Cindy Galloway

Even Partial Breast-Feeding for First Few Months Lowers SIDS Risk

Even Partial Breast-Feeding for First Few Months Lowers SIDS Risk

New research confirms that breast-feeding for two to four months of a newborn’s life can significantly reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).It’s still unclear how breast-feeding might offer protective effects against SIDS, but there are several theories, the study authors said. Some research has indicated that breast-fed infants are more easily aroused from sleep than formula-fed infants, which might help them to wake if they’re having trouble breathing. Differences have also been found in a mother’s response to her infant’s behavioral cues, depending on feeding mode, which may also affect the baby’s sleep and arousal patterns. Additionally, research has shown that breast-feeding provides immune benefits that help prevent viral infections. Such infections are associated with an increased risk of SIDS, the study authors said. Whatever the reason, “this (study) provides very strong evidence of the benefits of breast-feeding in relation to the protective effects with SIDS,” the author noted.


Posted by Cindy Galloway, 0 comments

Education for WIC Peer Counselors About Breastfeeding the Late Preterm Infant

Education for WIC Peer Counselors About Breastfeeding the Late Preterm Infant

Cindi Faith Bennett, MN, RN, IBCLC, St Lukes Health System,  Cynthia Galloway, RDN, LD, IBCLC,

Idaho Central District Breastfeeding WIC Program, and Jane S. Grassley, PhD, RN, IBCLC,

Boise State University collaborated on a project to report on providing breastfeeding education for peer counselors.

Mothers of late preterm infants need ongoing support because they often find establishing breastfeeding (BF)

to be complex and difficult.  Special Supplemental Nutriont Program for Women, Infants and Children peer counselors

provide BF information and emotional support to new mothers in many communities.However, their

current training does not include education about BF for the late preterm infant. The purpose of this report is

to present important information about BF and the late preterm infant that can enhance peer counselors’ ability

to offer appropriate support. The effect of this education on outcomes such as BF rates, maternal selfefficacy,

infant hospital readmissions, and peer counselors’ self-efficacy needs to be investigated.


Posted by Cindy Galloway, 0 comments

A Community Partnership to Support Breastfeeding Mothers of Late Preterm Infants

A Community Partnership to Support Breastfeeding Mothers of Late Preterm Infants

Cindi Faith Bennett, MN, RN, IBCLC, a lactation consultant in the NICU at St. Luke’s Health System in Boise, ID

and Jane S. Grassley, PhD, RN, IBCLC, a professor and the Jody DeMeyer Endowed Chair in the School of Nursing

at Boise State University in Boise, ID coauthored a manuscript that was published in the AWHONN

Nursing for Women’s Health Journal.  They presented their research at he AWHONN conference in New Orleans in July.others of late preterm infants need timely breastfeeding support after hospital discharge. Breastfeeding peer counselors with the Special

Mothers of late preterm infants need timely breastfeeding support after hospital discharge. Breastfeeding peer counselors with the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) can provide this support, but communication with hospitals is needed

to facilitate early contact with women. We aimed to develop and implement a sustainable organizational process that would expedite support by

providing WIC peer counselors access to mothers of late preterm infants before hospital discharge. Key strategies included creating a workable process;

addressing barriers and stakeholder concerns; planning a pilot program to test the process; and inviting the WIC breastfeeding peer counselors

to tour the hospital, meet nursing staff, and practice scripting their initial encounter with mothers. The organizational pathway currently is being

implemented throughout the health system.


Posted by Cindy Galloway, 0 comments

WIC program sponsors 1st-ever Idaho Breastfeeding Summit to continue support for mothers and babies

Mimi Fetzer

By Mimi Fetzer, RDN, LD Breastfeeding Coordinator for the Idaho WIC

Program of IDHW’s Division of Public Health

In the summer of 2016, the Idaho Women, Infants, Children (WIC) program’s breastfeeding accomplishments helped it receive a Breastfeeding Bonus Award of $103,882 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


The Idaho Breastfeeding Summit drew 160 participants Aug. 1-3 in Boise.

