Good resource for all those expecting and expecting to expect...oops and a little bit of a rant
Oregon Environmental Council has launched the Tiny FootprintsTM program – a new website and baby shower kit to support parents and their communities who are interested in raising their children in ways that are good for the environment AND their children’s health.
I had a look, and whilst it does refer to lots of Portland based companies etc it gives lots of practical ways of how to minimise impacts through pregnancy, in baby showers, and when bub arrives. Also interesting for the non-expectant.
On the topic, I have been reading some very very interesting breastfeeding stuff recently - for example, an article discussion the way that breastfeeding is not currently valued as a good or service in coming up with a countries GNP/GDP. You might think - yeah, fair enough, after all it's a natural process that shouldn't be given a price and put on the national accounts. And that's a reasonable thing to think. But what is interesting, as the article proposes, is that because of this style of accounting, when parents put their babies on formulae and bottle feed it that way it actually adds to GDP - making the country look more prosperous. If babies are sick and people buy lots of medicines, that also adds to GDP. So in effect, what the article was discussing, is how what is good for children's health (breastfeeding) may firstly not be promoted because it is a natural service and therefore can't make someone a profit and doesn't have an advertising budget; secondly not be valued because it is a 'free' service that doesn't show up on national accounts; and thirldy that the huge drop in breastfeeding that happened in the 1960's/70's may have added to GDP but subtracted from community health.
As for the stats,
World Health organisation recommends two or more years of breastfeeding, The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends one year and beyond.
At the moment only about half (49%) of all Aussie babies are still being breastfed at 6 months. In Brittain it is 20%, in US it is 33%... but in Norway it is 80%! Norway has apparently, over the last decade or so, reversed the trend away from breastfeeding that arose in the 50's/60's (where bottle deefing was seen as 'hip and modern'), they have government policies to promote breasfeeding and have backed it up with a 99% initiation rate, pro-breastfeeding return to work policies (which allow mothers a 2 hour break each day to nurse their children) and ten-month maternity leave at full pay.
Uni of Western Sydney also did a study recently on attitudes & practices in extended breastfeeding (eg up to 2 years and beyond) which was very interesting and clearly highlights the huge impact of culture/attitudes to breastfeeding practice. ie while inability to feed is often cited as reasons for not continuing, there is a very real force of spouse/family/community attitudes which also shapes the practice.
As a final aside, I do think it is interesting from a consumerist perspective that we as a culture have bought the line that 'bottle feeding is as good as breastmilk' and that it's really everyone's right to choose because after all it doesn't have anything to do with us... I find that interesting because the research just does not support this - the content of the milk is demonstrably chemicallly and immunilogically vastly different, and the health stats of infants who are breastfed or bottle fed are also demonstrably different. I think it is, like with many aspects of modern western life, easy to think that how we do things is 'normal' and forget to take a broader historical perspective (weaning at 12 months became faddish in England only as recently as the 1800's and is the exception to the global and historical rule) and also to overlook the role that cultural norming plays in all of this - ie we are preceded by nearly 3 generations of women for whom bottlefeeding was the norm. I think it's fine for people to have different opinions on the topic, but regrettable if those opinions are not at least informed by history, scientific evidence and a self-analytical approach to our own cultural context.
If any one wants proper referenced texts I can pass on.
4 Comments:
I bet if someone bothered to calculate the value of the extra food stuff breastfeeding women ate, it would work out to be roughly equal, bar the packaging.
Recently I was out somewhere and saw in a cafe the words "breastfeeding welcome" stuck up on the wall. Nice - more people should do it. Shits me that (some) men just can't get over their sexual breast associations & get all hot and bothered.
To be able to breastfeed at work, we need either to work close to home and have our partners bring baby in for a feed, have the baby at work, or nearby in child care. Difficult to swing it that way. Bless those Scandanavians for their progressive policies.
The whole baby market is so incredibly consumerist. People are horrified at anyone who buys 2nd hand things for their baby - a woman at work copped it badly. But the baby doesn't know the cot is 2nd hand! The market for baby things is huge and marketed from a perspective of guilt. It's like the whole disposable nappy thing. People have actually believed the hype that disposables create the same environmental damage as cloth. They use the excuse that people soak in bleach, use lots of water etc etc etc but if you're a conscious user then you know to soak in a little vinegar and use cold water. I quote...
"Environmental awareness was at a peak, and many states were considering initiatives to tax or ban the sale of disposable diapers. Procter & Gamble, the nation's largest manufacturer of disposable diapers, fearing a loss of market share, commissioned a study by Arthur D. Little, Inc., on the environmental impact of disposable diapers. The study came to the conclusion that, lo and behold, disposables were actually no worse for the environment than cloth diapers. Procter & Gamble followed with an ad showing tree roots in compost, stating, "90 days ago this was a disposable diaper." After several lawsuits based on the fact that composting facilities for disposable diapers do not actually exist, the ad was pulled, but not until millions of parents had read and believed it. Meanwhile, the National Association of Diaper Services sponsored several reports of its own, prepared by consultant Carl Lehrburger, showing that there was a clear environmental advantage to using cloth diapers."
This is like drug companies sponsoring biased research that they skew in the favour. The address for this site - http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/diapers/joy-of-cloth.html
Another thing that shits me is the gender-ising of babies even before they're born. We bought a bassinet quilt at the markets when we were away recently. We couldn't resist the cut picture of a baby mermaid on it! It's purple around the outside and pink in the middle. Every person who has seen it says "You better hope you have a girl" My most recent answer is "Why?" It's quite funny to watch people squirm trying to answer! And the gender-ising thing really comes down to homophobia anyway. People are frightened that boy+pink=fag. As if we would care! I cannot count how many people have asked us "What if your child turns out gay?" Oh - it's too much! I'll have to go and blog on it.....
I grew up on hand-me-downs (my brothers, too), and it was good enough for me in my day etc. In fact, I hated dresses and was happy wearing clothes my bro had worn until people started hitting puberty. You're totally right - it's not worth spending thousands on stuff that you are only going to need for 2-3 years, & second-hand does not = dangerous.
My parents did a pretty good job at not pigeonholing me into my gender stereotype, I reckon. I was never drowned in pink (I didn't particularly like the colour then - loved blue), played with toy cars, bikes and dolls in equal amounts, and the boy over the road that I played with (usually treeclimbing and general mischief) used to come over and play hairdressers & dolls with me sometimes. I intend to give my child/ren the same opportunities.
People are so consumerist in general it doesn't suprise me that it has spilled over to the child demographic. My brother commented that by making kid's clothes so gender specific, you are "forced" to buy a new set of clothes if you have a second child of different gender.
Lots of things to think about, aren't there? I certainly don't want my child to be spoiled, environmentally unfriendly and materialistic, but am also blessed with grandparents-to-be who are likely to want to spoil them rotten. One day soon will have to sit down and have a deeper talk with them about this on a philosophical level.
Oh - and thinking about all this, I remembered that my Dad used to call ME "Muscles" quite a bit when I was a kid - either when I had been lifting something up, opening up a jar or having just finished a swimming race. I don't remember him calling my brother that ever (and of the 2 of us, I'm probably the more naturally muscly one). It never made me concerned about being too muscly for a girl - I just liked the attention, that my Dad was impressed with my muscles.
Post a Comment
<< Home