The Danger of Infant and toddler Formula

Chocolate Toddler Formula Pulled After Sugar Uproar
June 29 2010
Parents and nutritionists are protesting a line of designer toddler drinks containing mostly milk and sugar. They are aimed at children as young as 1 year old.

Mead Johnson’s Enfagrow Premium contains more than 25 additives supposedly intended to boost growth, brain development and immunity for the kids — but some say the massive amounts of added sugar for flavoring may contribute to the childhood obesity epidemic.

ABC News reports:

“The company responded to the firestorm of criticism by dropping its new chocolate-flavored product, which critics have considered the worst offender with 19 grams of sugar … In a prepared statement … Mead Johnson said there had been ‘some misunderstanding and mischaracterization regarding the intended consumer’ of the product.”

Mead Johnson markets Enfagrow for children ages 1 to 3 who have been weaned off breast milk or infant formula.

Mead Johnson’s Enfagrow, a nutritional supplement for toddlers, is little more than fortified milk with added sugar. The first three ingredients on the label are just that: whole milk, nonfat milk and sugar.

Enfagrow also contains a smattering of vitamins, omega-3, prebiotics and antioxidants, which is what Mead Johnson keys in on in their marketing messages, calling Enfagrow a “delicious nutritious addition to his daily diet — one that’s specifically tailored for a toddler.”

But parents were not happy when the company rolled out their new chocolate flavor earlier this year, which packed a walloping 19 grams of sugar per serving. Nothing like hooking your 1-year-old on sweet, chocolate-flavored sugary drinks right from the get-go to set him up for a lifetime of weight problems and health issues!

Since When is Sugar and Corn Syrup Good for Toddlers?

The list of ingredients in Enfagrow is, strangely, not available online, so it took going to the grocery store to read the package in person to find out what it actually contains.

While the vanilla flavor is sweetened with sugar, the unflavored variety contains corn syrup solids, i.e. fructose — precisely the ingredient that is contributing to the obesity epidemic facing both adults and children in the United States. You might as well be giving your baby a bottle of Coke or Pepsi!

I’ve written numerous articles about the dangers of consuming fructose, including its ability to disturb your metabolism, elevate blood pressure and triglycerides, cause weight gain, heart disease and liver damage, and even deplete your body of vitamins and minerals.

There is no way that an infant should be consuming any corn syrup whatsoever, and the fact that Enfagrow is being marketed as anutritional supplement for kids, when it’s loaded with sugar and/or corn syrup, is incredibly deceptive.

Fortunately, due to the public outcry the chocolate flavored Enfagrow was discontinued after just four months, but the vanilla flavor, which contains 16-17 grams of sugar, is still on the market, along with unflavored varieties that contain up to 11 grams of sugar, including corn syrup solids.

When Enough Parents Speak Up, Manufacturers Listen

This is a wonderful example of how powerful your voice can be in prompting change in the consumer marketplace. Mead Johnson is out to make a profit, and they know very well that if enough parents are upset about an issue, word will spread, fast, at the expense of their bottom line.

And parents were indeed outraged that a chocolate-flavored, sugar-filled beverage was being promoted as a nutritional supplement for near babies, many whom had just transitioned from breast milk or formula and had only been eating regular food for a very short time.

In a statement about the product’s discontinuation, the company wrote there had been:

“… some misunderstanding and mischaracterization regarding the intended consumer” … and “the resulting debate has distracted attention from the overall benefits of the brand.”

In other words, they were getting enough bad press that they decided to pull Enfagrow Chocolate, lest it tarnish the image of Mead Johnson’s other products.

In the future, remember the power that you, your friends, and your family have in the marketplace, and be quick to voice your opinions about products you think are unhealthful or dangerous.

Tips for Feeding Your Picky Toddler

Toddlers are known for being picky eaters, but you must keep trying to introduce a variety of healthy foods nonetheless. It can take 10-15 times before a child will accept a new food, so if you’ve tried offering peas or chicken and your toddler would have no part of it, try, try and try again.

What you want to avoid is giving in to your child with a sweetened fortified beverage like Enfagrow, as this will establish a pattern that your toddler will likely want to continue. A much better alternative if you’ve been breastfeeding would be to continue supplementing your toddler’s diet with breast milk until you can transition over fully to solid foods.

You will also want to avoid the common mistake of feeding your infant cereal. Cereal is often one of the first solid foods to be introduced into the infant diet and most pediatricians encourage their patients to start these foods at about 4 to 6 months of age.

This is truly unfortunate, as grains are not a healthy choice for most people, including infants, and infants fed cereal also have anincreased risk of type 1 diabetes.

Instead, according to the Weston A. Price Foundation, egg yolk should be your baby’s first solid food, starting at 4 months, whether your baby is breastfed or formula-fed. Egg yolks from free-range hens will contain the special long-chain fatty acids so critical for the optimal development of your child’s brain and nervous system.

However, the egg whites may cause an allergic reaction so they’re best avoided until your child is at least 1 year old.

Infants will also do just fine starting out on a vegetable source of carbs, and simply cooking a squash or sweet potato, mashing it up and putting it into an ice cube tray is an easy way to have ready-made multiple servings available for the rest of the week. By alternating a wide variety of veggies with quality sources of protein like organic chicken and grass-fed beef, you’ll be giving your toddler a foundation of nutrition to grow on.

Resist Falling Into the Junk-Food Trap

Most parents do try to feed their kids relatively healthy, but a lot of factors tend to get in the way. First of all, there’s so much misinformation out there about what’s healthy and what’s not, that adults are often confused about what to eat themselves, let alone what to feed their kids.

There’s also so much junk-food advertising aimed at children that nowadays kids think anything worth eating must be bright blue, sugary, salty or sour, and turn their tongue orange when they eat it. It helps if the “food” is also shaped like some sort of cartoon character or action figure.

But consider this: a survey from the America On The Move Foundation found that 71 percent of children get information about how to be healthy from their mothers, and 43 percent get such information from their fathers.

Further, the New York Times pointed out that preschoolers will like or reject the same fruits and vegetables that their parents like or dislike. And girls are more likely to be picky eaters if their mothers don’t like vegetables. So the more you embrace a healthy diet and share that enthusiasm with your children, even at a very young age, the more likely they are to follow suit.

