The Neuroscience of Calming a Baby

New study explains why babies calm down when they are carried.

Every parent and caregiver knows from first hand experience that babies calm down when they are picked up, gently rocked, and carried around the room. New research published in the journal Current Biology on April 18, 2013 shows that this is a universal phenomenon. Infants experience an automatic calming reaction when they are being carried, whether they are mouse pups or human babies.

"From humans to mice, mammalian infants become calm and relaxed when they are carried by their mother," says Kumi Kuroda of the RIKEN Brain Science Institute in Saitama, Japan. Being held in a mother's arms is the safest place for a baby to be, and the mother can have peace of mind knowing her baby is happy, content, and relaxed. The fact that babies are neurobiologically wired to stop crying when carried is a part of our evolutionary biology that helps our species survive.

This study is the first to show that the infant calming response to carrying is a coordinated set of central, motor, and cardiac regulations that is an evolutionarily preserved aspect of mother-infant interactions, the researchers say. It also helps to have a scientific explanation for the frustration many new parents struggle with. . . a calm and relaxed infant will often begin crying immediately when he or she is put down. When my daughter was young, swaddling her seemed to create a compact posture and sense of security that triggered an automatic relaxation response when she was put back down and helped break this cycle.

What triggers this calming response?

Kuroda and colleagues at RIKEN determined that the calming response is mediated by the parasympathetic nervous system and a region of the brain called the cerebellum (Latin: little brain). The researchers found that the calming response was dependent on tactile inputs and proprioception. Proprioception is the ability to sense and understand body movements and keep track of your body's position in space. They also found that the parasympathetic nervous system helped lower heart rate as part of mediating the coordinated response to being carried.

Both human and mouse babies calm down and stop moving immediately after they are carried, and mouse pups stop emitting ultrasonic cries. Mouse pups also adopt the characteristic compact posture, with limbs flexed, seen in other mammals such as cats and lions.

The idea that the familiar calming dynamic was also playing out in mice occurred to Kuroda one day when she was cleaning the cages of her mouse colony in the laboratory. She says, "When I picked the pups up at the back skin very softly and swiftly as mouse mothers did, they immediately stopped moving and became compact. They appeared relaxed, but not totally floppy, and kept the limbs flexed. This calming response in mice appeared similar to me to soothing by maternal carrying in human babies."

The Role of the Cerebellum in Calmness

As an athlete, I have written extensively about the cerebellum and its role in coordinating fine-tuned muscle movements, balance, and proprioception... The cerebellum is always on guard to protect your body from danger and prepare you for 'fight-or-flight' by keeping track of everything going on in your environment. 

Among many other jobs, the cerebellum has a huge responsibility to maintain your safety and physical well being. This takes a lot of brain power and energy. Although the cerebellum is only 10% of brain volume it holds over 50% of your brain's neurons. Neuroscientists are perplexed by everything that the cerebellum does. This study offers one more valuable clue. 

Scientists have known for years that the cerebellum is directly linked to a feedback loop with the vagus nerve which keeps heart rate slow and gives you grace under pressure. As adults, we can calm ourselves by practicing mindfulness and Loving-Kindness Meditation which puts the cerebellum at peace and creates a parasympathetic response of well being. This appears to be the same response that occurs in infants when they are being carried. 

Interestingly, the only time during the day that the cerebellum is allowed to let down it's guard and go offline is during REM sleep when your body is paralyzed to prevent you from acting out your dreams. It makes sense that being picked up and carried would send automatic signals that allow the cerebellum to relax and create healthy vagal tone which would lower heart rates in infants.

Conclusion

The researchers believe that these findings could have broad implications for parenting and contribute to preventing child abuse. “This infant response reduces the maternal burden of carrying and is beneficial for both the mother and the infant," explains Kuroda. She goes on to say, “Such proper understanding of infants would reduce frustration of parents and be beneficial, because unsoothable crying is a major risk factor for child abuse.”

"A scientific understanding of this infant response will save parents from misreading the restart of crying as the intention of the infant to control the parents, as some parenting theories—such as the 'cry it out' type of strategy—suggest," Kuroda says. "Rather, this phenomenon should be interpreted as a natural consequence of the infant sensorimotor systems." If parents understand that properly, perhaps they will be less frustrated by the crying, Kuroda says. And that puts those children at lower risk of abuse.

