Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few comments

[Guest guest]

hi, erica -

i haven't read my copy yet, but here's a few thoughts:

1 - i forwarded this to the WAPFchapterleaders group, which sally is on.

i'll let you know what she has to say about it - i'm very interested too!

2 - about the " whiny " thing. when our motto is " you teach, you teach, you

teach " , ya know. you gotta teach, not insult or demean. often it's hard to

keep a straight face and to take some of the ideas out there seriously in

order to respond appropriately, but hard as it is, we need to do it. we

need to make sure that we're not creating an atmosphere that's polarized:

us vs. them. still, we're all human.

3 - i haven't read that issue of mothering yet either, but, maybe the

complaint letters really *were* whiny...

4 - as per tradition, there is no number 4.

5 - regarding nutrition and gay-being. ya know, it's really hard to say.

we've had gay banter on this list from time to time, and there are lots of

us on the list who are gay, myself included. i've never really been too

solidly in any camp about the cause of homosexuality, i just think it's

comfy. certainly it's been around as long as history, but then again, so

has poor nutrition. who's to say? who's to say there aren't *many* causes,

and that nutrition is just one of them? i mean, i certainly ate margarine

(though i preferred butter), and i did get formula, though i don't know if

it was dairy or soy. is that why i'm gay? who knows. it's a fine line, to

think about the causes of a thing without appearing to judge the thing,

especially on an issue that's such a firebrand as it is.

[Guest guest]

i *knew* you'd be the first to respond, katja.

you and i emailed/spoke on the phone a few months back after i first

had my daughter and suspected thrush as the reason for my sore

nipples. haven't talked to you since then, tho - although i was

considering contacting you recently when a VT woman who's on another

list contacted me seeking out raw milk products and information on

why raw milk isn't as dangerous as people would have us believe (i'm

a chapter leader here in PA).

anyhow, thanks for forwarding my email. let me know what, if

anything, sally says in regards to my comments.

as for the soy article in mothering - there's a giant thread on MDC

(mothering dot com if you aren't familiar) started by AP doc jay

gordon basically trashing the article. of course, other moms(vegan

and soy lovers) went to the thread in droves to support dr. gordon.

only one or two other posters aside from myself wrote in with

positive comments. i had hoped that sally would check it out but she

refused and asked me to post on the behalf of WAPF, which i happily

did. i also copied and posted the comments from wise traditions,

including the whiny comment and got responses from several parents

who were put off by that word. i couldn't help but agree.

fwiw, the article in mothering was great. definitely read it when

you get a chance. and the letters that are apparently *whiny* will

be in the july's issue.

as for the gay issue - my mother ONLY bought margarine for the

family and i was given soy formula. i'm not gay. true, just because

those *foods* didn't *make* me gay doesn't mean that they didn't

play a role in other people's sexuality.

i just don't buy it. in my eyes, people are gay because they're

hardwired to be gay not because of anything they ate, anything in

the environment or any other extraneous cause and to suggest

otherwise might be your opinion (which everyone is certainly

entitled to) but isn't scientifically based. so, in that respect, a

scientific-based journal shouldn't be making those claims.

erica z

> hi, erica -

> i haven't read my copy yet, but here's a few thoughts:

>

> 1 - i forwarded this to the WAPFchapterleaders group, which sally

is on.

> i'll let you know what she has to say about it - i'm very

interested too!

>

> 2 - about the " whiny " thing. when our motto is " you teach, you

teach, you

> teach " , ya know. you gotta teach, not insult or demean. often it's

hard to

> keep a straight face and to take some of the ideas out there

seriously in

> order to respond appropriately, but hard as it is, we need to do

it. we

> need to make sure that we're not creating an atmosphere that's

polarized:

> us vs. them. still, we're all human.

>

> 3 - i haven't read that issue of mothering yet either, but, maybe

the

> complaint letters really *were* whiny...

>

> 4 - as per tradition, there is no number 4.

>

> 5 - regarding nutrition and gay-being. ya know, it's really hard

to say.

> we've had gay banter on this list from time to time, and there are

lots of

> us on the list who are gay, myself included. i've never really

been too

> solidly in any camp about the cause of homosexuality, i just think

it's

> comfy. certainly it's been around as long as history, but then

again, so

> has poor nutrition. who's to say? who's to say there aren't *many*

causes,

> and that nutrition is just one of them? i mean, i certainly ate

margarine

> (though i preferred butter), and i did get formula, though i don't

know if

> it was dairy or soy. is that why i'm gay? who knows. it's a fine

line, to

> think about the causes of a thing without appearing to judge the

thing,

> especially on an issue that's such a firebrand as it is.