Finally, it’s important that you avoid giving your toddler too much fruit juice, milk or supplemental drinks like Enfagrow because these beverages will make your child full. Most toddlers will not eat if they’re not hungry, so you want to be sure you’re filling your child’s tummy with real, nutritious food instead of various beverages.

Sources:
ABC News June 10, 2010

Breastfeeding: Comfort versus Nutrition

Breastfeeding: Comfort versus Nutrition

by Kathryn Orlinsky

A very common statement about older nurslings is that they nurse mainly for comfort rather than for nutritional needs. Children who only nurse when upset or tired, or who eat a large quantity or variety of other foods often fall into this category. Is this an accurate depiction? To some extent, it is. As one mother suggested, if a child has nursed his fill, then hurts himself and asks to nurse again, this time only long enough to regain his composure, what else can that second nursing be for, if not for comfort? Also, how much nutrition can a child get from nursing for a few minutes per day? These are valid questions. Nevertheless, I believe that it belittles human milk, the most nutritious substance in the world, as far as humans are concerned, to speak of it in these terms. Why disparage it this way? We never talk that way about other foods.

How much nutrition do we get from eating any small amounts of food? An older child with a varied diet doesn’t need human milk in the same way that I don’t need to eat apples. One apple doesn’t contribute too many calories to my diet, but it’s still a significant nutritional contribution. If I were writing down my diet to make sure that I got the right amount of nutrients and vitamins, I would certainly not omit the apple. It doesn’t matter what my emotional state was when I ate the apple either, it is still nutritionally significant. I think of human milk the same way. It may or may not contribute a significant amount of calories and it may not be essential to sustain life, but on the days when a child consumes it, it is nutritionally significant. And that doesn’t even include the other health benefits of human milk, such as protection from disease or gastrointestinal discomfort.

Why do we expect more from human milk than from any other food source? If a child doesn’t appear to need human milk for survival, we as a society are quick to decide that breastfeeding is now unnecessary and that every effort should be made to wean the child.

We don’t say that children should stop eating bananas once bananas are no longer a significant part of their diet. Bananas eaten once in a while are as nutritious as bananas eaten three times a day. In fact, you might even consider the rarely eaten banana to be more important nutritionally. Why do we not see that the same is true of human milk?

I think this whole “comfort nursing” thing started because people were comparing breastfeeding with sucking on thumbs or pacifiers. In our culture, those things are more commonly used by older children than breastfeeding, and of course, they are sucked on purely for comfort; nothing comes out of them. Our society then assumes that breastfeeding children of the same age are suckling for the same reasons.

My last point is that we assume that children are nursing for comfort because they only ask to nurse when they are upset or tired. What if the reason they are upset in the first place is because they are experiencing low blood sugar or lacking some other nutritional element found in human milk? They don’t realize that’s what is wrong with them, and neither do we.

Under this scenario, despite what we see – child asks to nurse when she needs to be comforted – the true reason behind the nursing might be nutritional. By the same token, a younger child who gets all of his nutrition from the breast may also be nursing to comfort himself.

I realize that there are differences between nursing one-year-olds and nursing six-year-olds. Their nutritional and emotional needs are very different. However, I strongly feel that it is wrong to arbitrarily establish distinctions between “comfort nursing” and “nutritional nursing”. Breastfeeding will always be about both aspects; they cannot be separated.

© 1989 Kathy Orlinsky. Reprinted with permission of the author.

Kathryn Orlinsky received her Ph.D. in Microbiology and Molecular Genetics at the University of California, Irvine.

Breastfeeding – Starting Out Right

Breastfeeding – Starting Out Right

by Jack Newman, M.D., FRCPC

Breastfeeding is the natural, physiologic way of feeding infants and young children, and human milk is the milk made specifically for human infants. Formulas made from cow’s milk or soybeans (most formulas, even “designer formulas”) are only superficially similar, and advertising which states otherwise is misleading. Breastfeeding should be easy and trouble free for most mothers. A good start helps to ensure breastfeeding is a happy experience for both mother and baby.
The vast majority of mothers are perfectly capable of breastfeeding their babies exclusively for about six months. In fact, most mothers produce more than enough milk. Unfortunately, outdated hospital routines based on bottle feeding still predominate in too many health care institutions and make breastfeeding difficult, even impossible, for too many mothers and babies. For breastfeeding to be well and properly established, a good start in the early few days can be crucial. Admittedly, even with a terrible start, many mothers and babies manage.

The trick to breastfeeding is getting the baby to latch on well. A baby who latches on well, gets milk well. A baby who latches on poorly has more difficulty getting milk, especially if the supply is low. A poor latch is similar to giving a baby a bottle with a nipple hole that is too small—the bottle is full of milk, but the baby will not get much. When a baby is latching on poorly, he may also cause the mother nipple pain. And if he does not get milk well, he will usually stay on the breast for long periods, thus aggravating the pain. Unfortunately anyone can say that the baby is latched on well, even if he isn’t. Too many people who should know better just don’t know what a good latch is. Here are a few ways breastfeeding can be made easy:

1. A proper latch is crucial to success. This is the key to successful breastfeeding. Unfortunately, too many mothers are being “helped” by people who don’t know what a proper latch is. If you are being told your two day old baby’s latch is good despite your having very sore nipples, be skeptical, and ask for help from someone else who knows. Before you leave the hospital, you should be shown that your baby is latched on properly, and that he is actually getting milk from the breast and that you know how to know he is getting milk from the breast (open mouth wide – pause – close mouth type of suck). See also the videos on how to latch a baby on (as well as other videos). If you and the baby are leaving hospital not knowing this, get experienced help quickly (see handout When Latching). Some staff in the hospital will tell mothers that if the breastfeeding is painful, the latch is not good (usually true), so that the mother should take the baby off and latch him on again. This is not a good idea. The pain usually settles, and the latch should be fixed on the other side or at the next feeding. Taking the baby off the breast and latching him on again and again only multiplies the pain and the damage.

2. The baby should be at the breast immediately after birth. The vast majority of newborns can be at the breast within minutes of birth. Indeed, research has shown that, given the chance, many babies only minutes old will crawl up to the breast from the mother’s abdomen, latch on and start breastfeeding all by themselves. This process may take up to an hour or longer, but the mother and baby should be given this time together to start learning about each other. Babies who “self-attach” run into far fewer breastfeeding problems. This process does not take any effort on the mother’s part, and the excuse that it cannot be done because the mother is tired after labor is nonsense, pure and simple. Incidentally, studies have also shown that skin-to-skin contact between mothers and babies keeps the baby as warm as an incubator. Incidentally, many babies do not latch on and breastfeed during this time. Generally, this is not a problem, and there is no harm in waiting for the baby to start breastfeeding. The skin to skin contact is good for the baby and the mother even if the baby does not latch on.