Many of the WIC-designated breastfeeding experts also participate in the Idaho Breastfeeding Coalition to help supplement their knowledge and community outreach efforts. It was proposed that a large portion of the Idaho Breastfeeding Bonus Award go toward funding a first-ever Idaho Breastfeeding Summit, a conference that would strengthen breastfeeding efforts currently benefiting the state of Idaho.




Dr. Marianne Neifert speaks at the Idaho Breastfeeding Summit in Boise about long-term health benefits from breastfeeding.


Many national breastfeeding organizations claim the key to lengthening exclusive breastfeeding duration rates is taking a community approach toward ensuring mothers and babies are supported in multiple areas of their breastfeeding experience. This is difficult in rural Idaho where miles can separate important stakeholders.

Long-term health benefits of breastfeeding for the child include a reduced incidence of childhood obesity, cancers, allergies, and asthma. For the mother, breastfeeding increases the bonding with the baby and also reduces the risk of some cancers. Idaho has the  second-highest breast feeding rate in the nation, according to the Centers for Disease Control.





The Idaho Breastfeeding Coalition spread the news of the summit to physicians, dietitians, nurses, WIC staff, and other community members, resulting in the attendance of 160 people over the summit’s three days from Aug. 1-3, 2017.


(Left to right) Andy Bourne, Ivie Smart, Kristin Mckie Bergeson, Mimi Fetzer participate in one of the panel discussions during the 2017 summit.


After consideration of all input, speakers Jane Morton, Marianne Neifert, Thomas Hale, and Marsha Walker were engaged to lend their expertise on topics such as hand expression and pumping, the late-preterm infant, and medications for breastfeeding mothers. The summit concluded with coalition-building, sharing, and taking action. The summit was an great time to recognize the breastfeeding accomplishments of local Idaho community members, such as hospitals who have taken the steps to “Ban the Bag” and eliminate formula sample distribution in their discharge bags.


Loving Support Award: (from left to right) Western Region Breastfeeding Coordinator Jen Post, Panhandle Breastfeeding/Peer Counseling Coordinator Mary Monroe, Panhandle WIC Coordinator Kim Young, Idaho State Breastfeeding Coordinator Mimi Fetzer

The Panhandle Health District was recognized for being the first in the nation to receive the USDA’s Loving Support Gold Elite award for its Peer Counseling Program. The Idaho Division of Public Health’s own Elke Shaw-Tulloch, Andy Bourne, Ivie Smart, Kristin McKie Bergeson, and Mimi Fetzer spoke about the ways their programs promote breastfeeding.

The summit resulted in newly formed connections, an abundance of breastfeeding promotion resources, and an invigorated desire to promote the most optimal form of support for mothers and babies in Idaho.

Posted by Cindy Galloway, 0 comments

Save the Date August 2017

First ever Idaho Breastfeeding Summit sponsored by the Idaho Breastfeeding Coalition and State of Idaho WIC Program
August 1, 2, 3 2017
St Alphonsus Health System Boise
Contact Cindy Galloway 208-327-8565

Posted by Cindy Galloway, 4 comments

Breastfeeding Medicine US Public Health guidelines should reflect evidence, not anecdote

Breastfeeding Medicine US Public Health Guidelines Should Reflect Evidence, not anecdoteUS Public Health guildelines should reflect evidence, not anecdote

In 2008, the United States Preventive Services Task Force issued the following recommendation with Grade B Evidence: “The USPSTF recommends interventions during pregnancy and after birth to promote and support breastfeeding.” Since that time, breastfeeding initiation, continuation, and exclusivity rates have continued to rise, and the number of hospitals designated as Baby Friendly has increased by almost 5-fold.  The ABM Position on Breastfeeding–Revised 2015 indicates that “breastfeeding is, and should be considered, normative infant and young child feeding” and “a human rights issue for both mother and child.”  ABM further states that “children have the right to the highest attainable standard of health,” and “as breastfeeding is both a woman’s and a child’s right, it is therefore the responsibility of the healthcare system . . . to inspire, prepare, and empower as well as support and enable each woman to fulfill her breastfeeding goals and to eliminate obstacles and constraints to initiating and sustaining optimal breastfeeding practices.” ABM calls for an improvement in breastfeeding promotion, protection and support and states that medical professionals have a responsibility to promote, protect, and support breastfeeding as a basic ethical principle.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, in its 2012 Policy Statement on Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk concludes that, “research and practice in the 5 years since publication of the last AAP policy statement have reinforced the conclusion that breastfeeding and the use of human milk confer unique nutritional and nonnutritional benefits to the infant and the mother and, in turn, optimize infant, child, and adult health as well as child growth and development. Recently, published evidence-based studies have confirmed and quantitated the risks of not breastfeeding. Thus, infant feeding should not be considered as a lifestyle choice but rather as a basic health issue. As such, the pediatrician’s role in advocating and supporting proper breastfeeding practices is essential and vital for the achievement of this preferred public health goal.”