The authors conclude that, “Although our study was done on mothers, we believe that this is not specific to moms and can be used by any primary caregiver.”

This article can be found here.

USA Car Seat Law Changes in 2014

Head’s up, parents of toddlers and kids! There are car seat law changes in 2014.

Starting in 2014, the new rule states that the LATCH system should no longer be used when the child and car seat combined weight is over 65lbs.

This is an amendment to the law instated in 2001 that says that all children up to 65lbs must remain in car seats, but that did not take into account the weight of car seats. Car manufacturers cannot guarantee the strength of the anchors when adding the additional weight of the seat, thus the need to modify the law.

How can you be sure you’re meeting these guidelines? Weigh your child, then weight the seat, then add them together. If they’re over 65lbs combined, start using the seat belt restraint versus the LATCH system.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children remain in harnesses until the age of 8, which prompted car seat manufacturers to design car seats meant for higher weights. Unfortunately, a study bySafe Kids Worldwide found that 30% of parents don’t utilize the LATCH system properly and 70% of parents don’t use the top tether, which prevents head injuries.

What can you do to ensure your children are being buckled in properly? Have your seat installation inspected at your local NHTSA office.

By BETH ANNE BALLANCE on Babble

Product Recall: Angelcare Movement And Sound Baby Monitors

Angelcare Recalls to Repair Movement and Sound Baby Monitors After Two Deaths Due to Strangulation Hazard

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Recall date: NOVEMBER 21, 2013

Recall number: 14-028

Name of product: Angelcare Movement and Sound Baby Monitors

Hazard:

The cord attached to the baby monitor’s sensor pad is placed under the crib mattress, which poses a strangulation risk if the child pulls the cord into the crib and it becomes wrapped around the neck.

Consumer Contact:

Angelcare at (855) 355-2643 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, e-mail atConsumers@angelcare.ca or online athttp://www.angelcarebaby.com and click on the safety notice section of the website for more information. 

Description

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation with Angelcare Monitors Inc.®, of Quebec, Canada, is announcing a voluntary recall to provide cord covers for 600,000 Angelcare Movement and Sound Monitors with Sensor Pads. The cord attached to the baby monitor’s sensor pad is placed under the crib mattress, which poses a strangulation risk if the child pulls the cord into the crib and it becomes wrapped around the neck.

Angelcare and CPSC have received reports of two infant cord strangulation deaths. In November 2011, a 13-month-old female died in San Diego, California, and, in August 2004, an 8-month-old female died in Salem, Oregon. In both fatalities, the cord from the sensor pads was pulled into the crib by the infant. In addition, there have been two reports of infants who became entangled in cords of Angelcare baby monitor models, which did not result in fatalities. In these incidents, it could not be determined if the “sensor pad cord” or the “monitor cord” was involved in the incident.

The recall involves the Movement and Sound Monitor manufactured by Angelcare. This design of baby monitor includes a unique sensor pad placed inside the crib, under the mattress, to monitor movement of the baby. An electrical cord about 11 feet long is permanently connected from the sensor pad to the nursery monitor unit. The hazard is created by a cord within reach of a baby inside the crib. The cord can be pulled into the crib and can wrap around the child’s neck. The recall involves all versions of Angelcare sensor monitors including model numbers: AC1100, AC201, AC300, AC401 AC601 and 49255 that did not include rigid cord covers, offered in the remedy. The model number is located on the back of the nursery monitor unit. The monitors were manufactured between 1999 and 2013.

Angelcare is providing consumers with a repair kit that includes rigid protective cord covers through which the sensor pad cords can be threaded, a new, permanent electric cord warning label about the strangulation risk, and revised instructions.

The recalled baby monitors were sold at Babies R Us/Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Meijer, Sears, Walmart, Amazon.com, Target.com, Overstock.com, and nearly 70 small baby specialty stores, from October 1999 through September 2013 for about $100to $300. 

Consumers should immediately make sure cords are placed out of reach of the child and contact Angelcare toll-free at (855)355-2643 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website atwww.angelcarebaby.com to order the free repair kit.