3. The mother and baby should room in together. There is absolutely no medical reason for healthy mothers and babies to be separated from each other, even for short periods.

Health facilities that have routine separations of mothers and babies after birth are years behind the times, and the reasons for the separation often have to do with letting parents know who is in control (the hospital) and who is not (the parents). Often, bogus reasons are given for separations. One example is that the baby passed meconium before birth. A baby who passes meconium and is fine a few minutes after birth will be fine and does not need to be in an incubator for several hours’ “observation”.

There is no evidence that mothers who are separated from their babies are better rested. On the contrary, they are more rested and less stressed when they are with their babies. Mothers and babies learn how to sleep in the same rhythm. Thus, when the baby starts waking for a feed, the mother is also starting to wake up naturally. This is not as tiring for the mother as being awakened from deep sleep, as she often is if the baby is elsewhere when he wakes up. If the mother is shown how to feed the baby while both are lying down side by side, the mother is better rested.

The baby shows long before he starts crying that he is ready to feed. His breathing may change, for example. Or he may start to stretch. The mother, being in light sleep, will awaken, her milk will start to flow and the calm baby will be content to nurse. A baby who has been crying for some time before being tried on the breast may refuse to take the breast even if he is ravenous. Mothers and babies should be encouraged to sleep side by side in hospital. This is a great way for mothers to rest while the baby nurses. Breastfeeding should be relaxing, not tiring.
4. Artificial nipples should not be given to the baby. There seems to be some controversy about whether “nipple confusion” exists. Babies will take whatever gives them a rapid flow of fluid and may refuse others that do not. Thus, in the first few days, when the mother is normally producing only a little milk (as nature intended), and the baby gets a bottle from which he gets rapid flow, the baby will tend to prefer the rapid flow method. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out, though many health professionals, who are supposed to be helping you, don’t seem to be able to manage it. Note, it is not the baby who is confused. Nipple confusion includes a range of problems, including the baby not taking the breast as well as he could and thus not getting milk well and/or the mother getting sore nipples. Just because a baby will “take both” does not mean that the bottle is not having a negative effect. Since there are now alternatives available if the baby needs to be supplemented (see handout #5, Using a Lactation Aid, and handout #8 Finger Feeding) why use an artificial nipple?

5. No restriction on length or frequency of breastfeeding. A baby who drinks well will not be on the breast for hours at a time. Thus, if he is, it is usually because he is not latching on well and not getting the milk that is available. Get help to fix the baby’s latch, and use compression to get the baby more milk (handout #15, Breast Compression). Compression works very well in the first few days to get the colostrum flowing well. This, not a pacifier, not a bottle, not taking the baby to the nursery, will help.

6. Supplements of water, sugar water, or formula are rarely needed. Most supplements could be avoided by getting the baby to take the breast properly and thus get the milk that is available. If you are being told you need to supplement without someone having observed you breastfeeding, ask for someone to help who knows what they are doing. There are rare indications for supplementation, but often supplements are suggested for the convenience of the hospital staff. If supplements are required, they should be given by lactation aid at the breast (see handout #5), not cup, finger feeding, syringe or bottle. The best supplement is your own colostrum. It can be mixed with 5% sugar water if you are not able to express much at first. Formula is hardly ever necessary in the first few days.

7. Free formula samples and formula company literature are not gifts. There is only one purpose for these “gifts” and that is to get you to use formula. It is very effective, and it is unethical marketing. If you get any from any health professional, you should be wondering about his/her knowledge of breastfeeding and his/her commitment to breastfeeding. “But I need formula because the baby is not getting enough!” Maybe, but more likely you weren’t given good help and the baby is simply not getting the milk that is available. Even if you need formula, nobody should be suggesting a particular brand and giving you free samples. Get good help. Formula samples are not help.

Under some circumstances, it may be impossible to start breastfeeding early. However, most “medical reasons” (maternal medication, for example) are not true reasons for stopping or delaying breastfeeding, and you are getting misinformation. Get good help. Premature babies can start breastfeeding much, much earlier than they do in many health facilities. In fact, studies are now quite definite that it is less stressful for a premature baby to breastfeed than to bottle feed. Unfortunately, too many health professionals dealing with premature babies do not seem to be aware of this.

Written by Jack Newman, drjacknewman@sympatico.ca MD, FRCPC. © 2005

This handout may be copied and distributed without further permission, on the condition that it is not used in any context in which the WHO code on the marketing of breast milk substitutes is violated

The Importance of Skin to Skin Contact

The Importance of Skin to Skin Contact

by Jack Newman, M.D., FRCPC

There are now a multitude of studies that show that mothers and babies should be together, skin to skin (baby naked, not wrapped in a blanket) immediately after birth, as well as later. The baby is happier, the baby’s temperature is more stable and more normal, the baby’s heart and breathing rates are more stable and more normal, and the baby’s blood sugar is more elevated. Not only that, skin to skin contact immediately after birth allows the baby to be colonized by the same bacteria as the mother. This, plus breastfeeding, are thought to be important in the prevention of allergic diseases. When a baby is put into an incubator, his skin and gut are often colonized by bacteria different from his mother’s.

We now know that this is true not only for the baby born at term and in good health, but also even for the premature baby. Skin to skin contact and Kangaroo Mother Care can contribute much to the care of the premature baby. Even babies on oxygen can be cared for skin to skin, and this helps reduce their needs for oxygen, and keeps them more stable in other ways as well.

From the point of view of breastfeeding, babies who are kept skin to skin with the mother immediately after birth for at least an hour, are more likely to latch on without any help and they are more likely to latch on well, especially if the mother did not receive medication during the labour or birth. As mentioned in “Breastfeeding – Starting out Right”, a baby who latches on well gets milk more easily than a baby who latches on less well. When a baby latches on well, the mother is less likely to be sore. When a mother’s milk is abundant, the baby can take the breast poorly and still get lots of milk, though the feedings may then be long or frequent or both, and the mother is more prone to develop problems such as blocked ducts and mastitis. In the first few days, however, the mother does not have a lot of milk (but she has enough!), and a good latch is important to help the baby get the milk that is available (yes, the milk is there even if someone has “proved” to you with the big pump that there isn’t any). If the baby does not latch on well, the mother may be sore, and if the baby does not get milk well, the baby will want to be on the breast for long periods of time worsening the soreness.

