer women breastfeed, the more additional protection they accumulate against breast cancer.  The lack of any, or short duration of breastfeeding in developed countries, including the USA,  is a MAJOR contributing factor in the high incidence of breast cancer in these countries.  Every time i see a pink ribbon twirling in the breeze, I wonder why this is not ever talked about in the mass media awareness campaigns.

So what does it mean that there is “significantly increased” risk of breast cancer caused by formula feeding? For every 12 months a woman breastfeeds, her risk of breast cancer drops 4.3 percent, plus there is an additional 7 % decrease in risk with each child a woman breastfeeds.!!   Its really a huge preventative effect.  a 2010 Journal of Perinatology paper. For women who have a family history of breast cancer, breastfeeding also decreased their risk of getting it, according to an analysis of data from more than 60,000 women led by Stuebe, published August 2009 in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Whereas the potent drug Tamoxifen can reduce risk for those with a mother or sister who had breast cancer by about half, moms who had breastfed at all had about 60 percent less risk, a very significant statistic. Women who lactate for a total of two or more years reduce their chances of developing breast cancer by 24 percent. Its true that breastfeeding cant generally help those women who choose not to reproduce, but more than 80 % of women in the US do.  One other glaringly important factor is that along with preventing maternal breast cancer, breastfeeding your daughter also protects her many years in to the future from developing breast cancer.  Women who were formula-fed as infants have 33 % higher rates of breast cancer as adults, according to a 1994 study by J. Freudenheim et al.,  : “Exposure to breast milk in infancy and the risk of breast cancer”. Epidemiology 5:324-331

To move toward improved breastfeeding numbers, one subtle but fundamental adjustment that must happen in both the research and academic circles and popular opinion is a shift in how we view the act of breastfeeding:  from the comparative experimental group to the biological norm.  When viewing disease risk using breastfeeding as the biological norm that it is, you see that the percentage of “increased risk from formula feeding” is in fact a much greater percentage than the comparative percentage of “decreased risk  for those who choose to breastfeed”.  We see this type of misleading phrasing so often in relation to feeding choices that many bristle to hear the same conclusions  more accurately conveyed using the correct biologic norm,  human babies getting human milk.   (to phrase it as “decereased risk” minimizes the numbers, when you flip it, for example, reduction of risk by 50 % in 100 women translates to an increased risk of 100 % to go from 50 to 100.)  This way, its clear that breast feeding is not just “best”  or “ideal” or “optimal”—it is simply the biological norm. When assessed as the norm, breastfeeding should not be discussed as conferring  benefits as much as formula feeding must be viewed as dramatically increasing risks. This doesn’t mean in any way that we should discard all the good research we have that uses formula feeding as the norm and speaks or relates evidence of “decreased risk” associated with breastfeeding, we just need to be constantly aware of how this language flips the #s upside down.

Breastfeeding reduces the risk of ovarian cancer.When compared with women who had breastfed for at least 18 months, mothers who never breastfed had a 1.5-fold increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. For each month a woman breastfeeds, her relative risk of developing ovarian cancer is reduced by 2 %.

Breastfeeding decreases a mother’s risk of developing endometrial cancer. Studies show a decreased risk of endometrial cancer with breastfeeding that is directly proportional to the duration of lactation. (longer duration of breastfeeding= less risk) 

Breastfeeding protects mothers from later development of diabetes. 240,000 women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study since 1976, and 150,000 women who had children reported their lifetime duration of breastfeeding. Approximately 75 percent of the entire group reported ever breastfeeding their babies.

The results of the study have clearly demonstrated that breastfeeding protects women from later development of diabetes. For each year that a mother breastfed, she reduced her risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 15 percent. This was independent of other risk factors for diabetes including body mass index, diet, exercise, and smoking. The most interesting and convincing finding in this study was the reduction in risk of acquiring diabetes related to the length and intensity of breastfeeding. Longer continuation of breastfeeding per pregnancy/child conferred  a greater benefit. One year of lactation with one child resulted in a 44 percent reduction in risk , compared with a 24 percent reduction in risk for a woman who breastfed different children for shorter durations adding up to a total of one year.

Non-breastfeeding women have a four times greater chance of developing osteoporosis than breastfeeding women,  and are more likely to suffer from hip fractures in the post-menopausal years. During the postpartum months, physiologic changes happen that favor lactation, and calcium will be found and utilized by the mothers body, and a mother may experience decreases of bone mineral. A nursing mom’s bone mineral density may be reduced by 3-9 % percent while she is nursing, but  this is all gained back, and bone mineral density may actually increase to higher than  her pre-pregnancy levels when the baby is weaned from the breast. This is not dependant on additional calcium supplementation in the mother’s diet. Estrogen levels increase during weaning.   Similarly, bone mineralization increases in adolescent girls  as their estrogen levels increase.  Breastfeeding protects against osteoporosis.

A large percentage of mothers, (both breast feeding and formula feeding) have been found to be anemic.  Formula-feeding mothers typically get their periods back within six to eight weeks, while exclusively breastfeeding mothers often don’t bleed for several months or more. This conserves iron in the mother’s body,  and further, it often contributes to a natural spacing of pregnancies. The WHO recommends a minimum of 24 months after a live birth before attempting another pregnancy, to reduce the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal, and infant outcomes.  (more space between = overall healthier moms and babies) Far less iron is required in milk production than the amount lost from menstrual bleeding. The net effect is an increased risk of anemia in formula-feeding mothers as compared with a reduced risk for those breastfeeding. The longer the mother nurses and keeps her periods at bay, the stronger this effect . Alternatively, exclusive breastfeeding may be a marker of high socioeconomic status, better diet quality, or compliance with vitamin/mineral supplement use. (anecdotally, my bleeding returned at 6 weeks even while 100% exclusive, on demand breastfeeding. my friend calls this being a “Fertile Myrtle)

Formula feeding moms are fatter. Breastfeeding mothers showed significantly larger reductions in hip circumference and more fat loss by one month postpartum when compared with formula-feeding moms. Breastfeeding mothers tend to have an earlier return to their pre-pregnant weight. Those who had children and had not breastfed had 28 percent more visceral fat than those who had consistently breastfed. University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Epidemiology, found that women who had not breastfed had an average of about seven and a half additional centimeters of fat around their waists.  Its also interesting to note that human milk from moms who have been lactating for more than 1 year have significantly increased fat and energy contents, compared with milk from moms nursing for shorter periods of time.  Anyone who has nursed a toddler can tell you why the milk moms make for older kids has more energy in it.  These longer duration nursing moms are so few and far between here in the US that we must look to studies conducted in other countries for the most up to date evidence related to “extended ” or ” full term” breastfeeding. It would seem logical that if the milk is fattier,  that more fat is dripping off of mom.  Unless moms dramatically  increase their own caloric intake, they’ll lose even more weight the longer they breastfeed.

Most health agencies recommend that when biologically possible and safe women breastfeed infants exclusively for the first six months with the option of introducing complementary foods in addition to breast milk through 12 months. Almost three quarters of women start out with intentions of breastfeeding their infants , but by six months, only 42 % are giving their babies any breast milk at all, and only 12 percent are still  exclusively feeding their babies breast milk at that point. Those who had children and formula fed had 28 percent more visceral fat than those who had consistently breastfed. University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Epidemiology, found that women who had not breastfed had an average of about seven and a half additional centimeters of fat around their waists.

Recent research has shown aortic calcification, a risk factor for stroke, heart attack and other cardiovascular complications, was “significantly more likely” to be found in mothers who had not breastfed than in those who had for at least three months—even after adjusting for lifestyle, family history, socioeconomic status, BMI and other health issues, according to a study led by Schwarz that was published in January 2010 in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Better long-term heart health for breastfeeding mothers might stem in part from blood pressure, which was “significantly higher” in mothers who had not breastfed than in those who had.  Risks for cardiovascular disease in lactating versus non-lactating mothers seem to be firm regardless of BMI, which is usually a factor for both conditions. This finding “indicates that lactation does more than simply reduce a woman’s fat stores,” Schwarz and her colleagues wrote in their May 2009 paper. They proposed that hormonal stimulation is likely playing a substantial role.