Recently, the USPSTF proposed a new recommendation: “The USPSTF recommends providing interventions during pregnancy and after birth to support breastfeeding.”  Note that this statement does not state “promote and support,” but just “support.” The task force made a deliberate decision to delete the “promote” from the previous “promote and support.” The evidence review, however, does not support the proposed change. In explanations about this change, a member of the Task Force, Dr. Alex Kemper, as quoted in MedPage Today, stated that “the reason the Task Force made this slight word change is to recognize the importance of a mother doing what she feels is best for her and her baby and not wanting to, for example, make mothers feel guilty or bad if they decide not to breastfeed,” he said. “It’s really a personal choice that needs to be made based on her own personal situation.”

In the 2016 USPSTF evidence report, the following statement is made:  “We systematically reviewed the literature for a variety of potential adverse events associated with breastfeeding interventions, including mothers reporting feeling criticized by the interventionist, guilt related to not breastfeeding, increased anxiety about breastfeeding, and increased postpartum depression. Only two of our included studies reported adverse events that mothers experienced related to the intervention and included reports of increased anxiety, feelings of inadequacy, and concerns regarding their family’s confidentiality. Although the goals of these interventions focused on initiating and continuing breastfeeding and empowering women to do so, it is important that interventionists respect family’s individual decisions.” The discussion further describes those two Canadian trials of “fair” quality, and goes on to note that: “Dennis and colleagues (CMAJ. 2002 Jan 8;166(1):21-8) compared a peer support intervention with usual care and reported that a few mothers in the intervention group expressed feelings of anxiety, decreased confidence, or concerns about confidentiality. For example, one mother requested to discontinue her participation in the intervention, stating that the peer volunteer frightened her about the potential hazards of not breastfeeding and diminished her feelings of confidence, despite the fact that breastfeeding was going well for her.”  The authors of the quoted study report that: “Of the 130 mothers who evaluated the peer support intervention, 81.6% were satisfied with their peer volunteer experience and 100% felt that all new breast-feeding mothers should be offered this peer support intervention.”  Therefore, it appears that one mother’s complaint about a peer counselor is enough to change a U.S. public health recommendation.  Is this change based on evidence or on personal opinion?


If breastfeeding is truly a public health issue with benefits that have been widely documented for both women and children, then health care providers should be promoting breastfeeding to empower women to make an informed decision about their infant feeding choice.  Physicians who have been taught counselling skills can provide such information without inducing guilt. We don’t seem to worry so much about guilt when counseling patients about smoking cessation, weight reduction, or need to increase exercise.  If we are advocating for each child and mother to achieve the highest attainable state of health, we must both promote and support breastfeeding, protecting each mother and child’s right to do so, and supporting each family in their infant feeding decision.  These are not mutually exclusive outcomes.

The DRAFT Recommendation Statement will be open for public comments until May 23, 2016 at 8:00 PM Eastern.

Joan Meek, MD, MS, FAAP, FABM, IBCLC is a Associate Dean for Graduate Medical Education and Professor of Clinical Sciences Florida State University College of Medicine. She has served as president of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding, and Chair of the United States Breastfeeding Commitee. You can follow her on twitter @joanymeek 

Posted by Cindy Galloway, 0 comments

Breastfeeding: achieving the new normal

Breastfeeding: achieving the new normal

Breastmilk makes the world healthier, smarter, and more equal: these are the conclusions of a new Lancet Series on breastfeeding. The deaths of 823 000 children and 20 000 mothers each year could be averted through universal breastfeeding, along with economic savings of US$300 billion. The Series confirms the benefits of breastfeeding in fewer infections, increased intelligence, probable protection against overweight and diabetes, and cancer prevention for mothers. The Series represents the most in-depth analysis done so far into the health and economic benefits that breastfeeding can produce.