To recap, skin to skin contact immediately after birth, which lasts for at least an hour has the following positive effects on the baby:

Are more likely to latch on

Are more likely to latch on well

Have more stable and normal skin temperatures

Have more stable and normal heart rates and blood pressures

Have higher blood sugars

Are less likely to cry

Are more likely to breastfeed exclusively longer

There is no reason that the vast majority of babies cannot be skin to skin with the mother immediately after birth for at least an hour. Hospital routines, such as weighing the baby, should not take precedence.

The baby should be dried off and put on the mother. Nobody should be pushing the baby to do anything; nobody should be trying to help the baby latch on during this time. The mother, of course, may make some attempts to help the baby, and this should not be discouraged. The mother and baby should just be left in peace to enjoy each other’s company. (The mother and baby should not be left alone, however, especially if the mother has received medication, and it is important that not only the mother’s partner, but also a nurse, midwife, doula or physician stay with them—occasionally, some babies do need medical help and someone qualified should be there “just in case”). The eyedrops and the injection of vitamin K can wait a couple of hours. By the way, immediate skin to skin contact can also be done after cæsarean section, even while the mother is getting stitched up, unless there are medical reasons which prevent it.

Studies have shown that even premature babies, as small as 1200 g (2 lb 10 oz) are more stable metabolically (including the level of their blood sugars) and breathe better if they are skin to skin immediately after birth. The need for an intravenous infusion, oxygen therapy or a nasogastric tube, for example, or all the preceding, does not preclude skin to skin contact. Skin to skin contact is quite compatible with other measures taken to keep the baby healthy. Of course, if the baby is quite sick, the baby’s health must not be compromised, but any premature baby who is not suffering from respiratory distress syndrome can be skin to skin with the mother immediately after birth. Indeed, in the premature baby, as in the full term baby, skin to skin contact may decrease rapid breathing into the normal range.

Even if the baby does not latch on during the first hour or two, skin to skin contact is still good and important for the baby and the mother for all the other reasons mentioned.

If the baby does not take the breast right away, do not panic. There is almost never any rush, especially in the full term healthy baby. One of the most harmful approaches to feeding the newborn has been the bizarre notion that babies must feed every three hours. Babies should feed when they show signs of being ready, and keeping a baby next to his mother will make it obvious to her when the baby is ready. There is actually not a stitch of proof that babies must feed every three hours or by any schedule, but based on such a notion, many babies are being pushed into the breast because three hours have passed. The baby not interested yet in feeding may object strenuously, and thus is pushed even more, resulting, in many cases, in babies refusing the breast because we want to make sure they take the breast. And it gets worse. If the baby keeps objecting to being pushed into the breast and gets more and more upset, then the “obvious next step” is to give a supplement. And it is obvious where we are headed (see “When a Baby Refuses to Latch On”).

Written by Jack Newman, drjacknewman@sympatico.ca MD, FRCPC. © 2005

This handout may be copied and distributed without further permission, on the condition that it is not used in any context in which the WHO code on the marketing of breast milk substitutes is violated.

See also Mother and Infant: Early Emotional Ties by Marshall Klaus

Breastfeeding Baby Refuses Bottle

Subject: Breastfeeding Baby Refuses Bottle

QUESTION:

I’m trying to get my 3-month-old son to take a bottle for when I have to go out, and he absolutely refuses. I’ve tried every different nipple on the market, and he just won’t drink from them – even when it’s my breast milk. How can I get him to do this so that I can leave my son with his dad, or anybody for that matter, without worrying that he is screaming because he’s so hungry?

Name Withheld

JAN’S REPLY:

I understand your concerns – in fact I remember when I had this same question years ago. I’ll try to give you the information that helped me to better understand and to meet my son’s needs.

It can be worrisome for loving parents to think that their baby may be in a situation in which an important need such as hunger cannot be satisfied. However, a bottle is not a good solution. Many babies will suck only from one or the other, breast or bottle. One reason for this is that the sucking method is, surprisingly, quite different. A baby who is breastfeeding successfully can become confused by something that requires a different sucking method. But I would not recommend that you teach him how to drink from a bottle, even if you could do so. If he were to successfully learn to suck from a bottle nipple (or a pacifier), that could bring about what is termed “nipple confusion” and interfere with his ability to nurse properly. As there are literally hundreds of benefits of breastfeeding, both physical and emotional, for both baby and mother, anything at all that might interfere with this extremely beneficial relationship should be avoided.

Your son has good survival instincts! While his resistance to bottles may be frustrating for you, your baby is strongly communicating his legitimate need to be with you as much as possible. Bottles, even when filled with breastmilk, cannot satisfy a baby’s emotional need for the mother’s presence. For the early months and years, it is essential that he have full opportunity to bond first with his mother – only then can he successfully move on to bonded relationships with his father and, later, with other persons.

Breastfeeding, beyond all of its many physical benefits, has the added bonus of requiring the mother’s presence. A baby has no sense of time and no way of knowing that an absent mother will ever return, yet he understands that her presence is essential. Thus her absence can be quite terrifying. For this reason, it is imperative to keep absences to the barest minimum (in terms of length of time and number of times), and if it is absolutely essential to leave him, try to be gone as short a time as possible, and to schedule things so that you are gone between feedings, or during naps, rather than during a time when he is apt to be hungry.

If a separation is absolutely unavoidable during a time when he is hungry, perhaps he will accept expressed breastmilk from a spoon. In a relatively short time, he will be able to drink from a cup. However, I offer these suggestions reluctantly and definitely not as a routine solution, but only as something that might be used in a rare, emergency situation. It would be far better to avoid separations as much as possible, and to carefully schedule any departures that cannot be avoided. In fact I urge you to make every effort to avoid such departures altogether if possible. Not only do alternate feeding methods interfere with his ability to nurse from you, but more significantly, all separations can interfere to some degree with his developing sense of trust and security.