Women who formula feed are at greater risk for postpartum depression.  Studies show that formula-feeding mothers show more postpartum anxiety and depression than do breastfeeding mothers. The emotional health of the mother may be enhanced by the relationship she develops with her infant during breastfeeding, resulting in fewer feelings of anxiety and a stronger sense of connection with her baby. A woman’s ability to produce 100% complete nourishment for her child’s needs can produce a unique sense of confidence. Psychological researchers have pointed out that the bond of a nursing mother and child is stronger than any other human contact. Holding the child to her breast provides most mothers with a more powerful psychological experience than carrying the fetus inside her uterus. The relationship between mother and child is rooted in the interactions of breastfeeding, and breastfeeding is protective of maternal mood.

These feelings in the early days , weeks and months postpartum establishes the health and psychological foundation for years to come.  The neurotransmitter oxytocin, which is released during nursing, helps women get to that “blissed-out state” many women have while breastfeeding.  This relaxed state of mind can help women cope with all the new stresses of being a new mom.” Simply getting the body in the habit of releasing this hormone by frequent nursing can pay off long after weaning. “Moms who breastfeed over long times get really good at releasing oxytocin” at other times, which activates the parasympathetic nervous system and can help alleviate stress later in life. 

Although many studies try to control for lifestyle, women who breastfeed are more likely to engage in other healthy behaviors,  and these are challenging to fully take into account. According to by Elanor Schwarz,  an assistant professor of medicine, obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, there also might be a sort of long-term feedback loop, in which women who were breastfed as infants would be more likely to breastfeed their own children, thus benefiting from both their own early breast milk diet and the effects of lactating themselves.

These results of all these studies show something repetitively similar and undeniable: there are substantial increased health risks for women who choose formula feeding. The longer a woman breastfeeds her child, and the longer the time she exclusively breastfeeds, the greater the overall benefit to her health. We know well of the tremendous risks of formula feeding infants, including detriment to both health and intellect that extend far into the child’s future, even as an adult.

Formula feeding not only jeopardizes a child’s health, but a mother’s health too, increasing her risk for numerous serious, life-threatening diseases. The message from all of these studies should encourage all women to breastfeed for as long as practicable, and should convince medical providers to encourage exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and extended breastfeeding whenever possible.

Things I Didn’t Know About Breastfeeding (part 1)

I wanted to share some of the things I learned during my recent lactation counselor training course.  I admit I was really over sitting still on my butt in a chair after 45 hours of it, but the course material was so very fascinating to me, that it was worth it.  It was awesome for me to validate with reviewing evidence based research many of the conclusions I had previously reached either through instinct or experience.  Only a minuscule amount of the evidence presented to us contradicted my own personal experience, and I think the lactation education provided by the Healthy Children Project is well worth its cost for anyone interested in improving maternal/child health outcomes.  The course is something I think all pediatricians, OBs, OB and NICU and pediatric and community health nurses, midwives, LLL leaders, WIC and peer counselors,  and basically any others who deal with moms and babies on a regular basis should be required to take.  Its unbelievable to me that almost no education is currently required of these folks,  who are all regularly supposed to be encouraging the foundations of good health. (not sure if its legit,  but our instructors told us that currently only 3 hours of breastfeeding education is required during the entire education of OBs and PEDs- its really no wonder why I and so many other moms i’ve talked with have been given SO MUCH incorrect breastfeeding advice!!).   Its important to note that what we learned and what I pass along here is all based on the most up-to-date research and related evidence that is currently available. For information to qualify as “evidence based”, it must be based on the highest level of evidence available:  meta-analysis and systematic reviews (such as the Cochrane Collaboration- www.cochrane.org), well done, randomized studies, and published case studies. When something has not yet been studied adequately, we must rely on physiology, in particular cell biology.  Evidence is not “my aunt told me her nipples fell off” or “thats the way we’ve always done it” .

For a number of years, from 1965 to 2001,  the only organization that was actively compiling any breastfeeding data and statistics was Ross Laboratories,  ironically, an infant formula company. They collect the info for formula marketing purposes. This used to be essentially the only source for breastfeeding statistics. Ross only collects information for babies up to 12 months old, since that is their primary sales market. Now, thankfully, the CDC collects comprehensive feeding statistics. I will post multiple entries in the future related to what I learned, but I have already had several questions of me about any nutritional info I can offer for nursing moms, so i will start with some of that in this post.  I hope you might learn something- I sure did!!

VITAMIN D

Babies should be born with adequate vitamin D stores, and moms should pass enough D to babies if their own stores are adequate,  but in a recent study, 36% of moms and 58 % of babies were found to have significantly deficient vitamin D levels. Its worse for those of us living in darker northern latitudes, and people with darker skin tones can also have more deficiency.  While people in northern areas often used to get adequate vitamin D in their diets from regularly eating oily fishes, we now know that environmental contamination with mercury is a concern,  and pregnant and lactating moms should generally avoid eating the oily fishes.   Vitamin D deficiency in a pregnant women at least doubles the risk of cesarean section.  28% of women with D deficiency have C-sections compared with only 14 % of those with adequate or higher D levels.  Lower D levels are also associated with gestational diabetes. Currently only around 5-13 % of exclusively breastfed babies (and only 20-30 % of exclusively formula fed infants) meet the current vitamin D recommendations. The current recommendation is for all exclusively breast fed babies to get a 400 IU supplement of Vitamin D daily.  Sunbathing for 20 minutes (for fair skinned people) activates and stores around 20,000 IUs of vitamin D, or the equivalent found in 200 glasses of fortified milk, or 50 prenatal multivitamin tablets!! There is a lot of new research currently being done on D deficiency and associated health concerns.

Babies are also born with iron and zinc stores, but around age 6 months these stores are getting low. Introducing solid foods around 6-7 months is different from introducing solids to younger babies (when gut flora are permanently negatively altered by supplements and solids, and allergies may be triggered. 40 % of US mothers have already started their babies on solids before 4 months of age.  At 6-7 months of age, there is a “window” where babies have the least chance of developing food allergies, so it is a good time to introduce many different foods, but particularly those rich in iron and zinc. Babies do NOT need multivitamins. (the exception being premature infants who should receive both multi-vitamins and iron supplements) Until around 6 months of age, the newborn gut lining is “open”. This means the spaces between the cells of the small intestine will allow large molecules to pass directly into the baby’s bloodstream. Therefore, as well as the beneficial antibodies in breastmilk passing into baby’s bloodstream, allergy-triggering proteins from other foods, disease-causing pathogens and other nasties can also pass through. Infant feeding is a key determinant of which bacteria set up shop in your baby’s gut. For instance, some of the sugars found in breastmilk promote the growth of Lactobacillus bifidus, which makes the gut more acidic, and this more acidic PH helps stop harmful bacteria from growing. Another substance found in breastmilk – Lactoferrin – binds with iron in your baby, thus starving harmful bacteria of the iron they need to multiply. (powdered infant formula is not sterile, and regularly is found to contain multiple harmful bacteria, and added iron, which sets up a perfect environment in the gut for harmful bacterial growth.  The excess unabsorbed minerals (especially iron) can upset the “ecology of the gut,” interfering with the growth of healthful bacteria and allowing harmful bacteria to flourish. This is another reason formula-fed infants have harder, more unpleasant smelling stools.)  Powdered infant formula is frequently recalled due to bacterial or other contamination, and the FDA found that 77 % of formula feeding mothers never received any instruction on safe formula preparation.  (WHO recommends heating water used to prepare powdered formula to at least 158 degrees F, then cooling quickly to skin temp.)  Most troubling, only small amounts of formula or solid foods cause a shift that destroys the “virgin gut” environment, changing acidity and destroying the immunoglobulins that coat mucosal surfaces making them more permeable. Just one formula supplement per 24 hours will result in an almost immediate shift from breastfed to formula-fed gut flora – in which good bacteria (Bifidobacteria) are no longer dominant. Introducing formula (yes, even just one bottle) produces a shift towards a more complex microbiota with greater proportions of Bacteroides, Clostridium, and Enterobacteria.  Whole colonies of healthy bacteria are wiped out and replaced by a spike in pathogenic bacteria.  The conclusion was that there is no significant difference in the gut bacteria of infants fed primarily breastmilk and some formula, and the gut bacteria of fully formula fed infants.   The World Health Organization and Unicef both recommend maintaining the virgin gut for six months, after which solids can be introduced.  (In the United States HIV is a contraindication for breastfeeding, but one interesting study showed that babies born to HIV+ mothers in Africa who were supplemented with formula were 11 times more likely to become infected with HIV than those who were exclusively breastfed.)