CPSC Safety Alert Campaign on Monitor Cords

In February 2011, CPSC issued a safety alert warning consumers that industry-wide there had been seven reports of strangulation in baby monitor cords since 2002. Since that alert, the number of death reports has risen to eight of which two involved the Angelcare monitors with sensor cords. CPSC has a safety alert Infants Can Strangle in Baby Monitor Cords and conducted an information and education campaign with JPMA in which Angelcare has taken an active role to raise awareness on the hazards associated with baby monitor cords. Parents and caregivers should visit CPSC’s Crib Information Center at www.cpsc.gov/cribs for additional baby monitor cord safety information and they should make sure all cords are out of arm’s reach of children. 

You can find this article here.

Six myths about vaccination and why they’re wrong

Six myths about vaccination and why they’re wrong. 

Vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures ever introduced.

Recently released government figures show levels of childhood vaccination have fallen to dangerously low levels in some areas of Australia, resulting in some corners of the media claiming re-ignition of “the vaccine debate”.

Well, scientifically, there’s no debate. In combination with clean water and sanitation, vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures ever introduced, saving millions of lives every year.

Those who claim there is a “debate” will cite a series of canards designed to scare people away from vaccinating, but, if you’re not familiar with their claims, you could easily be convinced by anti-vaccine rhetoric.

So what is true and what is not?

Let’s address just a few of the common vaccine myths and explain why they’re wrong.

1. Vaccines cause autism

The myth that vaccines are somehow linked to autism is an unsinkable rubber duck. Initiated in 1998 following the publication of the now notorious Lancet paper, (not-a-Dr) Andrew Wakefield was the first to suggest that the measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine might be linked to autism.

What he didn’t reveal was that he had multiple conflicts of interest including that he was being paid by lawyers assembling a class action against the manufacturers of MMR, and that he himself had submitted an application for a patent for a single measles vaccine.

It eventually unravelled for Wakefield when the paper wasretracted in 2010. He was struck from the medical register for behavior classified as “dishonest, unethical and callous” and the British Medical Journal accused him of deliberate fraud.

But once the idea was floated, scientists were compelled to investigate, particularly when it stood to impact public health so dramatically. One of the most powerful pieces of evidenceto show that there is no link between vaccines and autism comes from Japan where the MMR was replaced with single vaccines mid-1993. Guess what happened? Autism continued to rise.

We currently don’t know what causes autism.
But we do know what doesn’t: vaccines.

After this door closed, anti-vaxers shifted the blame to thiomersal, a mercury-containing component (not be confused with the scary type that accumulates in the body). Small amounts of thiomersal were used as a preservative in some vaccines, but this never included MMR.

Thiomersal or ethyl-mercury was removed from all scheduled childhood vaccines in 2000, so if it were contributing to rising cases of autism, you would expect a dramatic drop following its removal. Instead, like the MMR in Japan, the opposite happened, and autism continues to rise.

Further evidence comes from a recently published exhaustive review examining 12,000 research articles covering eight different vaccines which also concluded there was no link between vaccines and autism.

Yet the myth persists and probably for several reasons, one being that the time of diagnosis for autism coincides with kids receiving several vaccinations and also, we currently don’t know what causes autism. But we do know what doesn’t, and that’s vaccines.

2. Smallpox and polio have disappeared so there’s no need to vaccinate anymore

It’s precisely because of vaccines that diseases such as smallpox have disappeared.

India recently experienced two years without a single case of polio because of a concerted vaccination campaign.

Australia was declared measles-free in 2005 by the World Health Organization (WHO) – before we stopped being so vigilant about vaccinating and outbreaks began to reappear.

The impact of vaccine complacency can be observed in the current measles epidemic in Wales where there are now over 800 cases and one death, and many people presenting are of the age who missed out on MMR vaccination following the Wakefield scare.

In many ways, vaccines are a victim of their own success, leading us to forget just how debilitating preventable diseases can be – not seeing kids in calipers or hospital wards full of iron lungs means we forget just how serious these diseases can be.

3. More vaccinated people get the disease than the unvaccinated

Although this sounds counter-intuitive, it’s actually true, but it doesn’t mean that vaccines don’t work as anti-vaxers will conflate. Remember that no vaccine is 100% effective and vaccines are not a force field. So while it’s still possible to get the disease you’ve been vaccinated against, disease severity and duration will be reduced.

Those who are vaccinated have fewer
complications than people who aren’t.

With pertussis (whooping cough), for example, severecomplications such as pneumonia and encephalitis (brain inflammation) occur almost exclusively in the unvaccinated.