However, although the Series is comprehensive, the message is not new. In 2013, a Lancet Series on maternal and child nutrition established that 800 000 child deaths could be prevented through breastfeeding, and called for further support. Despite consolidation of evidence for breastfeeding’s benefits in recent years, in particular the economic gains to be reaped, global action has stalled. Why has so little progress been made?

Rates of breastfeeding vary wildly; it is one of the few health-positive behaviours more common in poor countries than rich ones. In low-income countries, most infants are still breastfed at 1 year, compared with less than 20% in many high-income countries and less than 1% in the UK. The reasons why women avoid or stop breastfeeding range from the medical, cultural, and psychological, to physical discomfort and inconvenience. These matters are not trivial, and many mothers without support turn to a bottle of formula. Multiplied across populations and involving multinational commercial interests, this situation has catastrophic consequences on breastfeeding rates and the health of subsequent generations.

There are glimmers of hope. Despite—or perhaps, because of—the execrable provision for paid maternity leave in the USA, the Affordable Care Act provides protected nursing breaks and insurance cover for breast pumps. Such allowances, the Series predicts, could increase breastfeeding by 25%. But, more importantly, genuine and urgent commitment is needed from governments and health authorities to establish a new normal: where every support she needs to do so.

Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect

The importance of breastfeeding in low-income and middle-income countries is well recognised, but less consensus exists about its importance in high-income countries. In low-income and middle-income countries, only 37% of children younger than 6 months of age are exclusively breastfed. With few exceptions, breastfeeding duration is shorter in high-income countries than in those that are resource-poor. Our meta-analyses indicate protection against child infections and malocclusion, increases in intelligence, and probable reductions in overweight and diabetes. We did not find associations with allergic disorders such as asthma or with blood pressure or cholesterol, and we noted an increase in tooth decay with longer periods of breastfeeding. For nursing women, breastfeeding gave protection against breast cancer and it improved birth spacing, and it might also protect against ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes. The scaling up of breastfeeding to a near universal level could prevent 823 000 annual deaths in children younger than 5 years and 20 000 annual deaths from breast cancer. Recent epidemiological and biological findings from during the past decade expand on the known benefits of breastfeeding for women and children, whether they are rich or poor.

Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices?

Despite its established benefits, breastfeeding is no longer a norm in many communities. Multifactorial determinants of breastfeeding need supportive measures at many levels, from legal and policy directives to social attitudes and values, women’s work and employment conditions, and health-care services to enable women to breastfeed. When relevant interventions are delivered adequately, breastfeeding practices are responsive and can improve rapidly. The best outcomes are achieved when interventions are implemented concurrently through several channels. The marketing of breastmilk substitutes negatively affects breastfeeding: global sales in 2014 of US$44·8 billion show the industry’s large, competitive claim on infant feeding. Not breastfeeding is associated with lower intelligence and economic losses of about $302 billion annually or 0·49% of world gross national income. Breastfeeding provides short-term and long-term health and economic and environmental advantages to children, women, and society. To realise these gains, political support and financial investment are needed to protect, promote, and support breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding: a smart investment in people and in economies

If breastfeeding did not already exist, someone who invented it today would deserve a dual Nobel Prize in medicine and economics. For while “breast is best” for lifelong health, it is also excellent economics. Breastfeeding is a child’s first inoculation against death, disease, and poverty, but also their most enduring investment in physical, cognitive, and social capacity.

Spotlight on infant formula: coordinated global action needed

Breastfeeding has often been described as cost free.1 It is not free. Breastfeeding requires investment to overcome the sociopolitical barriers that exist in many countries2,3 through the effective approaches and practices described in the second paper of the Lancet Breastfeeding Series.4 As shown in the first Series paper, infants, children, and mothers who do not breastfeed experience an increased risk of mortality and morbidity.5 Breastfeeding is nutritionally, immunologically, neurologically, endocrinologically, economically and ecologically superior to breastmilk substitutes (BMS), and does not require quality control of manufacture, transport, storage, and feeding mechanisms.