THE LACTATING MOTHERS DIET

One thing we learned (that seemed to contradict my own experience) is that mothers who are malnourished , dehydrated, or exhausted are still able to produce an adequate and nutritious milk supply.  Its pretty miraculous really, how women have successfully breastfeed under very extreme conditions, conferring all the health benefits to their children, on as little as 100 extra calories a day. The RDA stands at 500 extra calories per day per breastfeeding infant to make milk and replenish nutrients lost during pregnancy,  but the actual caloric requirements for lactation are probably far less, since the human body adapts with physiological mechanisms in favor of lactation.

Lactation in humans has a lower energy cost than for other mammals.   Studies of malnourished mothers who were supplemented nutritionally had no significant differences as far as infant growth from those who were not supplemented.  There was only a difference in the duration of exclusive breastfeeding, as you might expect, there was a longer duration of EBF  in the nutritionally supplemented moms, and  the better nourished mothers responded more appropriately to their babies needs/cues.  The most influential factor in supply is now understood to be the frequency of the child being put to the breast. Not length, but frequency.  Mothers in different cultures successfully breastfeed in many different patterns, some african tribes studied nursed for only about three minutes at a session around 60 times a day, while moms in other cultures nursed for around 15- 20 minutes at each session between 9 – 12 times a day. It is consistently agreed upon that successful breastfeeding relationships find the mother with her baby at the breast for around 180 minutes a day, whatever the pattern might be.  It is NOT a good idea to nurse for all the 180 minutes before lunchtime and then refuse to nurse the baby until the next day!   Long intervals between nursing sessions,  and tobacco smoking are two things known to have a dramatically negative impact on supply.  Feeding artificial infant formula to a baby is still more dangerous and harmful to the baby’s health than breastfeeding by a mother who hasn’t managed to completely quit smoking cigarettes. Sadly, many moms are often incorrectly told by health care providers that their breastmilk  is not the best option for feeding their babies. Concerns have been raised about exposure to heavy metals such as cadmium (cigarettes are generally thought to be the primary exposure route for cadmium, but formula feeding exposes infants to between 12 and 20 times the amount of cadmium. Cadmium is added to formula as a “whitener”. )  Breastfeeding  can also reduce negative effects on the child’s cognitive development caused by smoking during pregnancy. I have several friends who stopped nursing because they were taking drugs to treat depression. We now know that women who are taking anti-depressant medications can still safely breastfeed, and that shorter duration or no duration of breastfeeding is associated with higher rates of post-partum depression.  Even moms who are recovering addicts on methadone or related drugs can still safely breastfeed (or that the benefits of moms milk still far outweigh the risks associated with formula feeding).  There are a few known exceptions to this, like if the mom is HIV positive , or if a mom is being treated for cancer with radiation and/or chemotherapy.

ALLERGIES AND COLIC

There is no evidence supporting dietary restrictions for the mother during pregnancy and lactation in the hopes of decreasing the chance of baby developing allergies. Those old wives tales about spicy foods and onions and garlic and brassicas causing colic ALL appear to be unfounded. Cow’s milk  WHEY in a nursing mom’s diet is the ONLY dietary substance that has been consistently found in studies to bother SOME babies. The current recommendation is for moms to stop drinking all liquid cows milk and soft cheeses or other foods containing cow’s milk whey if the baby has any symptoms of colic. (I really wish we had known this during the weeks of walk-and-pat-to-loud-johhny-cash-music colic we experienced in the early months with our first baby!)  Not all babies will get colic, but of those who do, there are highly varied sensitivities to whey. Some are bothered by as little as just one tablespoon of milk (for example in moms morning tea or coffee),  meanwhile others show no symptoms unless mom has 1.7 or more cups of milk. Colic is often mistakenly blamed on various foods.   When baby is getting fussy (we always affectionately called it “cranking up”)  a couple of hours after mom ate some spicy pesto or thai food for dinner, it is very likely and logical that she’ll blame these foods rather than the small amount of milk she put in her morning tea or smoothie,  because it takes between 12- 15 HOURS for colic to result from mom drinking some cow’s milk whey.

BREASTFED KIDS AND FOOD ACCEPTANCE

There appears to be less conflict at mealtimes if children are breastfed at least through the first year.   Other study shows  that  children are acculturated to the taste of their native foods through breastmilk.  Longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with acceptance of a higher food variety at three years.  Research has shown that the babies of moms who took odorless, tasteless garlic capsules transferred on average 50 % more milk and stayed at the breast longer than those whose moms got a placebo capsule. The conclusion was that generally babies really love garlic !!  Alcohol,  while not forbidden for the lactating mom, had the reverse effect; babies seemed to generally dislike the flavor of booze in mom’s milk and transferred less milk if mom had a couple of drinks.

CALCIUM

Regardless of the calcium intake in mom’s diet, the need for calcium for breast milk is met by maternal renal calcium conservation and loss of bone.  (if you aren’t getting enough, your bones will give it up) While it is true that moms who breastfeed will lose 3-9 % of their bone density during lactation, they gain it back after weaning at a higher rate, similar to the rate of teenagers calcium gain while growing- resulting in a net gain. The result is that fears about bone loss caused by lactation are unfounded, and that considerations about the adequacy of an individual’s dietary calcium intake or her risk of postmenopausal osteoporosis should not influence her decision to breast-feed.  The research may point to a conclusion that breastfeeding prevents osteoporosis late in life. I will definitely need to do  another post specifically about the benefits of breastfeeding for maternal health – they are so MANY!

Ice Storm 2013

Kale, Cannellini & Partridge Soup

As we enter the darkest days, you might be left with not much in the garden, except for a few brussels sprouts,  which the damn deer have started eating already, and that most amazing cold climate green- kale. Anything that looks this good at this time of year in my garden is AMAZING. 

We love to eat kale simply and quickly sauteed as a side vegetable, and many people love kale “chips”, but it can be amazing so many other ways. Its a superfood,  in case no one told you. if you thought the iceberg lettuce on your BLT counted as greens, then you really need to eat more kale at dinner.  Here is one really easy and delicious way I love to prepare it.  A certain type of bumpy kale called “lacinato” or “dinosaur kale” is often advertised in the seed catalogues as the specific cultivar preferred by the Italians for a version of kale and white bean soup (theirs usually includes a spicy sausage).  I find all kale tastes essentially identical, and though i did grow this bumpy prehistoric type last year, I truly could not determine any detectable difference.  This soup hints at the siberian origins of the hearty and healthy kale plant.

Heat your olive oil,  chop and sautee a medium sized yellow or white onion and 8 cloves of minced garlic. 

Now, before you start making any soup , be sure you have a spoon you love to use, to stir, to taste with,  and to look at in your utensil jar on the counter top. I found these beautiful spoons for 1.99 at a local discount store last week.

I find that if I love a spoon,  I am less apt to leave it sitting in the dishwater for hours, where it will swell and crack apart.   Ok, so, admire your spoon long enough that your onions are soft and slightly translucent,  but not caramelized or burnt on to the bottom of the pot.  Add 4 cups of chopped raw kale.

Stir until wilted, then add 3 cups of chicken stock that you made from the bones of a chicken that you grew from a fuzzy yellow chick and killed and plucked and gutted out in your own back yard. Ok thats what I did here,  but I guess you can make stock from a grocery store organic chicken carcass you ate earlier in the week, or you can use store bought broth *gasp*.   If you want to vegan it all up,  you will want to use vegetable stock here.   It wont be as good as mine, but…

Add 2 cups of canellini beans, 4 chopped plum tomatoes.

If you ran out of the last of your home grown tomatoes last week,  and forgot to close the hoop house door so your last remaining tomatoes froze into mush that the chipmunks are now eating, and you cant find any plum tomatoes to buy that don’t taste like cardboard,  just use a few small round tomatoes of any variety that taste pretty good. I have been loving these dark colored tomatoes that are newly available in our market. Not organic, but, they do taste great.

I also appreciate that they are packaged using *less* plastic than most of the alternatives- they at least have a cardboard tray and comparatively minimal plastic. It would be much better if we could get them to use the lacy paper tray covers, maybe I’ll write to this company and suggest this- they’re coming from Canada.

.

Excessive plastic packaging is insidious. All the focus put on recycling is bull (if you talk to the dump monkeys they’ll divulge that a lot of it is incinerated anyway when when people take the time and effort to sort their trash). Where we can, lets try to change our habits and eliminate purchases that don’t keep this in mind.  If they didn’t sell the stuff that is excessively packaged, they’d be forced to start to reduce the packaging. Single use food packaging is the worst. I grow my own tomatoes for half the year, but have to compromise on this packaging ethic a bit, simply because usually the organic tomatoes are not available loose in our store.  If it doesnt taste any good raw and sliced up with a little salt on it, no amount of cooking a tomato will improve its flavor.  Spend the money for organic if you can. They usually taste better. 