I would like to stress an important practical consideration that is often overlooked. Sometimes parents assume that a baby will not be welcome or appropriate in a certain situation, when in fact they may be pleasantly surprised if they ask to bring the baby along. Many parents have had the frustrating discovery of attending a function without their baby or child, only to find that others have brought theirs along. If a mother must attend a function where babies are definitely not allowed, she can ask that the baby be brought to her for nursing breaks. Requests like this can even help others in society to become more aware of the critical importance of breastfeeding and bonding. With such a request – even if it is denied – a mother can contribute to the process of social change. In many countries of the world, babies and children are far more welcome in “adult” settings than in North America. It is time to request and advocate change in this area!

It is not only the baby who finds separation difficult. Breastfeeding mothers quite naturally find that they also become uneasy when separated from their baby. The following is excerpted from the La Leche League book, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding (New York: Penguin Books, 1991):

“You won’t want to leave your baby any more than you have to because babies need their mothers. It’s a need that is as basic and intense as his need for food. ‘That’s all well and good,’ you may be thinking, ‘but what about me? I have needs too.’ Of course a mother has needs, and sometimes other responsibilities and obligations cause a mother to be away from her baby more than she wants to be. But you may be surprised to find how strong the bond is that develops between you and your baby. A mother often finds that when she does leave her baby for that long-awaited ‘night out’, she worries so much about how the baby is getting along that she doesn’t really enjoy the occasion!”

I also recommend Dr. Kimmel’s short book on our site, Whatever Happened to Mother?, which explores the nature and importance of mother-child bonding.

For further information on breastfeeding, visit the La Leche League site at http://www.lalecheleague.org. Questions can be sent through a “help form” available on their site; an accredited La Leche League Leader will reply within a week. For a faster reply, phone a Leader in your area (check the white pages under “La Leche League” or go to the La Leche League home page and click on “How to Find an LLL Leader Near You”). Main telephone numbers for the League are (847) 519-7730; in the U.S. phone toll free 1-800-LALECHE).

Breast feeding does not cause cavities!

Big Bad Cavities: Breastfeeding Is Not the Cause
by Lisa Reagan
“You’re going to have to stop nursing your son or sacrifice his teeth!” the dentist proclaimed. “But diabetes runs rampant in my family,” I sputtered, “and nursing Collins until he’s ready to wean himself is one of his only defenses.” “Well, it’s your choice,” he replied.
Not wanting to cause any more trouble, I pocketed the “Free McDonald’s Ice Cream Cone” coupon the receptionist gave me as my 18-month-old son’s reward for screaming his head off during our visit and retreated to my car. How could my son have developed two cavities, plaque, and so many white lesions (precursors to cavities) on a sugar-free diet, and at such a young age? “Bottle-mouth!” the dentist had proclaimed. But how could my breastfed son have “bottle-mouth”? I decided to look for another dentist and to seek information on Medline, an on-line clearinghouse of dental and medical studies. What I discovered was surprising, validating, and guilt relieving. More than three dozen studies showed that my son’s early cavities (also called caries) were not caused by nursing – breastmilk is not cariogenic – but by an infectious disease classified only recently as Early Childhood Caries (ECC).1 Moreover, according to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), breastfed children are less likely to develop this disease than their bottle-fed counterparts, and population-based studies do not support a link between prolonged breastfeeding and ECC.2

The Medline studies were listed by date, an arrangement that made obvious a significant pattern: Only the recent studies distinguished between bottle-fed and breastfed babies, a fact that explains the old names for the disease like “bottle-mouth,” “bottle-rot,” “baby bottle tooth decay,” or “nursing caries.” The author of a 1986 Mothering magazine article on dental caries could find no studies that distinguished between bottle-fed and breastfed babies.3

According to La Leche League International (LLLI), “Breastfeeding is typically assumed to be a cause of dental caries because no distinctions are made between the different compositions of human milk and infant formula or cow’s milk, and between the different mechanisms of nursing at the breast [with the nipple at the back of the mouth, not allowing for breastmilk to pool around the teeth] and sucking on a bottle with an artificial teat. We have only to consider the overwhelming majority of breastfed toddlers with healthy teeth to know that there must be other factors involved.”4

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) discarded the terms “bottle-mouth” and “nursing caries” in 1994, thereby acknowledging ECC as an infectious disease not caused by breast- or bottle-feeding. Most studies now focus on ECC’s true causes, contributing factors, and even cures.5 It’s about time, too. In 1997 the American Academy of Pediatric Dentists (AAPD) declared that ECC was “currently at epidemic proportions in some US populations particularly among racial and ethnic minorities. The caries level in three- to five-year-old US Head Start children may be as high as 90 percent.”6

Nevertheless, the American Dental Academy (ADA) website continues to caution, “A condition called baby bottle tooth decay can destroy a baby’s teeth. Examples of bottle-fed liquids that can cause tooth decay are infant formula, fruit juice, milk, breast milk and any sweetened liquid.”7 No new or updated policy is forthcoming, according to an ADA spokesperson.

“Most dentists and breastfeeding mothers have an adversarial relationship because dentists are likely to discount academic studies proving breastfeeding does not contribute to caries,” says Kevin Hale, a pediatric dentist in Brighton, Michigan. Hale serves on the Section on Pediatric Dentistry for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Counsel on Pre-doctoral Education for the AAPD and is currently one of three people responsible for drafting a policy proposal for the AAP that would recommend educating dentists and pediatricians on ECC’s causes and risks factors.8

“Breastfeeding is great,” Hale told me. “I do health histories on my patients – 80 a month – and it is profound, the difference between the health of the kids who were breastfed and those who were not. If a mother is breastfeeding, which I hope they do, I know it is her flora that is colonizing the child.” Unfortunately, Hale asserts, many dentists do not know this, nor do they know the risk factors associated with ECC. “Our biggest weapon against dental decay is education, not fillings.”

What Is ECC?