[Guest guest]

At 11:18 AM 6/17/2004, you wrote:

>i *knew* you'd be the first to respond, katja.

hee. sorry, i can't help it

>you and i emailed/spoke on the phone a few months back after i first

>had my daughter and suspected thrush as the reason for my sore

>nipples. haven't talked to you since then, tho - although i was

>considering contacting you recently when a VT woman who's on another

>list contacted me seeking out raw milk products and information on

>why raw milk isn't as dangerous as people would have us believe (i'm

>a chapter leader here in PA).

oh! that's right! i didn't recognize the email addy and thought we had a

new erica!

how cool! how's the thrush? and your daughter?

>anyhow, thanks for forwarding my email. let me know what, if

>anything, sally says in regards to my comments.

yepyep

>as for the soy article in mothering - there's a giant thread on MDC

>(mothering dot com if you aren't familiar) started by AP doc jay

>gordon basically trashing the article. of course, other moms(vegan

>and soy lovers) went to the thread in droves to support dr. gordon.

>only one or two other posters aside from myself wrote in with

>positive comments. i had hoped that sally would check it out but she

>refused and asked me to post on the behalf of WAPF, which i happily

>did. i also copied and posted the comments from wise traditions,

>including the whiny comment and got responses from several parents

>who were put off by that word. i couldn't help but agree.

ooh - you should join WAPFchapterleaders...

>fwiw, the article in mothering was great. definitely read it when

>you get a chance. and the letters that are apparently *whiny* will

>be in the july's issue.

i did read the article itself and loved it. but i didn't see the whining -

ah, i will in july!

>as for the gay issue - my mother ONLY bought margarine for the

>family and i was given soy formula. i'm not gay. true, just because

>those *foods* didn't *make* me gay doesn't mean that they didn't

>play a role in other people's sexuality.

>i just don't buy it. in my eyes, people are gay because they're

>hardwired to be gay not because of anything they ate, anything in

>the environment or any other extraneous cause and to suggest

>otherwise might be your opinion (which everyone is certainly

>entitled to) but isn't scientifically based. so, in that respect, a

>scientific-based journal shouldn't be making those claims.

well, see, i'm not sure.

i think that there's maybe a range. some people are hardwired and that's

just that. they couldn't possibly be anything but. other people can kinda

go either way and still be happy. and i just don't know about why all this

is. it doesn't seem *unreasonable* to think that hormone stuff plays a

part, i think we just don't know. i don't mind people trying to figure it

out as long as it's kind - ie, i don't actually much care WHY it happens, i

just wanna be me.

though, if they did find that it's caused by margarine, that would be

interesting...would we see parents choosing to feed their kids margarine

so that they would be gay?

-katja

[Guest guest]

> 4 - as per tradition, there is no number 4.

I thought there was no rule 6! (Interestingly, rule 7 (and 1, 3, 5 and

9) is " No pooftahs! " )

This kind of thing drives me bananas about WAPF and makes it very hard

for me to talk about nutrition on other lists. One of my mom lists has

gone very anti-WAPF because of its rather ridiculous stance on

breastfeeding. People can't take WAPF seriously when they keep saying

goofy things like this.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

At 12:56 PM 6/17/2004, you wrote:

>This kind of thing drives me bananas about WAPF and makes it very hard

>for me to talk about nutrition on other lists. One of my mom lists has

>gone very anti-WAPF because of its rather ridiculous stance on

>breastfeeding. People can't take WAPF seriously when they keep saying

>goofy things like this.

>

>Lynn S

hey lynn -

ok, i've heard this said a couple of times and i just haven't had time to

go back and read everything yet. which is embarassing.

could you give me the two-sentence run down about what the ridiculous

stance is?

thanks!

katja, pressed for time.

[Guest guest]

> Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a

>few comments

>This kind of thing drives me bananas about WAPF and makes it very hard

>for me to talk about nutrition on other lists. One of my mom lists has

>gone very anti-WAPF because of its rather ridiculous stance on

>breastfeeding. People can't take WAPF seriously when they keep saying

>goofy things like this.