Add some “italian seasoning”.  I dont really know what that means, and I dont buy these kind of seasoning “blends”, so for mine I added some oregano, a couple of sprigs worth of fresh thyme , a little pinch of rosemary, and a bit of salt and pepper. 

Remember,  if you are using fresh herbs you’ll need to use more of them than dried for the same flavor.  I used fresh thyme- all the leaves from this good sized bunch, but this probably would equal only around 1 tsp if it was dried. Did i mention you are supposed to be cooking this on your wood stove,  to fully appreciate the six cords of renewable heating fuel you stacked over the past couple of days?

So, while that all heats through, take the remaining 2 cups of beans and the reserved broth,  and puree them in the blender.

If your husband comes home with fresh partridge breasts he’s looking cheerfully and expectantly for you to find a use for, make him cook these up and chop and add them to the soup when you aren’t looking.  

Spicy sausage is another common kale and white bean soup addition.  If I was making this for only myself, I would not add any meat, because for me the beans in this type of meal ARE the “meat”,  and the addition of meat seems redundant to my tastes.

If you are feeding any littler people than adults, about 1/2 hour before you want to eat dinner, you’ll want to go chase an old hen off of the only two eggs your 25 cold, old chickens laid today, and then mix up some popovers real quick. Because even though you’ll probably love this soup as much as we do, your kids will just say “EWWWW” and pick at it,  because everything in it is TOUCHING everything else.  Obviously.

Ladle the your soup into bowls, top with fresh parsley, and enjoy! Grab a popover before the ravenous kids devour the entire dozen.  If you don’t know how to make a popover, get yourself a copy of the Joy of Cooking.  Immediately.  

INGREDIENTS:

1 tablespoon olive oil 8 large garlic cloves minced 1 medium yellow onion, chopped 4 cups chopped kale 4 cups chicken or for vegan use vegetable broth

2 (15 ounce) cans white beans, such as cannellini or navy 4 plum or other tomatoes, chopped 2 cups chopped chicken (vegan version omit) 2 teaspoons dried Italian herb seasoning Salt and pepper to taste 1 cup chopped parsley

the rationale of a reformed vegetarian

Choosing simply to not eat anything that comes from something with a face does not allow one to stand on moral high ground.  As a one-time vegetarian of more than ten years,  who has come full circle to raising/processing or hunting all of our own meats, or obtaining them from known local sources, I have concluded that a careful, thoughtful, respectful locavorous/omnivorous diet is the diet that causes the least deaths and environmental damage overall. There would appear to be far more ethical support for an omnivorous diet than a strictly vegetarian or vegan diet, especially for those living in northern lattitudes. If you do not produce your own produce, but rely on purchasing it at the grocery store, there are the obvious problems of human slavery (yes right here in america , heres a video about it:  http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/03/the-price-of-a-cheap-tomato.html ) . Then there is the ecologically unsound transportation methods using fossil fuels, but also we need to look at the industrial and ecologically unsound production of our foods to begin with.  

Published figures suggest that, producing wheat and other grains results in:

-at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein

-more environmental damage, and

-a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

 How is this possible?

 

Agriculture to produce wheat, rice and other grains requires clear-felling native vegetation. That act alone results in the deaths of thousands of animals and plants per hectare. If more people want their nutritional needs to be met by plants, our arable land will need to be even more intensely farmed. Unfortunately, based on observations of the predominant taxpayer-subsidized agricultural methods in the US, this will require a net increase in the use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and other threats to biodiversity and environmental health.                                                                         

 Besides the problems with production ethics, veganism can in fact be unhealthy.  

 According to Professor Lindsay Allen, of the University of California at Davis, “Animal source foods have some nutrients which are not found anywhere else. If you’re talking about feeding young children and pregnant women and lactating women, I would go as far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods during that period of life. There’s a lot of empirical research that will show the very adverse effects on child development of doing that.”  Prof Allen was especially critical of parents who imposed a vegan lifestyle on their children, denying them milk, cheese, eggs and butter, as well as meat. “There’s absolutely no question that it’s unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans,” she said. Humans are omnivores. We function best eating both animals and plants.

 There are some nutrients that can only be gotten from plants (like Vitamin C) and others that can only be gotten from animals (like Vitamin B12). supplements are handy if no food sources are available- but  are not equivalent to the real food sources.                                                   

Vitamin B12 is a water soluble vitamin that is involved in the function of every cell in the body.

It is particularly important in the formation of blood and the function of the brain. Because B12 is critical for life and isn’t found in any amount in plants (except some types of algae), it is by far the most important nutrient that vegans must be concerned with.

In fact, B12 deficiency is very common in vegans, one study showing that a whopping 92% of vegans are deficient in this critical nutrient.                                                        

 There are in fact, no controlled trials showing that vegan diets are any better than other diets, and all reported “evidence” is purely anecdotal. 

There isn’t any evidence that meat, eggs, or animal-derived nutrients like saturated fat and cholesterol cause harm.

 

I agree people should be shamed for eating factory farmed foods, but not feel guilty about eating animal foods, which are perfectly healthy (if unprocessed and naturally fed).  Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years.

 

We evolved this way.

 

Our bodies are perfectly capable of digesting, absorbing and making full use of the many beneficial nutrients found in animal foods. It is true that processed meat causes harm and that it’s disgusting the way “conventionally raised” factory farmed animals are treated these days.

 

However, animals that are fed natural diets (like grass-fed cows) and given access to the outdoors are completely different. Comparatively, sustainable hunting causes far less habitat destruction than agricultural uses.

 

Even though processed meat causes harm, which is supported by many studies, the same does NOT apply to natural, unprocessed meat.    

 

Studies on eggs show no harmful effects either. Multiple long-term studies have been conducted on egg consumption, which are very rich in cholesterol, and found no negative effects.

 

The thing is that animal foods… meat, fish, eggs and dairy products for those who can tolerate them, are extremely nutritious.

 

They are loaded with high quality protein, healthy fats, vitamins, minerals and various lesser known nutrients that have important effects on health.  Here is a basic outline of some nutrients that are potentially missing with zero animal products in a diet: 

 

Vitamin A: The “direct” form is only found in animal products -meat, egg yolks, dairy (though much less so than meat) and fish. The vitamin A found in orange and green vegetables is beta carotene which the body must first convert to the usable form of Vitamin A.  That conversion requires bile salts, which are produced by your liver when you consume fat (making fat essential on a vegan diet). So yes, you can obtain a version of Vitamin A in plants, but you’ll need about 6x as much beta cartonene to equal the amount found in direct Vitamin A.

 

Vitamin B12:  This is one nutrient which vegans can potentially become deficient as you can ONLY get naturally occurring B12 from animal products. (There are eight different B vitamins and our body needs them all).  It can take time for the implications of low B12 to show up, with anemia being the most common outcome of very low levels.  Also, B vitamins have  been clearly linked to neurological development and mental functions in human beings. Chronic deficiency of vitamins B6, B12 and other B vitamins may lead to depression and other mood disorders. Other effects include fatigue, irritability, sleep disturbances, dementia, agitation, nervousness and hallucinations.   Unfortunately B12 is not available in plant form.  Spirulina and other sea vegetables, are considered by some to be good sources, but whether that form of B12 can be assimilated into the body, is under dispute.

  

Vitamin D: This is another one found only in animal products. Cod liver oil is super high in it, as is shrimp, wild salmon, sardines, full-fat dairy products, and egg yolks. Yes you can get it from the sun, but most of us don’t spend 15 minutes a day, flesh exposed, palms open. Furthermore, the darker your skin, the less D your body will produce.

 

Protein: You can get some of the components of protein (the amino acids) from legumes, seeds and grain, but meat and fish contain complete protein (meaning they have all the essential amino acids). The amino acids in meat/fish are also in a form that is very easy for most people to digest. Many people find grains and legumes (which contain digestive inhibitors) quite hard to digest. (I do.) Note too how little meat you actually need to get protein – 4 oz of beef provides 30 grams protein; salmon 25 grams; tofu 8 grams.

 

Zinc: Red meat is high in it and it comes in a form that many believe is easier for the body to break down than that found in grains and legumes.

 

Of course there are ways to get these as a vegan, but again, it seems only if you can spend more $ on larger quantities of food,  and a significantly larger amount of time grazing. 