Early Childhood Caries’ main culprit, the bacterium Streptococcus mutans, or S. mutans, was suspected as far back as 1986.9 These bacteria are transmitted through saliva from mother (or primary caretaker) to child during the child’s first 30 months of life, are “site-specific” (so there must be at least one tooth in the infant’s mouth), feed on sucrose, and produce acid as a byproduct. In 1996, scientists at the University of Helsinki found that caries-free children had very low levels of these bacteria, whereas children with ECC had extremely high concentrations, more than 100 times the normal levels.10

ECC appears on teeth as white spots, plaque deposits, or brown decay and can lead to chips and breakage.11 Once the pattern of decay begins, it can be rampant and extensive. Patty Ogden, a mother of three in Norge, Virginia, demand-fed all her children, but only the youngest developed ECC. “When my son was about 18 months old, I noticed a brown line across his teeth,” she remembers. “By age two his teeth were fairly discolored and had a possible cavity or two.”12 After two years of wrestling with her insurance company, Ogden found a pediatric dentist and hospital that were covered and would use composite instead of mercury fillings, and her four year-old son underwent anesthetized surgery on his teeth. “He had two extractions, eight fillings with composite material, eight pulpotomies, and six stainless steel crowns on his molars. He also had his bottom front teeth ‘slenderized’ so that they wouldn’t touch, promoting more decay.”

The CDC and the dental and medical communities consider ECC to be the most prevalent infectious disease of American children (five to eight times more common than asthma), with 8.4 percent of all children developing at least one decayed tooth by age two, and 40.4 percent by age five. Of these cases, 47 percent of children between the ages of two and nine never receive treatment. “Untreated decay in children can result in chronic pain and early tooth loss…failure to thrive, inability to concentrate at or absence from school, reduced self-esteem, and psychosocial problems,” according to the CDC.13 Dental caries in primary teeth is one of the major reasons for hospitalization of children and is costly to treat.14 The total cost of Ogden’s son’s surgery was nearly $7,000, with out-of-pocket costs exceeding $2,000.

While researchers have recognized S. mutans as the bacteria responsible for ECC, other surprising risk factors have been identified. Significantly high correlations have been found between ECC and pregnancy complications, traumatic birth, cesarean sections, maternal diabetes, kidney disease, and viral or bacterial infection; for the neonate, risk factors seem to be premature birth, Rh incompatibility, allergies, gastroenteritis, malnutrition, infectious diseases, and chronic diarrhea.15 In addition to sugary foods, studies have implicated a salty diet (such as French fries and chips), iron deficiency, pacifier sucking, and prenatal exposure to lead as ECC risk factors.16 And even though human breastmilk is not cariogenic, some studies have shown that frequent night nursing may contribute to the development of ECC in the small percentage of children who are at risk for developing the disease.17 On the other hand, Hale acknowledges that in countries where the American diet isn’t a factor and infants sleep at their mother’s breast all night, ECC is not the epidemic it is here in the US.

“We’re talking about 20 percent of the population of all children who are going to be carriers of the really bad bugs,” Hale says. “Some people have none, some have a few, and then a small percentage at the other end have the ‘mean flora’ [S. mutans]. Some people who eat terribly never get a cavity, and some people who eat well are riddled with cavities. Breastfeeding has nothing to do with creating caries. But if you or your child are one of the people who have the ‘mean flora,’ you will have to be extremely cognizant and vigilant of the fact that every substance aggravates the flora and contributes to caries formation.”

Education, Not Fillings

Hale sees his task as bridging the gap between academia and dentists by writing policy that would educate all health care providers about the risk factors and causes of ECC. The proposed AAP policy would recommend that pediatricians, who are far more likely than dentists to encounter infants, be trained to perform an ECC risk assessment on patients by one year of age. Currently, many at-risk children are not being caught in time for a treatment plan to be implemented before caries become rampant and surgery is inevitable. The reason is twofold. According to a 1998 article in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, “Most dental providers do not want to treat young children, and most young children are difficult to examine and treat. But early intervention is crucial, since at-risk infants and toddlers with caries in their primary teeth are more likely to develop caries in their permanent teeth.”18 “We need to assess at-risk infants early on and teach their mothers how to give them special care and diets,” states Alice Horowitz, a senior scientist at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, part of the National Institutes of Health. “Moms are taught how to clean every other orifice in prenatal education classes, but they are not taught how to clean an infant’s mouth properly. The gums should be wiped daily with gauze, and teeth should be brushed as soon as they appear.”19

Both Hale and Horowitz hope that, in the future, educated dentists will be more willing to treat their smallest at-risk patients. “It really isn’t fair that pediatricians have to look for this; they aren’t trained in medical school on what to look for, and there aren’t enough pediatric dentists to go around,” Hale complains. “The dental community needs to step forward and encourage these early visits.”

The proposed policy recommends that healthcare providers as well as parents be aware of the following facts: High-caries-index patterns run in families and are usually passed from mother to child (although a small percentage can be passed from a primary caregiver, the father, or siblings), from generation to generation; the children of high-caries-index mothers are at a higher risk of decay; approximately 70 percent of caries are found in 20 percent of our nation’s children; a mother’s dental hygiene and diet, as well as those of the primary caregiver and entire family, can significantly contribute to the development of ECC in her child.20

Fluoride Versus Nutrition

Currently, because dental providers are largely uneducated about the causes and risk factors of ECC, diagnosis and treatment are tricky. But once ECC has been properly diagnosed, the treatment plan, whether either mainstream or alternative, must be followed aggressively. Horowitz presented the mainstream dental model suggestions for treating ECC: “We have always known that we can re-mineralize teeth with fluoride treatment like fluoride toothpaste, but now we know we can reverse ECC if it is caught and treated at the white lesion stage,” she reveals. “This knowledge gives healthcare providers and parents an incentive for early detection and treatment instead of waiting for anesthetized surgery.”

Asked about the dangers of using fluoride toothpaste on young children, Horowitz recommended using a “tiny amount” and wiping the child’s mouth out afterwards. She does not recommend fluoride varnish as applied at dental offices for young children.

Most dentists agree that fluoride will help to re-mineralize teeth, but given fluoride’s controversial reputation, parents may opt for alternative treatments. Ted Spence, a doctor of naturopathy, certified herbalist, and certified nutritionist who has been a family dentist for 25 years on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, disagrees with the NIDCR’s recommendation that fluoride be used to re-mineralize children’s teeth at the white lesion stage. Instead, he recommends a nutritional approach.21

“The health of a baby’s teeth begins with conception,” Spence emphasizes. “A mother’s diet is critical, as is the child’s diet after birth.” Over the years, Spence has treated tooth decay in young patients with vitamin D therapy. “I have seen soft teeth harden after cod liver oil and lots of butter are added to the diet.” Sunshine, cod-liver oil, fortified dairy products, butter, eggs, liver, and oily fish like salmon and tuna are sources of vitamin D. (Since vitamin D is toxic at high levels and is stored in body fat, the RDA of 400 IUs should not be exceeded.)