Posted by Cindy Galloway, 0 comments

Military moms change the face of breastfeeding

Military moms change the face of breastfeeding | Impatient Optimists

“Army Strong” took on new meaning last week thanks to a new policy that supports soldier moms who are breastfeeding. The announcement means that now all five branches of the U.S. military are taking steps to ensure that new moms are able both to serve their country and to provide their babies with the best possible nutrition. Helping these children get a healthy, (Army) strong start at life is an important protection for the families that give so much to protect our country.

Under the new policy, active, Guard and Reserve members of the Army will have the time and private space to pump breastmilk while at work. This is critical to ensure that women are able to continue breastfeeding when their maternity leave ends. Members of other military branches benefit from similar provisions—including authorized breaks to pump milk every three to four hours (Air Force) and deferred deployment after giving birth (six months for Marine Corps, 12 months for Navy).

The change in Army policy came less than two weeks after a photograph of 10 Army moms breastfeeding in camouflage went viral. Fort Bliss, where the photo was taken to adorn the walls of a new breastfeeding room, is the Army’s second largest installation, covering 1,700 square miles in New Mexico and Texas. The photo sent a powerful message—as did Pope Francis when he expressed his support for breastfeeding in the Vatican, saying that mothers should breastfed their babies anywhere and anytime “without thinking twice.”

Breastfeeding is important for the health of both mothers and children, and the benefits are numerous, well documented and lasting. For mothers, breastfeeding reduces the risk of ovarian cancer, type 2 diabetes and hypertension. For infants, breastfeeding and good nutrition provide a healthy start in life, and even offer personalized medicine to the newborn. Breastfeeding fights harmful bacteria, feeds beneficial bacteria and jumpstarts a newborn’s immune system. Studies find a positive effect of breastfeeding on IQ and a reduction in risk of childhood leukemia (19%). A 30-year study conducted in Brazil found that individuals who had been breastfed as infants attended increased years of school and earned higher wages later in life.

However, in the U.S. as well as abroad, more mothers and children could benefit from breastfeeding. Most children are not being breastfed according to WHO guidelines, which recommends exclusive breastfeeding for six months and continued breastfeeding with complementary foods for 24 months or more. The only way to achieve this goal is to support mothers who are working hard to provide their children with the best nutrition while also working hard in the office, in the field and at home. Policies and programs such as the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative and maternity protection have proven highly successful in increasing breastfeeding rates, but they must be more widely implemented in order for more families and communities to reap the benefits.

While maternity leave and policies supporting moms who return to work and still want to breastfeed are too often not viewed as critical health and nutrition interventions, thankfully the breastfeeding landscape is gradually improving. The 2010 U.S. Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to provide coverage for lactation counseling and breast-milk pumps. The law also requires many employers to provide space and time breast-milk expression. Today, nearly all states have laws that protect breastfeeding in public, and many businesses—large and small, tech and traditional—are rolling out new breastfeeding policies for their employees.

Since 2007, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published a yearly Breastfeeding Report Card that summarizes state-by-state advances in the numbers of women who breastfeed and the implementation of programs that result in better breastfeeding. The findings demonstrate that breastfeeding among all socioeconomic and ethnic groups is increasing, though the rates are lagging among low-income and African American moms.

But even with this progress, there is much more that needs to be done. Each week, we hear stories of moms chastised for breastfeeding in public and there remain millions of women who have to make the choice between staying home to breastfeed or returning to work to earn a paycheck to support their families.

By changing the face of who breastfeeds and where they breastfeed, the photo of Army soldiers breastfeeding normalizes this important act. We need to continue sharing these powerful images, while also working to ensure that all families get the types of protections that members of the military now benefit from.

Dr. Chessa Lutter is Senior Advisor on Food and Nutrition at the Pan American Health Organization, Regional Office for the Americas of the World Health Organization PAHO/WHO. 