 

Vitamin A: Eat loads of bright orange veg and fruit (carrots, yams, squash, apricots) and dark green ones (spinach, kale, chard etc) which provides beta carotene that the body can convert to Vitamin A. Be careful taking synthetic Vitamin A supplements, as they can be toxic at high levels.

 

Many plants including whole grains are rich in the other B’s. To enhance the digestive properties of the grains, make the Bs more accessible, and eliminate the phytic acid in grains which can draw minerals out of you, you should soak them. Especially important if you’re eating large quantities, which many vegans must do.

 

Avocados are also super rich in the other Bs.

 

But I’ve found I cant grow an avocado here. Not a peanut.  I’ve tried soybeans but failed.  I did get some favas to go by starting them in the greenhouse and transplanting, but they have such a long season,  it is tricky.   My chickens grow easily and happily in this climate, producing delicious antibiotic and hormone-free meat and eggs,  which even my very picky eater  kid eats with enthusiasm. 

 

 

 

So much of our dietary concerns of late have been about sourcing locally.   I am also very concerned currently with the presence of so much refined carbohydrate and high fructose and pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically modified ingredients in the bulk of what is in the aisles of what is considered “food” by most americans, as well as the distance food must travel to get from questionable production practices to mindless consumption.  I’ve pretty much given up wheat and am noticing amazing health results.  The wheat I ate as a kid thirty years ago is very different from the wheat being produced today.  I have thought a great deal about many of these issues involved with food quality, safety, ethics, and I have concluded that truly the best we can do is to know where exactly our food is coming from. 

 

Though obviously they are intertwined, its important to separate the ethical/moral rationale from the nutritional one. Yes, most factory farms are despicable, and I think it’s honorable to reject these practices, but if you’re not eating animal products (and fish)because of the inhumane treatment of living creatures, there are farms that raise animals with care and slaughter them with dignity. The animals are drug-free and run around like animals do.

 

Many people go vegan to detox.  I am 100% for detoxing by eliminating sugar, processed foods, refined grains, dairy (especially if one is lactose intolerant- which people of eastern european descent often are -genetically), and alcohol (though I think the occasional once a month drink is essential for mental health if not digestive).  I don’t believe there is anything about fish (in particular small ones with low mercury) or pasture-raised animals and their eggs, that our bodies find toxic.

I fully respect everyone’s desire to choose whatever way of eating feels right for them. Just because something feels right for me, it may NOT be right for you and I respect that. What we choose to eat/not to eat is an extraordinarily personal decision – up there with religion and politics.  So if what you’re eating is working for you, keep eating it.  And ignore what anyone else says – including me.  

 I was a strict vegetarian for about a decade. I often think of what my twenty year old self would think if she could see me now,  out in the backyard plucking chickens or going on my first moose hunt,  as I did a couple weeks ago.  

There may be ethical or religious reasons not to eat animals.   But there are no ethically valid or scientifically valid health reasons to completely eliminate animal foods. The optimal diet for any one person depends on a lot of things. This includes age, gender, activity levels, current metabolic health, food culture and personal preference. Vegan diets may be appropriate for some people living in some climates, but not all people, and I maintain that it is more ethically correct to eat locally, respectfully harvested animal foods than to ship vegan foods with unclear sources and production practices over thousands of miles using fossil fuels. 

 

strawberry season!

Right now is primo strawberry season – if you dont want to be eating a lot of corn syrupy pectin filled crap on your toast, I’m going to lend you my best recipe.  Strawberries, cane sugar and lemon juice.  I’ll skip over the first,  most important part, which is picking your own berries.  This is another story for another time, which involves tales of  a lot of frustration year after year,  with toddlers eating too many berries and immediately needing to poop where there is no porta-potty or bathroom, but i will say this years trip to the nearby strawberry farm was the most successful and least anxiety riddled picking adventure I’ve had in about a decade.  A perfect season and good timing for picking on a cooler day meant we got away with a gluttonous 30 quarts of perfect berries in just under an hour.  So – go and get yourself some good berries.  Dont pick the ripest ones,  because if they are mostly chem-free (which you want) ,  they will start to go bad the second you pull them off the plants, and picking those that are just under perfect ripe will buy you an extra 24 hours to figure out what the hell you are going to do with the ridiculous amount of freakin berries you picked once you get home.  I kept hearing grandmothers in the field telling grandkids not to pick the ones touching the ground, so theres probably something to that.  So, you are probably wondering ,  how do you know if your strawberries are full of chemicals?  Well, a certified organic strawberry field would be best, but we don’t have one in my area, so my strategy is to go right up to the farmer  (he’ll be the only one at the farm who isn’t a teenager)  and ask him what the hell he sprays on his crop, and if they are safe for my kids to eat them before washing them.  If he wont look you in the eye, or otherwise looks nervous, or wont give you a straight answer, you can bet he’s full of shit and they’re covered in arsenic.  Another way is to slice into them.  Chemically laden berries will be white all in the inside.  The best berries will be mostly red right through, all the way in the center. So Wash them gently and then core the berries (remove the stem and a bit of the top with a sharp little knife.)  Get prepped a rounded quart of them, if they are big, cut them in half, slicing up a few of the ripest ones,  but mostly you can just leave them whole.  If you have a Nana around , they are usually great at coring berries.   So , prep your rounded over quart, put it in a large (10 inch at least) heavy bottomed stock pot. I have one specifically for jams that I hide in the laundry room so my husband doesn’t burn it up cooking popcorn.  Add 4 cups of sugar. (Yes there are low sugar jam recipes, they all suck.  Don’t waste your time trying to figure out how to reduce the sugar. The sugar is your preservative and you will only be using a couple of tablespoons at a time of the finished product, and the sugar you are putting in it is far better that the corn syrup in the crappy jams from the store.)  Place over low heat until the berries “juice up” , or when you can no longer see sugar clumps and its liquidy, then turn it on to medium high heat. The moment it starts to boil, set the timer for 15 minutes, 16 if the berries are extra ripe. Do NOT stir it now.  You can slowly streak a spoon through it scraping the bottom to see if any is sticking, but really, refrain from the urge, NO stirring for the 15 minutes. I like this flat bottom spoon /stir-fry tool to carefully scrape the bottom. When the timer rings, slide off of heat and allow to cool a bit,  skim off any foam from the top that you can get off of it. I read somewhere that the foam is all the impurities and toxic crud that you don’t want in your finished jam. Add the juice from 1/2 a lemon, stir gently a couple of times, pack in hot sterilized jars, seal and process for 5-10 minutes in a boiling water bath.  The biggest pain in the ass with this making jam thing is that it must be made ONLY in small batches, so you are working with no more than 4-6 cups of berries at a time if you want good results.  If you try to double the recipe you wind up with some sort of brownish unappealing berries floating in a strawberry sauce, and thats fine over ice cream , but no good for the multitude of PBJ  consumed around here, and definitely not something to give away to your in-laws.  The small batches mean turning most of your 30 quarts of berries into jam will take you something like 54 hours. A good distraction is finding some boozy desserts to make while the jam cooks down in its itty bitty batches-  like Pavlovian  Strawberries. This might not have been what ot was called, but it was tasty. Its a kind of meringue dessert with egg whites, sugar and strawberries and orange liqueur.  Good stuff. And its gluten free, so its good for you!  um. yeah….  This jam recipe was “Red Red Strawberry Jam”  from my mom’s falling apart Joy of Cooking book from the 70’s, but I found there is no longer any strawberry preserve recipe whatsoever in the newer 90’s version I have.  Unbelievable! It turned out with perfect color, great taste, consistently pleasing texture, nice suspension of fruit in a perfect pectin-free gel.  Hopefully these 50 jars of jam will last us at least a couple of weeks! 

stop it

My son is intact, complete, whole, unmodified, un-mutilated.  I believe he will be thankful one day for this, for having the integrity of his whole body, thankful that we made this informed decision not to alter him. If he chooses one day to modify any part of his body with piercings, tattoos , or amputation, for religious or aesthetic or whatever reasons,  it will be his own decision to make about his own body, when he is an adult.   Its encouraging to read that more than half of American parents today choose to leave their children intact.

I grew up in a generation where every male I knew had part of his genitals amputated as a baby. When I was growing up, and even as a young adult, I have no recollection of knowing that there was such a thing as “intact” male.  In college, while skinny dipping with friends, i noticed that the european students penises looked different, but its not polite to stare, and the mutilated genitals of most every man I knew seemed to be the norm, and so I did not start to honestly question this until I was about to have my own children.