So since the majority of the population is vaccinated, it follows that most people who get a particular disease will be vaccinated, but critically, they will suffer fewer complications and long-term effects than those who are completely unprotected.

4. My unvaccinated child should be of no concern to your vaccinated one

Vaccination is not just a personal issue, it’s a community responsibility, largely because of a concept known as “community immunity”. This describes a level of vaccination that prevents epidemics or outbreaks from taking hold and spreading.

Some people question the validity of this concept, sometimes referred to as herd immunity, but the impact of it breaking down can be easily observed in places where vaccination levels fall dangerously low – take the current measlesoutbreak in Wales, for example.

The other important factor about community immunity is it protects those who, for whatever reason, can’t be vaccinated or are not fully vaccinated. This includes very young children, immunocompromised people (such as cancer sufferers) and elderly people.

5. Vaccines contain toxins

A cursory search of Google for vaccine ingredients pulls up a mishmash of scary-sounding ingredients that to the uninitiated can sound like “franken-science”.

A pear has 600 times more formaldehyde than a vaccine.

Some of these claims are patently untrue (there is no anti-freeze in vaccines), or are simple scaremongering (aborted foetuses – in the 1960s some cells were extracted from a foetus to establish a cell line that is still used in labs today). Some of the claimed chemicals (and remember everything is made of chemicals) are present, but are at such low levels as to never reach toxicity.

The simple thing to remember is the poison is in the dose – in high enough doses even water can kill you. And there’s 600 times more formaldehyde in a pear than a vaccine.

Also, if you ever read the claim that “vaccines are injected directly into the blood stream” (they’re not), be skeptical of any other claims made.

6. Vaccines will overwhelm kids’ undeveloped immune systems

The concept of “too many too soon” was recently examined in a detailed analysis of the US childhood immunisation schedule by The Institute of Medicine. Experts specifically looked for evidence that vaccination was linked to “autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child developmental disorders, learning or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders”, including autism. The researchers confirmed that the childhood vaccination schedule was safe.

The amount of immune challenges that children fight every day (between 2,000 to 6,000) in the environment is significantly greater than the number of antigens or reactive particles in all their vaccinations combined (about 150 for the entire vaccination schedule).

So the next time you hear these myths about vaccination, hopefully you’ll have some evidence up your sleeve to debunk them.

You can find this article here.

Product Review: Bright Starts Around We Go Activity Station

Bright Starts: the Around We Go Activity Station (Doodle Bug theme)

This is my second time getting one of these! Why don't I have my first one still you may be asking? Well, that's simple. I do! It's just in storage back in Miami, FL and we are currently living in Toronto, ON, Canada. I will have it down there when I travel to visit. The new one is slightly better than our 4 year older model too, with newer toys and a "doodle bug" theme. The older model was ocean animals and included a water section which needed to be refilled and was a bit of a pain. I'm loving this newer version of the product and wouldn't change a thing!

With Seat (4-18 Months)

Without Seat (12-24 Months)

Product Description

• Electronic piano with flip book has 3 modes of play: fun songs, piano keys, and silly sounds
• Pond station with bead chaser, popping fish toy, spinning dragonfly, and sliding fish character
• Frog popper toy with swirling beads plus a large mirror
• Ratcheting bee toy, spinning ball toy, and bendable bug stalk toys
• Seat is easily removable so toddlers can enjoy as a play table
• Seat is easily removable so older babies and toddlers can use the activity table standing up
• Removable toy/snack tray

Starting at 4 months old some babies go through a little bit of a stage that they don't know whether to sit up, roll over, or just be held. They are still too young to stand or even sit unassisted. That's where this comes in. You simply seat your child in the seat and show them how to reach for toys and turn the seat side to side. The walking part comes later. Once they realize they can move, they never stop!

This product is designed for ages 4 months old to about 24 months. I personally think it's a little more for 5/6 months and up. My son is four months and his feet still don't reach the floor at the same time. He's only about 26 & 1/2 inches tall and one leg will touch but not the other. Therefore, he won't be walking in it any time soon. However, when my daughter was about 5 & 1/2 months old she was given this item for Christmas and took right to it! She LOVED the toys, music, and little snack tray for her yogurt melts. After about 2 or 3 days she started scooting backwards thought it was the greatest thing! She would giggle as she went around and around the table. It was adorable, we filmed it and showed everyone (as most first time parents do). Soon after she learned how to move forward as well, and once that started she was walking NONSTOP around the table to each station.