What is their stance on breastfeeding?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

the gist is that if a woman's diet is less than stellar, she'd be

better off giving the baby formula, namely the raw milk formula that

NT advises.

this is simply not true. studies have shown that nutrition

composition of breastmilk is identical in women across the board

despite their own diet, be it health conscious or malnourished.

> > Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed

with a

> >few comments

>

> >This kind of thing drives me bananas about WAPF and makes it very

hard

> >for me to talk about nutrition on other lists. One of my mom

lists has

> >gone very anti-WAPF because of its rather ridiculous stance on

> >breastfeeding. People can't take WAPF seriously when they keep

saying

> >goofy things like this.

>

> What is their stance on breastfeeding?

>

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

> Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

> http://www.westonaprice.org

>

> ----------------------------

> " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol

cause

> heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our

times. " --

> Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at

Vanderbilt

> University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

> The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> <http://www.thincs.org>

> ----------------------------

[Guest guest]

hmmm.

i don't know. actually i think there are certain times i'd agree with the

WAPF statement, actually.

if, for example, she had a dioxin-free source of grass-fed raw milk and the

mother herself was highly toxic...

i can't imagine not breastfeeding, but i also don't pretend that all

breastmilk is equal. i've never seen an actual study that claims that it

is, though if i did i'd be highly suspicious. for example, let's just look

at gluten: gluten passes through the breastmilk, and i need to be gluten

free for my daughter (and myself). that's a single nutritional difference

right there - i'd be hard pressed to believe there aren't others. la leche

does make this claim, however, frequently and publicly. i believe the

motivation there is that breast feeding is important and they're trying to

make it more attainable to women by claiming they don't need to change

their diets.

however, garbage in, garbage out. it's just a fundamental truth.

ideally though, in my mind, unless the mother was actually toxic, you'd

supplement if you need to and otherwise you'd take extreme measures to fix

the mother's nutrition, and make them both healthier.

thanks for the sum up!!

-katja

At 01:35 PM 6/17/2004, you wrote:

>the gist is that if a woman's diet is less than stellar, she'd be

>better off giving the baby formula, namely the raw milk formula that

>NT advises.

>

>this is simply not true. studies have shown that nutrition

>composition of breastmilk is identical in women across the board

>despite their own diet, be it health conscious or malnourished.

[Guest guest]

Well there must be somethings that changes in breast milk as babies

will react to stuff when the mom changes her diet. Or am I wrong about

this???

BTW...I have heard that a baby will receive it's lifetime supply of

dioxin during 1 year of breastfeeding. Vegan mothers stand a better

chance of having this reduced. This is all so depressing

Among other things dioxin is a hormone mimicker.

Lynn (very much in favor of breastfeeding our next generation but .....)

> > > Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed

> with a

> > >few comments

> >

> > >This kind of thing drives me bananas about WAPF and makes it very

> hard

> > >for me to talk about nutrition on other lists. One of my mom

> lists has

> > >gone very anti-WAPF because of its rather ridiculous stance on

> > >breastfeeding. People can't take WAPF seriously when they keep

> saying

> > >goofy things like this.

> >

> > What is their stance on breastfeeding?

> >

> >

> > Suze Fisher

> > Lapdog Design, Inc.

> > Web Design & Development

> > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

> > Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

> > http://www.westonaprice.org

> >

> > ----------------------------

> > " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol

> cause

> > heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our

> times. " --

> > Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at

> Vanderbilt

> > University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

> >

> > The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> > <http://www.thincs.org>

> > ----------------------------

[Guest guest]

yeah. gods, dioxin is such a depressing issue to me.

here's my current take on it, though i admit it may morph some:

we do all we can (in my family, in my practice, etc) to avoid as many

toxins as possible. the human body is designed to cope with some amount,

and we try to avoid any that are not absolutely necessary, to allow the

ones we can't escape to be dealt with without overloading the system.

dioxins fall into that category.

however, to some extent, i think the dioxin exposure can be mitigated

somewhat. in our case, we drink milk from cows who are pastured as far away

from roadways, factories, etc as possible (not too tough in the middle of

vermont), and we pasture our cows and other meat animals the same way. that

can account for a lot of it, but it can't account for the stuff that comes

in the rain...

i feel that my body will be better equipped to deal with dioxins (which

even vegans are exposed to, just lesser) and other toxins if it is properly

nourished. so, i nourish it and i take my precautions as far as sources go

and beyond that i try hard not to make myself crazy with it.

it's not ideal, but it's the system i have going at the moment...there are

days when i'm less sane that i do consider moving somewhere *more*

remote...but i think at this point, there's no place on earth that's

" clean " .