When I was first pregnant, I remember thinking that it was mainly up to my husband. I thought that if we had a boy,  and if he really wanted this done to him , that it was his decision to make since I don’t have a penis.  This flawed logic is what I believe is behind much of the continued violent sexual assaults still happening to around half of the baby men born in this country today.  Luckily, my husband didn’t really have an opinion.  We did a bunch of research and decided there was no medical reason to cut a boy child. Then we had a girl first, and so we had three more years to think on it,  and by then it was just totally a non-question.   Its true that this is something where the more you know about this,  the more you are against it.  I would no sooner have cut out his tongue or removed his eyelids.   Now, having a six year old who has never had any “hygeine” or other “issues” or “problems” related to his intact body, I have gained the confidence I did not have (not having the same equipment myself, I needed this experience caring for a perfect little boy to really know how wrong the cutting apart of boys penises is.  I’ve come all the way from an ignorant teenager with no opinion at all on this, to what is now known as an “intactivist”, someone who advocates for the genital integrity of all babies. I’ll get into some facts and also opinions here, and I always welcome any discussion, but please keep it civil , and please at least read some factual information on the subject before you comment.

It is disturbingly interesting that in the United States we do NOT legally recognize or allow the cultural traditions which practice female genital mutilation, and yet it is totally encouraged to cut up our boys.  I try to reason this one out, thinking how the word “man “ has been understood to mean both male and female in our laws.  I cant help but think how enraged the feminists would be if the situation was reversed, and only girls were legally allowed to be cut.  (several men have recently sued the hospitals that performed their circumcisions as infants, and WON, for large undisclosed amounts of money, so the actual legality of protecting girls but not boys is in reality , questionable at best : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410532/posts  )

Several years ago, I was invited to a performance at a local college campus of “the vagina monologues” a classic feminist piece by Eve Ensler that has been  performed frequently for several decades worldwide. I wouldnt have chosen to attend this performance on my own (having read the monologues years earlier in college), but I was having fun and with a powerful insightful group of local lady friends.  At the end of the performance, the troop of actors showed a short video that encouraged everyone to get involved and actively oppose FGM (female genital mutilation) in Africa. I thought it was a little odd that they were trying to get people all riled up about this injustice going on so many thousands of miles away, when right here at home half of our boys are having their genitals mutilated.  I suppose it made sense in the feminist context to only consider the violence against women, but it was that moment that I started to think more about it and to get angry.  Maybe, is it only white people who are allowed to have these kinds of cultural traditions?

My friend recently got her license as to tattoo. How interesting is it that tattoo artists have more ethics than drs when it comes to this kind of body modification- and a tattoo could really be so much less of a modification- just a mark on the skin – where as genital cutting with boys changes the form and function of a perfectly healthy organ! No, it is not okay to strap down a helpless child and cut apart his penis. It is a psychosexual violent assault.  Think what would happen if you strapped an adult man to a table and removed half of his genitals?  But because a “doctor” is doing it and “caring parents” believe it is acceptable, and the infant has no means by which to object,  save the futile screams (often not even witnessed by the parents), the practice continues. Circumcision of minors is disgusting and abusive. It has no place in a civilized and caring society.

I think I should be clear, that I do feel that if adults want to modify their own genitals with cutting , piercing, sex changes, mutilation, whatever- great! I have no problem with this.  Go right ahead, but leave alone all the little baby boys who might choose differently when they are adults, please! Think of how much you would like to be strapped down and have half of your genitals (or a part of any organ) removed without your consent. Oh yeah, that would be against the law, a violent sexual assault. Which it is.  Assault is assault, regardless of the age of the person who is not consenting to the cutting of their parts, regardless of religion, or tradition, or the aesthetic preferences of the parents.

Some good news is, amidst all the ignorance, the cutting rate in the USA has recently fallen below 50 %. This is mostly a result of the western states having de-funding the medicaid coverage for this cruelty, and the rates dropping sharply. It seems to take about ten years, but there is an obvious correlation between defunding and the falling rates. Some are claiming that the poor cant afford the few hundred dollars the procedure costs, but I think the reality is that new and expectant parents must now start to wonder why it is not covered, then start asking questions and doing their own research, and of course when you know better, you do better, so more and more are realizing this is insanity and keeping their boys intact.

I want to address so many things relating to this topic, but lets first take some of the supposed purported “health benefits”.   It is so strange to use UTI prevention as a justification for cutting.  Girls get far more UTIs than boys, but no one is suggesting genital cutting of girl babies to prevent those?  Another interesting fact is that breastfeeding a child also does FAR more to prevent UTIs than genital cutting.  http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/hanson1/  (It always comes back to this with me, doesnt it?)  i have read the full AAP report – it also mentions possible penile cancer prevention as one justification of removal of this healthy organ tissue. It is important to note that the risk is much higher for men to get breast cancer- the rate is is 1 in 1000  men, much more common than penile cancer (the rate of penis cancer is 1 in 100,000 men), as is testicular cancer also (1 in 250) , but of course no one is suggesting male infants have their breast buds or testicles removed, and no one ever suggests prophylactic breast bud removal in girls, even though breast cancer is so much more common than this feared pee pee cancer. Why?

I think its telling that NO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION in the WORLD RECOMMENDS ROUTINE GENITAL CUTTING OF INFANTS.   Even the most recent AAP statement said that while they have concluded the “benefits” outweigh the risks,  they do not go so far as to recommend it.  None of the mass media coverage made a note of this fact, all the coverage I read was completely skewed to make the statement seem as if they were recommending it.   The new revised AAP statement seemed clearly aimed at requiring insurance coverage for the procedure- since many states are dropping medicaid funding since it is not medically necessary.  Further investigation has revealed that the AAP panel curiously did not include a single intact man, but it did include as its chair a Dr who publicly brags about circumcising his own son. (Drs’ professional ethical obligations bar them from performing surgeries or otherwise treating their own families.) They stated that parents who want their babies cut apart should be allowed to seek this from drs and have it covered by insurance.  The “benefits” they suggest are along the lines of: “removing the breast buds in baby girls will prevent later breast cancer” or “removing the fingernails of an infant will prevent later infections of the hands” , or “removing the tongue will prevent canker sores” , or “eyeball removal in babies will prevent childhood conjunctivitis”.  While any of these statements may be “logically” true, to any sane person they obviously make no sense as a method for preventing diseases which are easily treatable with antibiotics , or diseases that may or may not ever affect the individual.  Still, they did not go so far as to actually recommend genital cutting.  The AAP’s policy statement contradicts its own bioethics policy statement, which affirms that parental wishes cannot justify unnecessary surgery and that “providers have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses.” Moreover, according to this same bioethics policy statement, a “pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent.” http://arclaw.org/

The risks are not negligible.  Some 200 babies each year die as a direct result of complications from genital cutting.  An outbreak of measles that caused just a couple of hundred deaths of young children spurred a nationwide vaccination campaign to eradicate the disease.  I wonder why it is that the deaths caused by unnecessary genital cutting are not as important? Another awful thought is that these are only those that are reported, and as with reporting of maternal deaths, the screwy regulations do not require deaths caused by genital cutting to be reported as such. It is interesting to note that the number of baby boys who die each year from SIDS is more than twice the number of baby girls who die from this mysterious cause. Beyond the worst outcome of death, additionally, one in 3 circumcisions will result in a need for further operations to “fix” it.  Many men will have permanent life-long sexual dysfunction as a result of the amputation (this permanent impairment was the basis of the big $ winning law suits) . Its important to note that (at least in the case of William Stowell whose lawsuit was in the news a bit) the circumcision was not considered “botched”.  This
case should send a message to doctors that they run the risk of a lawsuit each time they circumcise an infant for non-theraputic reasons.  http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=581

I have a couple of friends who are big cutting proponents. We are able to remain friends,  but there is an unspoken understanding that this topic is not open for discussion, and this is not by my choice.  Its just another place where I detest organized religion’s insistence on building walls instead of bridges between people.  When i’ve asked questions, one of them has simply stood up and walked away physically from me.    They make it clear that they feel it is their religious freedom to do this harm to their sons,  to forcibly imprint their religion by cutting the child, it is their god given right. Wether or not the child will someday choose the same religion seems an irrelevant concern in their minds. They are determined to force it on the child in this brutal way.   What is perhaps most baffling to me is that these same friends have always seemed so open minded to me, and they are in other ways very willing to buck the traditions that they were raised in (my one friend married a non-jew,  even though it meant her grandmothers total refusal to attend her wedding.  Another admitted to preferring the sex she had with intact men,  but in the same breath she swore she would never marry or have an intact son.)  That their desires to cut any male offspring are simply desires to adhere to religious tradition seems doubtful to me-  seeing that with plenty of other topics they are able to think it through and reach a reasonable conclusion, even if this means some divergence from the methods they were raised with.  ( I have to gleefully note here that these friends have had four beautiful (intact) girl babies,  and have no male children so far between them.)