Now what's the average price of this item? In the US, they are about $89.99 at most places like Walmart, Target, Babies R Us, and even Sears/Kmart. They are not sold in Canada. However I did purchase mine through Sears.com and they shipped it here within only 2 days for under $20 in shipping! Definitely worth it!

Here's a short and very basic review on the product from a customer. It's simply to show how easy it is to remove the seat and have the table for older babies.

What's the Difference Between Limits and Consequences?

This was a MUST share article from Aha! Parenting.

"Dr. Laura, How do you set loving limits, when you do not give consequences? For example, my son's bouncing a soccer ball inside the house. I try to give him a choice: "You remember balls are for bouncing outside. You may take it in front of the house or into the backyard. The choice is yours." Sometimes it works...sometimes he ignores me and continues to bounce the ball...I repeat again, and he does not listen. Should I take the ball away? He did not listen and there should be a consequence, no?"

Mom sees behavior that is against the family rules. She sets a limit, in this case by giving her son a choice of two alternate, acceptable, options. He ignores her. She repeats herself. He ignores her. Shouldn't there be a "consequence"?

Let's take this a step at a time.

1. Your son is bouncing the ball in the house, which he knows is against the family rules. You're worried about the walls getting scuffed. You need to set a limit. 

If you're doing daily preventive maintenance -- connecting with warmth and empathy, spending one on one time -- your child will always be more cooperative. So you can usually just set a clear, kind limit: "Michael! Ball bouncing is for outside. Thank you!" and hold open the door, and he'll comply.

What do I mean by connecting with warmth and empathy? Your basic 24/7 response to him is seeing things from his perspective, with compassion. In other words, what comes out of your mouth sounds mostly like this (in a warm, heart-felt voice):

• "You don't want to stop playing and take a bath. I understand. I bet when you're a grownup, you'll never take a bath, will you?"
• "Sometimes it's really hard to share your parents."
• "You sound really mad!"

2. Do you need to give him a choice? 

Some younger kids feel overwhelmed by choices. But strong-willed kids, even more than the rest of us, react badly when they feel backed into a corner. I would generally recommend giving your child the choice of continuing his activity in an appropriate place, or finding a different activity.

"Michael! No ball playing in the house. You can bounce the ball outside, or you can find another activity."

3. He ignores you. 

Maybe he's not being defiant; he's just really focused on his ball skills and doesn't even hear you. Or maybe you haven't been connecting with him much lately, and this is your red flag that you need to spend some dedicated special time with him daily, starting tonight. Or maybe he knows from past experience that there's a good chance you'll give up and leave him alone. Or maybe he's just a strong-willed kid, who needs to push on a limit 100 times to see if it holds firm. So he ignores you.

Do you repeat yourself? No! 

If you've asked once and not gotten a response, don't just repeat yourself. You don't have your child's attention yet. Instead, you get in his face in a friendly way, so he gets that you mean it. 

So in this case, you walk over to your son and -- hopefully with a smile on your face, but at least with a neutral expression -- you intercept the soccer ball. You hold the ball in one arm, putting the other arm around his shoulder. He looks up at you, aggravated.

4. You connect before you correct.

How do you feel when someone implies that you're wrong? A little bristly? An urgent need to prove you're right, or to fight back? That's not exactly a recipe for cooperation.

You can avoid your child feeling that way by reconnecting. He's much more likely to really hear you, and to care what you want, which means he's more likely to cooperate. You do that by seeing his perspective, even as you set your limit.

"Hey, Buddy...I guess you were so focused on those ball skills that you didn't hear me. Your ball skills are looking good. AND where do we play with balls? Right! Outside!" 

As you speak, you are walking him towards the door. You open it, and as he goes out, you give him the ball, and a smile.

5. Find a win/win solution. Usually, that's the end of incident. You've enforced your limit. If you do this regularly, your son will skip the inside bouncing and head straight outdoors, because who wants their mom interrupting when they're practicing ball skills? 

But maybe you only have a lawn outside and the ball doesn't bounce there. Maybe your son needs a hard surface to bounce the ball. In that case, he will almost certainly keep using your hallway. Time for a win/win solution.