-katja

At 01:50 PM 6/17/2004, you wrote:

>Well there must be somethings that changes in breast milk as babies

>will react to stuff when the mom changes her diet. Or am I wrong about

>this???

>

>BTW...I have heard that a baby will receive it's lifetime supply of

>dioxin during 1 year of breastfeeding. Vegan mothers stand a better

>chance of having this reduced. This is all so depressing

>Among other things dioxin is a hormone mimicker.

>

>Lynn (very much in favor of breastfeeding our next generation but .....)

[Guest guest]

so, how do you legitimize WAPF to others without feeling

hypocritical, lynn?

--- In , Lynn Siprelle <lynn@s...>

wrote:

> > 4 - as per tradition, there is no number 4.

>

> I thought there was no rule 6! (Interestingly, rule 7 (and 1, 3, 5

and

> 9) is " No pooftahs! " )

>

> This kind of thing drives me bananas about WAPF and makes it very

hard

> for me to talk about nutrition on other lists. One of my mom lists

has

> gone very anti-WAPF because of its rather ridiculous stance on

> breastfeeding. People can't take WAPF seriously when they keep

saying

> goofy things like this.

>

> Lynn S.

>

> ------

> Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

> http://www.siprelle.com/

> http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

> http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

> oh! that's right! i didn't recognize the email addy and thought we

had a

> new erica!

> how cool! how's the thrush? and your daughter?

she's great! isadora will turn 9 months on the 30th. it was never

thrush. get this - my constantly sore nips were a result of a tight

piece of skin that connects her upper lip to her gums disallowing

her upper lip to flange out properly when she latched on. once we

figured out that was the culprit i began experimenting with

different nursing positions. of course, she's now experimenting

herself, the little acrobat;)

so, it's been much better on that front, i'm happy to report.

how's amber???

erica z

[Guest guest]

Yes, but for some reason breastfed babies, even drinking 'toxic' breastmilk,

fend of environmental toxins better than their formula-fed peers. Because of

the numerous immunities conferred through breastmilk, breastfed babies are

better able to withstand a toxic environment (i can't help but wonder if,

because it's a super food, breastmilk is also an effective detoxer).

Formula-fed babies are more apt to succumb to environmental illness. And

based on the abnormally small-sized vegan children i have seen, there is

just nothing better about vegan moms.

Elaine

> BTW...I have heard that a baby will receive it's lifetime supply of

> dioxin during 1 year of breastfeeding. Vegan mothers stand a better

> chance of having this reduced. This is all so depressing

> Among other things dioxin is a hormone mimicker.

[Guest guest]

wow! well, that's a good deal better than thrush, i can say!

amber's great, walking and talking and eating every piece of fat she gets

her hands on

>she's great! isadora will turn 9 months on the 30th. it was never

>thrush. get this - my constantly sore nips were a result of a tight

>piece of skin that connects her upper lip to her gums disallowing

>her upper lip to flange out properly when she latched on. once we

>figured out that was the culprit i began experimenting with

>different nursing positions. of course, she's now experimenting

>herself, the little acrobat;)

>

>so, it's been much better on that front, i'm happy to report.

>

>how's amber???

>

>

>erica z

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Lynn,

Can you state the WAPF stance on breastfeeding that you disagree with?

Thanks,

Christapher

Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few

comments

> 4 - as per tradition, there is no number 4.

I thought there was no rule 6! (Interestingly, rule 7 (and 1, 3, 5 and

9) is " No pooftahs! " )

This kind of thing drives me bananas about WAPF and makes it very hard

for me to talk about nutrition on other lists. One of my mom lists has

gone very anti-WAPF because of its rather ridiculous stance on

breastfeeding. People can't take WAPF seriously when they keep saying

goofy things like this.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

>so, how do you legitimize WAPF to others without feeling

>hypocritical, lynn?

I don't .....nor do I feel hypocritical. This stuff just is the

consequence of living in our present day world. But I think the more

people understand how complex our life web is, the more they get upset

and demand changes when it affects them. And I think they also begin

to see their part in all this and hopefully try to make choices that

reduce thier load on our planet.