In an effort to understand the stated desire for adherence to religious tradition – which is so alien to me  because my conclusions mostly take place in an evidence-based reality, subject to change when new information comes to light. But to be “tolerant” I have at least read up on it. Even seeing it through this lens, I am baffled by the contradictions present there.   In the Jewish law, the human body is a sacred temple that belongs to its Creator. It is merely on loan to the person, who is the guardian of the body, but he or she has no right to deface it in any way.  This prohibits all self-mutilation, tattoos, even cremation is explicitly forbidden.   evidence also shows that what we now call ‘circumcision’ was not performed in the same manner in antiquity. At that time it was a ‘cutting of the blessing’ – a very small slit made at the end of the penis to allow a few drops of blood to fall (or, actually, be sucked out by the mouth of the boy’s father or a Rabbi).

“Cutting the Blessing” in antiquity was very different than today in modern U.S. culture where we amputate the entire prepuce organ. Hebrews and early Jews made this very small slit in the tip of the prepuce to allow the few drops of blood to be shed as the blood sacrifice of the covenant. The Hebrew words used for the practice are “namal” and “muwl”. In Hebrew, namal means ‘to clip’ – like one would clip the ends of our fingernails. Muwl means ‘to curtail, to blunt.’ Neither of these words mean “to cut” “to amputate” “to remove” “to cut off,” etc. There were very different words in Hebrew to represent ‘the cutting off’ or ‘the removal of.’ The difference was obviously clear to people at the time.

You could not possibly amputate the prepuce organ in antiquity and expect the child to live. Even today we deal with a 1-in-3 rate of complications associated with prepuce amputation and approximately 200 deaths per year (in the U.S. alone) due to circumcision surgery. At this time in early Hebrew culture, babies would have hemorrhaged if this organ were removed, and if they lived through the blood loss, they would have died of disease.

Kelalei ha-Milah by R. Jacob ha-Gozer and his son R. Gershom ha-Gozer (13^th century) contains the earliest guide to the laws of circumcision. The rite itself preserves the ancient notion that the deity desires the sacrifice of the whole child but is appeased with the offering up of the metonymic portion of the member and thus spares the life of the child. The tradition of naming the child at the time of circumcision is medieval, but it is mentioned in the Talmud (Shab. 134a) and Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer 48. The medieval ritual confirms that the deeper meaning of circumcision is in the shedding of blood, not the removal of the foreskin      Jews could not be distinguished at the bath house based on this, since so little was removed .   So where did the dramatically different form of male genital cutting that we see today come from?

Mostly, from a dude named John Harvey Kellogg. Though mainly known today for his development of corn flakes (thats right, the breakfast cereal),    he was an advocate of sexual abstinence. Kellogg devoted large amounts of his educational and medical work to discouraging sexual activity on the basis of dangers both scientifically understood at the time—as in sexually transmissible diseases—and those taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church  employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes.  Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman’s clitoris.

In his Plain Facts for Old and Young,[7] he wrote: “A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. A further a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] we have employed with entire satisfaction consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice

In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid  to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.

He also recommended, to prevent children from this “solitary vice”, bandaging or tying their hands, covering their genitals with patented cages and electrical shock.

In his Ladies’ Guide in Health and Disease, for nymphomania, he recommended Cool sitz baths; the cool enema; a spare diet; the application of blisters and other irritants to the sensitive parts of the sexual organs, the removal of the clitoris and nymphae.

How people were foolish enough to go along with this is beyond me to understand, but they did, and circumcision rates rose steadily after Kellogg’s time.  In 1900 the circumcision rate was only 18 percent, by 1950 it was 37 percent, and by 1990 it was 70 %.

Is it really legal?

When we look to the laws we have created that seek to protect children, no one would argue that a female child would not be included and protected under the same statutes that protect boys.  It seems wholly contradictory and quite questionable to me that this is legal, and if not by my reading, then why is it that no one is enforcing the law when it comes to male minors in this instance.

“But cutting females is MUTILATION , with boys its just like clipping fingernails., right?”

NO.  Cutting female and male genitals have the following similarities: 1) Over 100 million procedures have been performed on current populations. 2) It is unnecessary and extremely painful. 3) It can have adverse sexual and psychological effects. 4) It is generally done by force on children. 5) It is generally supported by local medical doctors. 6) Pertinent biological facts are not generally known where procedures are practiced. 7) It is defended with reasons such as tradition, religion, aesthetics, cleanliness, and health. 8) The rationale has currently or historically been connected to controlling sexual pleasure. 9) It is often believed to have no effect on normal sexual functioning. 10) It is generally accepted and supported by those who have been subjected to it. 11) The decision is generally controlled by men though women may be supportive. 12) Those who are cut feel compelled to cut their children. 13) The choice may be motivated by underlying psychosexual reasons. 14) Critical public discussion is generally taboo where the procedure is practiced. 15) It can result in serious complications that can lead to death. 16) The adverse effects are hidden by repression and denial. 17) Dozens of potentially harmful physiological, emotional, behavioral, sexual, and social effects on individuals and societies have never been studied. 18) Where female genital cutting is practiced, cutting the genitals of males is often practiced. 19) On a qualitative level, cutting the genitals of male and female children are one and the same thing. 20) To allow us to develop into our maximum individual and social potential, we must stop the cutting of genitals of both sexes.

Why do some individuals insist on doing this to other people? Leaving aside the religious commandment, there is another reason. Someone who has been deprived of half of the skin of his normal penis, with the 20,000 plus sensitive nerve endings, will never experience the joy of sex, as it was meant to be – in all mammals for the past 65 million years (all mammals have foreskins). So it should not be surprising to find a deep anger in many a victim. This anger often results in denial, which can manifest as a compulsion to circumcise, or to see to it that others are circumcised. When this tragic relationship generally becomes recognized, steps will be taken to prevent these compulsives from ruining the lives of so many others.

To help put this in perspective, lets compare a pedophile with a circumcising individual. Which is worse, a person who plays with a child’s penis, and harms him psychologically, or a person who tortures (by definition: torture is hurting another, whether intended or not), and permanently mutilates (again, by definition) another human being, and also harms him psychologically? We know how society reacts to a pedophile. How should it react to a circumciser? When the public fully recognizes what is going on, most will want to put an end to the tragic practice.

Compelling reasons exist for strong concern among the public about the various types of damage caused by circumcision. These include pain and suffering, psychological harm, behavioral changes, irreversible reduction or loss of full sexual function, and underreported tragic complications, including deaths. Moreover, no satisfactory medical justification for routine circumcision has ever been demonstrated.

why i’m voting yes on 1

My husband asked me the other day when my voice was getting shrill, “Why do you care about the same-sex marriage thing so much, especially when you yourself have such “traditional” family values?”   It got me thinking on why exactly it does really matter to me.  He was responding to my outrage at an ad the Bangor Daily news ran last week – here are just a few excerpts from that disgraceful ad, paid for by  “concern for children” with a post office box in North Dakota.  :  “marriage has to do with sexual expression … between a faithful husband and wife, so diseases will not filter into society.”   I snicker as I wonder if the dudes getting serviced by the Zumba Madame had read this.  “Unfortunately, teaching same-sex gender expression in schools falls within the realm of teaching youth how to smoke safely”   Just change a few words and we’ve set the clock back 50 years, to a time we can’t afford to go back to.  This advertisement was crossing way over the line of appropriateness in my view.  I wonder,  if I tried to purchase advertising space saying that religious people carried diseases which they wanted to spread to our children (for real, two infant boys died in recent years,  and others were sickened after contracting herpes from a NYC mohel during their ritual jewish circumcisions)  if the newspaper would publish this too? I’m guessing that no, they wouldn’t publish that, not that I would actually try to run such an ad, but  I do wonder,  how far exactly does the freedom of speech go?  Does it go farther if you are just queer bashing,  because gay people don’t count as fully equal citizens? Yes, I’m pretty pissed off when my neighbors carefully position their “god hates gays” sign at the far end of their property that is directly across the street from our nice gay neighbors’ house (who I think are legally married in Massachusetts).  What is wrong with people?    Ah, well, no more eggs for them.