“Our teeth naturally re-mineralize themselves with the calcium in our own saliva,” Spence says. “We can assist this process by eating vitamin D-rich foods, which increase the absorption of calcium.” Because fluoride is a neurotoxin and inhibits the absorption of calcium, Spence recommends against fluoride treatments. He also advises his patients to avoid sugar, on which the ECC bacteria thrive.

Spence’s nutritional suggestions are supported by a 1996 study that found that a combination of vitamin D, vitamin C, and calcium reversed early decay in children at the white lesion stage.22 And according to the NIDCR website, “Supplementing with vitamins during the first several years of life reduces the prevalence of linear enamel hypoplasia, a caries-associated condition common in lower-income populations that can increase the risk of caries as much as tenfold.”23 According to an article in the Journal of Pediatrics, nutritional rickets, a result of a dietary deficiency of vitamin D, is making a comeback in the US, especially among dark-skinned infants–the same infants who are most at-risk for epidemic levels of ECC, according to the CDC, and the least likely to be breastfed, according to LLLI.24

Asked about using nutrition to reverse ECC, Horowitz replied that the NIDCR has not studied ECC and nutrition, adding, “There’s no question we likely could do this with diet alone, but a no-sweets and low-carbs diet is against societal norms. Grandparents are big risks and liabilities here. We know how to prevent this disease, through diet and brushing; we just need to get the information to moms and get them to do it.”

Hale agrees that nutrition is the key to combating ECC. “Diet has the biggest impact of all of the preventive measures for ECC,” he says. “If you go back 20,000 years, the bugs are the same, but the difference is the absence of soda machines. By evolutionary design we will always crave sweets and fat and salt, but now we have way too much access to this stuff. Dental decay is just another example of the way our diet choices and sedentary lifestyle are killing us.” An article in the newsletter of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine states, “It would be evolutionary suicide for breastmilk to cause decay and [some anthropologists believe] that evolution would have selected against it. There are 4,650 species of mammals, all of whom breastfeed their young. Humans are but one species of mammals, but they are the only species with any significant decay.”25

Re-mineralizing teeth at the early stage of ECC, with either nutritional support or fluoride, may repair them, but it will not kill the ECC bacteria. Physical removal of the bacteria through brushing or wiping the teeth is still necessary. In pioneering efforts to kill S. mutans, researchers have experimented successfully with chemical antibacterial mouthwashes. Other efforts include a plant-based ECC vaccine, scheduled for release sometime in 2002. Parents who want an alternative route to chemical mouthwashes and vaccines can consult Flora Parsa Stay’s Complete Book of Dental Remedies, which recommends using peppermint mouthwashes as an antibacterial treatment for ECC. (Stay cautions that peppermint should never be used on infants.)

Public Policy and At-Risk Children

In the overlapping arenas of science and public policy, the definition and diagnostic criteria agreed upon by NIDCR scientists were needed before ECC could be recognized and acted upon as a public health epidemic. In September 2000, “Congress…passed a children’s health bill that, for the first time, authorizes a grant program to promote the oral health of young children. The provision is aimed at preventing dental caries in infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who are covered by Medicaid, SCHIP, or other federal health programs,” says Burton L. Edelstein, director of the Children’s Dental Health Project, Washington, DC.26 Authorized funding does not translate into guaranteed appropriations for programs that would provide oral intervention and care for at-risk children who have inadequate dental care and are at a greater risk for anesthetized surgery and hospitalization. “Given the severity of the problem, if enough people are willing to make enough noise about it to their congressional representatives, we could get it funded as early as 2003,” Edelstein states. “But, given the hundreds of appropriations that come across every senator’s desk each year, this may take some public pressure to translate the authorization into a public program.”

To Breastfeed or Not?

With scientists only recently agreeing upon ECC’s etiology, diagnosis, and treatment, and with nutritional therapies being largely ignored for now, informed parents must take the lead to protect their children’s oral and overall health with the preventive measures of regular brushing, healthy diets, and breastfeeding. It is La Leche League International’s experience that “a small percentage of at-risk breastfed children develop dental caries in spite of breastfeeding, not because of it. When weaning from the breast is in question, the well-documented long-term lifesaving and enhancing health and emotional advantages of human milk and breastfeeding over infant formula and bottle-feeding must be respected. These benefits must also be weighed against any self-limiting risk of dental caries in the primary teeth in early childhood.”27

“Rather than telling a mother to stop nursing, a dentist should praise the mother for giving her child her milk,” advises LLLI spokesperson Kim Cavaliero. “If the child has dental problems, the dentist needs to dig deeper and work to find the real cause behind the problem.”28 “The benefits of breastfeeding far outweigh the risks for caries,” Hale agrees. “But breastfeeding moms with at-risk children need to continue to push to find dentists who will work with them on a treatment plan.”

Hale hopes that the forthcoming AAP policy proposals and the push for education in the medical and dental communities will help to ease and correct unwarranted adversarial tensions between breastfeeding moms and their health care providers. “It will take a lot of education of both mothers and healthcare providers, including dentists, to finally allow everyone to work together to serve the overall health interests of the child.”

Epilogue

My decision as to whether to sacrifice my son’s teeth or continue nursing was always clear. My still breastfeeding-on-demand, co-sleeping four-year-old son is currently caries-free. Our aggressive treatment plan includes brushing daily with a nonfluoride children’s toothpaste and an herbal preparation of White Oak Bark, rinsing with Natural Dentist’s Herbal Mouthwash for Kids, avoiding sugary foods, and loading up on foods rich in vitamin D. The regimen has halted the progress of the ECC, and no new cavities have developed.