I think people also hopefully begin to realize that we may have it too

cheap right now....too cheap food, too cheap oil, too cheap plastics.

Hey...put enviromental impact fees on all our polluting stuff and see

how mcuh we'd buy. Of course this would once again affect poor people

heavily.

In terms of dioxin....it's almost impossible to predict where it is at

any given time (short of living downwind of dioxon polluting source).

It hops and skips around the planet often landing finally in the

colder very northern latitudes. Hence the very high concentration of

dioxin in polar bears. It concentrates in the fat of an animal and

stays there.

I have read that milk is a good source of fat because it passes

through the animal so quickly. A very good book to read on this is Our

Stolen Future.

Lynn

[Guest guest]

> the gist is that if a woman's diet is less than stellar, she'd be

> better off giving the baby formula, namely the raw milk formula that

> NT advises.

Yep. I cannot defend this at all, especially since I don't believe it.

So many people in my acquaintance completely ignore what WAPF has to

say about anything because of this ONE position. It's completely

ridiculous.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

> It hops and skips around the planet often landing finally in the

> colder very northern latitudes. Hence the very high concentration

of

> dioxin in polar bears. It concentrates in the fat of an animal and

> stays there.

> I have read that milk is a good source of fat because it passes

> through the animal so quickly. A very good book to read on this is

Our

> Stolen Future.

>

>

> Lynn

So, do you feel that other animal fats are not good sources of fat

to eat because on the toxins that are stored in it? I guess we are

left with coconut oil, palm oil, olive oil, and butter as the main

sources of healthy fat. What about peanut oil? Is that a good oil?

It seems to me that this would also mean that veal (and any other

source of young animal meat that you could find) would be better to

eat, and the eating of lean meats.

There's always something more to think about, isn't there?

Sometimes I wonder if I really want to find out more, but my brain

does not rest in ignorance. There's something in me that pushes me

to learn and know more.

Robin

[Guest guest]

> Yes, but for some reason breastfed babies, even drinking 'toxic'

breastmilk,

> fend of environmental toxins better than their formula-fed peers.

Because of

> the numerous immunities conferred through breastmilk, breastfed

babies are

> better able to withstand a toxic environment (i can't help but

wonder if,

> because it's a super food, breastmilk is also an effective detoxer).

---> Yes that's probably the better way to go. It's very complicated

as short of having your breasts tested there's simply no way to no to

know how much dioxin you're carrying. Of course the older you are the

more likely the load is higher. And if you live near a pollution

source that would not help. (burning plastics is a big source.)

I believe the last report I saw did show a reduction in the world

atmosphere. It's a very hard chemical to breakdown but some micobes

are capable of it. Yeah for these little guys! Maybe maintaining a

high degree of fermented products in one's diet is helpful. I don't

know as it clings to the fat and stays there.

May also be a reason not to extend breastfeeding out for long periods.

At one time I tried to find out more about it for some answers but

simply couldn't locate much on this. It would be a very good thing for

La Leche to take a stand on and give some advice to women. I did look

once and I don't believe they even address it.

Awhile ago I posted a air pollution map of the US that was

interactive, i.e. you got type your zip in and see exactly what was in

your area. (our area east of Atlanta was very bad)

Later today I'll relocate the link and repost it although it doesn't

give dioxins it does give lots of other stuff including the source of

the possible pollution)

Lynn

[Guest guest]

> So, do you feel that other animal fats are not good sources of fat

> to eat because on the toxins that are stored in it? I guess we are

> left with coconut oil, palm oil, olive oil, and butter as the main

> sources of healthy fat. What about peanut oil? Is that a good oil?

----> I really don't know as I'm not an expert on it. My husband has

done air pollution work which is why I've done some research in this

area. I did talk once to a visiting professor at Ga Tech who was

teaching to the paper mill industry (big time pollutanters). He was of

all things picking up raw milk at our dairy co-op at our house! Of

course he felt that the pollution risks were outwieghed by the

benefits...his wife told me later he calls the smell of papermills

" the smell of money " ! They don't live near one.

Anyhow he told me that testing for dioxin can only be done a few labs

and is very cost prohibitive. Then add it's miniscule size and it's

skipping around and it's almost impossible to know the state of your fats.

> It seems to me that this would also mean that veal (and any other

> source of young animal meat that you could find) would be better to

> eat, and the eating of lean meats.

---> Yes younger animals would have less in them.