"Hmm...I hear you that the lawn isn't good for bouncing the ball....and bouncing it in the house doesn't work for me because it damages the wall....What can we do?....You think the blacktop at the school would work? Great idea! I can't go with you now, but if you help me chop these veggies, we can go over for half an hour before dinner. Let's work together." 

Notice your child has to delay gratification. That's not easy. But if you're maintaining a positive connection, he'll be a lot more motivated.

6. Should you take the ball away? If your child is using a toy in an unsafe way, and does not respond to your redirection, then of course you take the toy away. "Balls are not for bouncing in the house. I hear you really don't want to go outside, so let's put the ball away and find something you can do in the house. It looks like you need something active to do....Want to jump on the trampoline in the basement? Or throw your stuffed animals over the railing and then rescue them?" Notice this is not a punishment. You are simply redirecting your child's energy. 

7. Teach Your Child to Repair. Let's say you come upon your son bouncing his ball in the hall, and you notice scuff marks on the wall. You say say "Whoa! Look at that wall! We need to clean that up. Sweetie, let's go get the cleaning supplies, and I'll help you. You know we always clean up our own messes." If you do this cheerfully, without blame, from the time your child is little, he will comply. And he will also start taking the ball outside without your intervention, because who wants to clean the walls when they could be outside doing soccer drills?

8. Shouldn't there be a "consequence"? Of course! Look at all the consequences of what happened here! Your son has learned:

• When mom tells me to do something, she means it. There's no point in trying to ignore her.
• Bouncing the ball in the house scuffs the wall and I'm responsible to help clean up the scuff marks...I'd rather just go outside with the ball.
• I make mistakes, but Mom always understands.
• I repair my mistakes and clean up my own messes.
• My mom really cares about what I want. So I care about what she wants.
• If I don't like what Mom tells me to do, she listens and tries to find a good solution for both of us.
• I'm good at finding solutions.
• If I use a toy unsafely, I have to find another activity.
• I don't always get what I want, but I get something better -- a mom who understands.
• Everyone in our family takes our family rules seriously. The most important one is treating each other with respect and kindness.

By contrast, if you had punished him -- which is what parents usually mean by "consequences" -- what would he have learned? 

• She's always yelling and punishing me. Why should I do what she wants?
• When I bounce the ball in the house, she takes it away and punishes me. But not until she's yelling. So I don't have to listen until she yells and takes the ball away. I know just how far to push it before I get a consequence.
• She took my ball. I'm going to annoy my sister. In fact, I'm going to make this afternoon miserable for everyone.
• When she's not here, I'll bounce the ball in the house as much as I want. 
• No, I don't know who made those scuff marks. I'm getting good at lying.
• She can't make me.

The truth is, we can't make another human being do what we want. We can only help them WANT to. Loving guidance and empathic limits help your child WANT to follow your guidance, so those good habits become part of who he is, whether you're there or not. "Consequences" that are designed to punish? Just the opposite.

The difference between loving limits and consequences is that there's no room for punishment in loving limits. If you'd like to learn more you can find this article here.

Baby Formula: Thirty Billion Dollars and Counting

Luckily very few people (outside those who work with formula companies) argue the devastating effects of a lack of breastfeeding in developing nations where preventable diseases run rampant and we’re losing approximately 830,000 children a year who should still be alive[1]. Child mortality runs rampant and families spend precious money on formula when they could be saving their money and their child’s health by breastfeeding. But the story is different in the West. We have clean water, disease is rare, and so many argue that there really isn’t a cost to using formula. People use their own children as examples of how wonderful it can be. And there are valid and real reasons a mother can’t or won’t breastfeed. Absolutely. But we have to stop pretending there are no costs to it.

Back in 2010, some doctors published an article in Pediatrics looking at the cost of suboptimal breastfeeding rates (“optimal” defined as 80-90% of women exclusively breastfeeding for six months) in the United States[2]. I’ve covered this elsewhere but let’s remind people of the cost in the United States, a Western country with clean water and few diseases (relatively speaking). The authors found that the US health care system would save $13 billion a year and we would lose 911 less children, most of them infants under 1 year of age.

Sit on that for a moment.

Now, the joy of fixing this one is that it doesn’t mean mothers have to breastfeed. It simply means we need to make breastmilk more readily available to women who choose not to breastfeed or who can’t breastfeed for myriad reasons. And this is the big push I always try to make – it’s about getting babies the milk they are biologically designed to have and saving formula for the absolute worst case scenarios where it’s needed.