1. K. L. Weerheijm et al., “Prolonged Demand Breastfeeding and Nursing Caries,” Caries Res 32, no. 1 (1998): 46-50.
2. Harold C. Slavkin, “Streptococcus mutans, Early Childhood Caries, and New Opportunities,” National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), http://www.nidcr.org.
3. Sara Ani, “Breastfeeding and Dental Caries,” Mothering (fall 1986): 29-37.
4. “Breastfeeding and Dental Caries,” statement from La Leche League International, February 1996.
5. Hershel S. Horowitz, “Research Issues in Early Childhood Caries,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 26, suppl. 1 (1998): 67-86.
6. “Early Childhood Caries Reaches Epidemic Proportions,” American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry press release (February 1997) http://www.aapd.org.
7. “What Is Baby Bottle Tooth Decay?” posted on November 28, 2001 on the American Dental Association website, http://www.ada.org.
8. Personal interviews with Kevin Hale, DDS, FAAPD, Brighton, Michigan, May 2001 through January 2002.
9. W. J. Loesche, “Role of Streptococcus Mutans in Dental Decay,” Microbiol. Rev. 50 (1986): 353-380.
10. S. Alaluusua et al., “Oral Colonization by More than One Clonal Type of M.S. in Children with Nursing Bottle Dental Caries,” Archives of Oral Biology 41, no. 2 (1996): 167-173.
11. See Note 5.
12. Personal interview with Patty Ogden, Norge, Virginia, November 1999.
13. “Frequently Asked Questions about Untreated Caries,” http://www.cdc.gov.
14. Thomas F. Drury et al., “Diagnosing and Reporting Early Childhood Caries for Research Purposes,” Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59, no. 3 (1999): 192-197.
15. B. Pertez and I. Kafka, “Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Complications during Pregnancy and Delivery,” Pediatric Dentistry 19, no. 1 (1997): 34-36.
16. See Note 2.
17. Ollila Paivi et al., “Prolonged Pacifier-Sucking and Use of a Nursing Bottle at Night: Possible Risk Factors for Dental Caries in Children,” Acta Odontol Scand 56 (1998): 233-237.
18. See Note 5.
19. Personal interview with Alice Horowitz, PhD, Bethesda, Maryland, December 1999.
20. See Note 8.
21. Personal interviews with Ted Spence, DDS, ND, Exmore, Virginia, October 1999 and November 2001.
22. S. K. Gupta et al., “Reversal of Fluorosis in Children.” Acta Paediatr Jpn 38, no. 5 (October 1996): 513-519.
23. See Note 2.
24. Deborah Flapan, “Rickets Reemerging in United States,” Journal of Pediatrics 137 (2000): 143-145, 153-157.
25. Brian Palmer, “Breastfeeding and Infant Caries: No Connection,” ABM News and Views 6, no. 4 (2000): 27.
26. Personal interview, Burton Edelstein, DDS, MPH, Washington, DC, January 2002.
27. See Note 4.
28. Personal interview, Kim Cavaliero, February 2002.
Originally published in Mothering Issue 113, July/August 2002

Lisa Reagan is a co-founder of Families for Conscious Living, parent representative on the Holistic Pediatric Board and Associate Editor for Pathways to Family Wellness magazine. She lives with her family on their biodynamic farm in Williamsburg, Virginia. You can reach Lisa at info (at) familiesforconsciousliving (dot) org.

Benefits of breastfeeding ..

( وننزل من القرآن ما هو شفاء ورحمة للمؤمنين) الإسراء 82

Breastfeed your baby even if with your eye-drops … !

There are many benefits of breastfeeding , some of them will be discussed here :

For the mother:

- Protects against post-partum uteritis.

- Helps stop bleeding resulting from delivery, thus preventing loss of extra blood..

- Helps uterine restore normal size and place quickly after delivery.

- Prevents the recurrence of pregnancy with a rate of more than 98%, without contraceptives.

- Protects the lactating mother against breast and uterine cancer.

For the baby:

Breast feeding protects the baby from viral infections, as it contains immunity agents.
· It protects against food allergy, as it is free of protein that causes such kind of allergy, and which is usually found in extracted and manufactured cows milk.

It prevents shortage of calcium in the baby’s blood, thus helping to construct strong bones.
It returns with spiritual and psychological benefits to the baby, as it helps build a well composed, righteous and straight personality, and strengthens the spiritual and passionate links between the baby and the mother.
As revealed in a research published in Pediatric Clinics of North America in February 2001, the mental abilities of babies who receive breast feeding from their mothers are stronger and higher than otherwise, and the longer the period of breast feeding, the higher the mental abilities are.
It was shown that mother’s milk also provides protection against cancer. After showing that the incidence of the lymph cancer observed in childhood was nine times greater in formula-fed children, they realised that the same results applied to other forms of cancer. According to the results, mother’s milk accurately locates the cancer cells and later destroys them. It is a substance called alpha-lac (alphalactalbumin), present in large quantities in mother’s milk, that locates and kills the cancer cells. Alpha-lac is produced by a protein that assists in the manufacture of the sugar lactose in the milk.
In addition to some practical benefits of breast feeding. The milk is always ready with steady and appropriate heat, fresh, sterilized, digestible and saves money and time !
Researchers indicated that breast feeding alleviates the baby’s fear of needle pricks and helps as analgesic during painful operations such as circumcision.
A new theory emerged in the recent years indicating that the protein in cows milk can cause a biological reaction that destroys the pancreatic beta cells excreting insulin. This theory is supported with the high rate of the presence of cow milk proteins in the serum of children with diabetes in comparison with study group of non-diabetic children.
But why is it that cows milk causes this harm before the second year, and then disappears after this period?
In a study conducted in Finland in 1994 and published in Auto-immunity Journal, the authors state that the protein of cow milk passes in natural form through the lining membrane of digestive system which is not yet fully grown. As the enzymes of the digestive system cannot break the protein into amino acids, the protein of cow milk enters as a complex protein and works as a catalyst to produce immunity agents in the body of the child.

New references reveal that enzymes and the lining membrane of the digestive system and kinetics of digestion and absorption do not attain complete function except in the second year after delivery.

Many studies stress on breast feeding in the first two years

In a very accurate scientific reference, the Quran determines the period of lactation with almost two years. In verse 14 of Surat Luqman: “And We enjoined on man concerning his parents- his mother bore him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning was in two years.” (31:14)
الآية رقم (14) في سورة [لقمان]: (ووصينا الإنسان بوالديه حملته أمه وهنـًا على وهن وفصاله في عامين)

It is understood that lactation for two years is not a must, but a complete period; “Mothers shall breastfeed their children for two whole years, for such as desire to complete the term ” ( 2:233)

( وَالْوَالِدَاتُ يُرْضِعْنَ أَوْلاَدَهُنَّ حَوْلَيْنِ كَامِلَيْنِ لِمَنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُتِمَّ الرَّضَاعَةَ ) – البقرة 233.