> There's always something more to think about, isn't there?

> Sometimes I wonder if I really want to find out more, but my brain

> does not rest in ignorance. There's something in me that pushes me

> to learn and know more.

--->Yeah...I know sigh........

Lynn

[Guest guest]

> so, how do you legitimize WAPF to others without feeling

> hypocritical, lynn?

" Take what you need and leave the rest. " That's what I do.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

Bottom line is this: If a breastfeeding mother's diet is too poor to

give her child " the best " breastmilk, why on EARTH does anyone think

she'll feed her baby a decent formula? " The worst " breastmilk is still

better than " the best " commercial formula.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

well, except that commercial formula is not what's recommended.

-katja

At 03:03 PM 6/17/2004, you wrote:

>Bottom line is this: If a breastfeeding mother's diet is too poor to

>give her child " the best " breastmilk, why on EARTH does anyone think

>she'll feed her baby a decent formula? " The worst " breastmilk is still

>better than " the best " commercial formula.

>

>Lynn S.

>

>------

>Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

>http://www.siprelle.com/

>http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

>http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Not to mention the connection between mother and child during breast

feeding.

Chris

> Bottom line is this: If a breastfeeding mother's diet is too poor to

> give her child " the best " breastmilk, why on EARTH does anyone think

> she'll feed her baby a decent formula? " The worst " breastmilk is still

> better than " the best " commercial formula.

>

> Lynn S.

[Guest guest]

Lynn S - I found the answer to my previous question in a later email. Can I

try to respond, as I at Radiant Life talk to mothers all the time who

breastfeed exclusively and those who buy the NT baby formula ingredients

from us.

I have to agree with Katja that common sense would suggest that what you eat

would have to affect the quality of the breast milk. As always I suppose we

need to look carefully at all studies done. I think WAPF's position is

sensible, and can say that in the past two years we have seen countless

mothers turn to the NT formula and be amazed at the results when for any one

of a number of good reasons they could not breastfeed. I have not received

calls from mothers who did not want to breastfeed due to doubts about their

nutritional preparation. It seems to me that WAPF is offering a valuable

alternative to mothers in their formula, while recommending breastfeeding as

the first choice. I don't think WAPF is out there actively suggesting that

most women should be concerned about whether their milk is adequate. They

focus their efforts on educating about how to make sure mothers and others

have abundant nutrition.

Lynn S wrote: Bottom line is this: If a breastfeeding mother's diet is too

poor to give her child " the best " breastmilk, why on EARTH does anyone think

she'll feed her baby a decent formula? " The worst " breastmilk is still

better than " the best " commercial formula.

- This may be true of commercial formula but is not even close to true with

respect to the NT formula recipe.

If you were to look at most parents about to have children today, I think

you would find a real crisis in terms of nutritional deficiencies, not to

mention mercury and other toxicity - these will certainly be passed on to

the next generation. Given what's at stake as we go into the 4th or 5th

generation of " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration " in the US, we should all

probably be more outspoken and proactive about the situation. Whether or

not mother's milk varies with nutrition and toxicity of the mother, we

should all be more proactive about suggesting/demanding mothers go through a

period of nutritional buildup as well as detox before

pregnancy/breastfeeding (of course done safely and expertly). It seems like

the real question in this discussion hinges on whether all breast milk has

the same nutritional qualities. It's amazing but I guess not surprising

that such a basic question would be in dispute, and I would love to see

independent analysis take on and answer this question once and for all - why

leave it to opinion?

As for homosexuality, I don't think anyone would argue that homosexuality is

caused by nutritional factors in -all- cases - or even in most. But given

the drastic changes in diet over the 20th century, isn't it possible that

feeding children toxic horrible pseudo foods could affect their development

at the most profound levels resulting in some cases in homosexual

tendencies/identification? A troubling thought but one that could be

floated without denying that homosexuality is ancient, pre- industrialized

foods, and even observed in animals....

Best,

Christapher

Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few

comments

> 4 - as per tradition, there is no number 4.

I thought there was no rule 6! (Interestingly, rule 7 (and 1, 3, 5 and

9) is " No pooftahs! " )

This kind of thing drives me bananas about WAPF and makes it very hard

for me to talk about nutrition on other lists. One of my mom lists has

gone very anti-WAPF because of its rather ridiculous stance on

breastfeeding. People can't take WAPF seriously when they keep saying

goofy things like this.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/