Families with only one parent, or with two same-sex parents never seemed all that weird to me. It was just another type of family.  Why did it seem so “normal” to me? When I was born, my fathers first wife, my sister’s mother, had made a home with another woman after she and my dad split.  The two of them raised my sister together, who was six years older than I was.  They lived  about an hour away from us, and we frequently spent many happy times together, my father and my mother , my sister and her two moms.  I also had 2 other good friends while growing up who both had families with 2 dads.  One family lived in an old gothic-style ship captain’s house in town, which they painted pink and turquoise,  the other family lived in a burnt umber double wide in the low-rent district out past the tracks.  I got the idea , through observations of people I made from a very young age on into young adulthood, that homosexual people weren’t really all that different from “straight” people. They were just other human beings, they could be rich or poor, nurturing or distant with their kids, often they had the same peeling paint, alcoholism, car trouble, sneaking around teenagers, messy divorces, dying pets and parents,  and all the same family issues that heterosexual couples and families dealt with.

The idea of differentness and an appreciation for the uniquely valuable qualities of people can be recognized by the clean slate mind of a child, but the ideas of racism and bigotry and hatred must be specifically taught.   I can remember my mother having to explain to me as a five or six-year-old child what “black” was, when I came home from school asking questions.  I had heard kids talking in a derogatory way about a new student, and I was sure I didn’t know what they were talking about, and she had to explain to me that a couple of my grandparents best friends, who we saw often, were not just “extra tan”  people as I had assumed because i thought they were from down south, (New Jersey).   I can’t remember ever having homosexuality explained to me in a specific way, though it must have been at some point.

When  I was in middle school, I befriended a kid in my art class, and he realized the same year that I met him that he was brilliantly, spectacularly gay.   He was 13.  With his dramatic personality, enthusiasm, humor, his bright freckles and his shocking red hair, he was as flaming a person as you’ll ever meet,  in pretty much every way.  His friends were supportive but his parents decided that heavy-duty psychoactive medication was the correct solution for his particular personality.  He became quite depressed in the years that followed, and I’m sad to say I don’t really know how or where he wound up.  I remember that I was concerned way back then as a 16-year-old,  that something seemed very wrong with a culture that so strongly discouraged any of the “feminine” or flamboyant traits in our men to the point of squashing their entire personality. I have been keenly aware of actively discouraging gender stereotyping with my own son, and have been discouraged at how homophobia is something you must constantly dispel once a boy reaches school age.  If he wants to sew with me, wear hot pink or dress up like michael jackson or a fairy – I say go for it. I shouldnt have been surprised to see this week, a parent posted this- an actual school assignment his daughter came home with in Chicago: https://twitter.com/gameism/status/264743164802396160/photo/1  Unacceptable.

As a teen,  I started hanging out with an activist group in Portland called “Act Up”, a conglomerate of some older straight and gay folks from the Portland area, but the participants ranged the full spectrum from rebellious teenagers to grandmothers with grandsons dying of AIDS.   I joined them in their protests, brought them tea when they chained themselves to the post office doors,  and joined in as they marched holding “silence=death” signs, we stamped down Ocean Ave. to the then president George H.W.Bush’s family compound while the secret service videotaped us.   I helped organize our own afterschool AIDS awareness group, “TASL-  “Teen Action to Save Lives” yeah it was pretty lame,  but we were enthusiastic. We fought to get condoms available in the local high schools, but some of the rabidly religious parents fought to remove sex education all together from the high school curriculum.  I remember one particular classmates father, a board member,  calling me a fornicator as I stood up to speak in favor of sex-education at a school board meeting.

I’m not a scientist, but I do live and try to learn by drawing conclusions from the natural and observable world around me. Some plants are dioecious (each individual has reproductive units that are either male or female) and some are monoecious (each individual has reproductive units that are female and reproductive units that are male , but I have seen that many kinds of plants i grow  that are technically dioecious occasionally, and not especially rarely, will have variations in the sex of a plant, i.e. mostly female parts but just a couple of male flowers, or vice versa.  Knowing this,  and thinking of all the humans I have been blessed to  know, leads me to believe that this type of variation carries over into all forms of life, even people.  I did not know until recently (while investigating MGM) that somewhere around 1 in every 100 humans is born with what could be called slightly “ambiguous”sex, and one or two out of every thousand babies are “corrected” with surgery and the child is then assigned one sex or the other.   This fact of how common the ambiguousness is,  to me seems to support this idea of some natural variation with regard to sex in humans.

I have a good friend who announced many years ago that his particular leanings were “bisexual”. I have always found it curious that he is equally comfortable in the wilds of Alaska slaughtering a moose or building a log cabin as he is making beautifully intricate silver jewelry in his studio or cooking gourmet crepes.  I’m innately heterosexual myself, but am open-minded enough that I  probably would have chosen to be a lesbian if this was something that could be a lifestyle choice.  My own inability to “choose” to be gay,  means to me that those who are innately homosexual likely can’t really choose otherwise either.  It is simply, naturally, a part of who they are, just as for me my heterosexual tendencies are not something I can willingly change, but you’ll find me wearing wear blue jeans and work boots under my skirt as often as not.

I recently came across an article about the “two spirit people” of the native americans and was blown away, mostly because I had never heard anything about this, and also just by how much sense it makes. If you have not read about this tradition, look at it, its fascinating.  They recognize a wide range of variety in sex, recognize and perform same sex-unions, and believe that those with strong male and female traits are doubly blessed with the spirits of both sexes. They hold these people in a high regard, often as respected spiritual leaders within the tribe. Think of how simply allowing the priests to be openly gay might prevent some of that horrible pedophilia!

Where I went to college, and in the town where I now live, there are all sorts of same sex-couples in the community.  I see them in the grocery store, the post office, in the town office registering their cars.  I see them at school concerts, I see them mowing their lawns and at the dump. They are some of my best customers. They are some of my best friends.  I don’t see any looming threat to my own marriage by allowing other citizens to have basic civil rights,  like the right to marry who you choose and have this legally recognized, and I truly have a hard time understanding the perspective of those who see this as a “threat” to anyone else’s marriage.  Maybe divorce should be what the religious ought to push to have outlawed if people want to preserve the institution of marriage.  More than half of all “traditional’ heterosexual marriages end in divorce.  How sacred is that?

When I got married, before our ceremony, my husband and I signed a legally binding contract, and god wasnt invited to the party.   ( ALL legal marriages in this country require this legal document, yet legal marriage  does not require any religious ceremony)  We made our Dr . Seuss vows, and as silly as that sounds, we do take them seriously.  It is highly offensive to those of us who see our marriages as this legal commitment to hear others trying to push their own religious beliefs into our laws, and trying to redefine the definition of OUR marriage.  My understanding of the freedom of religion is that we are also free to practice NO religion at all if we so choose.  The freedom of religion does not include a freedom to interject ignorant hatred and bias into our secular laws.

Voting yes does not “deteriorate the fabric of society as we know it” as religious nuts and the spewers of hate would have you believe, it only gives legal rights to those who are already involved in committed long-term relationships, and gives this possibility to others.  If you plan to vote no on 1 tomorrow, remember that voting yes takes nothing away from you, none of your religious rights are infringed upon, so you can go on hating queers while you pretend to be pious. The particular wording of this one means that if you vote yes, still no religious organization would be forced to marry same-sex couples.   A no vote does deny others the same basic civil rights you have come to expect for yourself and your family.  If you plan to cast a vote against gay families tomorrow, think about why you are a person who wants to prevent other people from having equal rights.  Then think again, and vote yes, because marriage matters to all families.  Don’t all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I saw a spot-on cartoon that showed some bigots saying “What? Let gays get legally married? The next thing you know we’ll be letting them vote and pay taxes!!”

The time has come to let gay people be able to live and love freely and pursue a happy life the same as everyone else.  We have  so many more problems to focus on, I cant believe we are still not beyond this ignorance.   Lets be the first state to pass this with a popular vote! I think this or something similar is on the ballot in 4 or maybe 6 states tomorrow , so please vote for love wherever you live.  Did you see the president’s wonderful letter to this little girl with two dads?  Wow- this guy is a real human being, and he’s got my vote.  Too bad it looks like Mittens has plans to steal this one with those electronic voting machines in Ohio…