But we also have to talk about the effect of this suboptimal breastfeeding on moms, because we know that not breastfeeding increases the risk of a variety of ailments including cancers and heart disease. Recently, the same researchers who looked at the effects of suboptimal breastfeeding rates on infant and child mortality looked at the same question but for women’s mortality and the economic cost associated with it[3].

In this study the authors used statistical modeling to map out the rates of five diseases (i.e., breast cancer, ovarian cancer, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, and myocardial infraction) in a cohort of women who were 15 in 2002 based on what we know of prevalence of the disease (including race, age, etc.) assuming the rate of breastfeeding we currently have and then again assuming an “optimal” level. (Of note, there are other diseases linked to breastfeeding for women, but they were not included in this analysis.) For this analysis optimal became 90% of women breastfeeding at all at a year given the relationship between this duration and the research on various disease outcomes in women. Notably, because of the uncertainty in modeling, the authors rightfully used many (2000 to be exact) imputations of the model to average out the results.

The authors found that, based on current rates of diseases and treatments, we are losing over 72,000 women a year prematurely (before age 70, or 10 years below the national US average for women) because of a failure to read “optimum” breastfeeding rates. Medical costs associated with this is $734 million in direct costs and $126 million in indirect costs. But the biggest financial cost is the economic cost to society due to premature death and at the rates we have, suboptimal breastfeeding is resulting in costs of $17.4 billion a year. (Oh – and did I mention that part of the cost analysis is that it included costs of interventions to get breastfeeding rates up to “optimal” levels? Yeah, they thought of that.)

When we consider mom and babies together, we’re seeing a variety of costs to society that are over $30 billion. Every. Year. So much for breastfeeding not having any effect on our society, eh?

But now we must ask: What’s the solution?

Let’s first talk about the fact that most women who use formula don’t do it because they started out wanting to do that. There are women who made that choice, but they are a minority. The vast majority of women tried breastfeeding and even had goals about what they wanted to achieve and it didn’t work out. And THIS is where we need to focus efforts.

One study looking at breastfeeding intentions and successes in the US found that 60% of mothers wanted to breastfed exclusively for some period[4]. Of this group, 85% wanted to breastfed exclusively for 3 months, but only 45% of them did; 58% wanted to go for five months, but only 25% of them made it. Only 1% of those moms who planned on exclusively breastfeeding said they planned on it for less than a month yet 42% of them stopped within that month.

We have a problem. And it’s not fair to the women or babies who are bearing the brunt of our inability to support moms in reaching their breastfeeding goals. Looking at the numbers, we see that it’s not fair to them to have an increased risk of dying prematurely or suffering cancers or heart disease. It’s not fair for babies to die before they are year. And if life doesn’t ring true, it’s not fair to society to bear such an enormous cost. $30 billion a year. That’s just under half the budget for the entire Department of Education. It’s just $8 billion shy of California’s budget to educate all children from kindergarten through grade 12. In short, it’s a heck of a lot of money that our society is losing in one way or another and that could be prevented.

Isn’t it time we put our money to good use? To get the programs needed in place to support mothers and babies and their breastfeeding goals? Even if we ignore the life costs, there are far too many women running into far too many barriers and not meeting their breastfeeding goals and that has to stop. In a society where we seem to be on a mission to tell moms that formula is just fine, we are ignoring that we should have been supporting these moms from the get-go so that when they chose to switch to formula (if they did at all), it would be on their terms.

[1] http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/SUPERFOOD%20FOR%20BABIES%20ASIA%20LOW%20RES%282%29.PDF

[2] Bartick M, Reinhold A. The burden of suboptimal breastfeeding in the United States: a pediatric cost analysis. Pediatrics 2010; 125: e1048-e1056.

[3] Bartick M, Stuebe A, Schwarz EB, Luongo C, Reinhold AG, Foster EM. Cost analysis of maternal disease associated with suboptimal breastfeeding. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2013; 122: 111-9.

[4] Perrine CG, Scanlon KS, Li R, Odom E, Grummer-Strawn LM. Baby-friendly hospital practices and meeting exclusive breastfeeding intention. Pediatrics 2012; 130: 54-60.