Posted by Cindy Galloway, 0 comments

Promotion without Support: A Reply to Editorials that Attack Breastfeeding Advocacy

Promotion without Support: A Reply to Editorials that Attack Breastfeeding Advocacy | Breastfeeding Medicine

Breastfeeding Medicine

Physicians blogging about breastfeeding

Promotion without Support: A Reply to Editorials that Attack Breastfeeding Advocacy

with 39 comments

I would like to reply to Courtney Jung’s op-ed, and many other similar editorials that attack breastfeeding advocacy as bad for women. This argument posits a false dichotomy, supported by formula advertising, that the true battleground for breastfeeding exists between “lactivists” and mothers who choose to, or must, formula feed their infants. Rather, breastfeeding advocacy today focuses on the social conditions that prevent women around the world from being able to make choices that support their health and empowerment, and the futures of their babies.

It is unclear why discourse on the “minimal” or “moderate” effects of breastfeeding continues; it is likely related to influence from both personal experiences of writers and influence from formula marketing. I will not engage this discourse here, as it is clear from every medical expert panel in every country in the world that the benefits of breastfeeding for health of mother and baby, decreasing economic and health inequities, and supporting a healthy environment, are well established. As breastfeeding is the physiologic norm, high rates of infant formula feeding negatively impacts all of these factors. Also, if what we are discussing is an over-emphasis on the social critique of women’s work, this is beside the point.

I am therefore saddened that media discourse on breastfeeding continues to undermine women by putting forth articles supporting the notion that a battleground exists between mothers. This classic patriarchal technique, of pitting women against each other, keeps the focus away from the systematic factors that undermine women around the world, including unequal access to paid maternity leave, evidence-based birthing practices, postpartum lactation support, breast milk banking, employer support of breastfeeding, and misleading advertising from infant formula companies. It is also the result of insufficient funding for public health infrastructures that therefore focus on breastfeeding promotion, without addressing breastfeeding support.

I urge us to notice that breastfeeding advocacy has moved on. The conflation of negative social experiences of mothers and breastfeeding advocacy is overstated. Advocacy has moved the dialogue, and we are saving our justified anger for the development of much-needed policies, medical practices and community movements that support women to have the real possibility of making choices that support the health and well-being of their families. The social and media conversation needs to move on as well. Editorials like Jung’s in the ‘Times’ only serve to continue the false conflation of advocacy and social blaming, and the false battleground between mothers.

ADDENDUM 10-19-2015 / 3 pm
Let me be clear: No one is saying this isn’t happening to moms. No one is saying that promotion without support is a good idea. Rather, I am criticizing the New York Times for continuing a conversation that pits women against each other and keeps our focus away from the ongoing structural inequities that women face. On both sides of this false battle, we are all agreeing that the battle shouldn’t be between each other, feeling critical or criticized for breastfeeding (or not). We should be joining together to force a conversation about how to create social conditions that actually support women in making choices that support their health and well-being. After all, what kind of choice is it if only one option is possible? As Gandalf would say: “YOU HAVE ONLY ONE CHOICE!” That is just improper diction…

(Also, FYI: research is being done on this, it’s just not getting published in the New York Times… exactly to my point. They are too busy with articles that radicalize breastfeeding advocates and dispute the value of breastfeeding.)

Casey Rosen-Carole, MD, MPH is an Academic General Pediatrics Fellow and Breastfeeding Medicine Fellow at the University of Rochester Medical Center

Posts on this blog reflect the opinions of individual ABM members, not the organization as a whole.

Posted by Cindy Galloway, 0 comments

Response to Study that Benefits of Breastfeeding have been overstated

A new study published in the journal Social Science & Medicine suggested that some of the benefits of breastfeeding have been overstated. The study used sibling comparisons to estimate the effect of breastfeeding on long-term BMI/obesity, asthma, hyperactivity, attachment, compliance, and academic achievement and competence. Significant media attention surrounding the study has resulted in inaccurate and incomplete reporting on the proven impact of breastfeeding on public health, prompting responses from around the globe, including from the:
“Reports on breastfeeding sibling study are vastly overstated” from Physicians on the Breastfeeding Medicine Blog. The biggest problem with this conclusion is that the study ignored anything that happened in these families before their children reached the age of 4, disregarding well-established links between ear infections, pneumonia, vomiting and diarrhea and the amount of human milk a baby receives. There’s strong biological evidence for these relationships, because formula lacks the antibodies and other immune factors in breast milk that block bacteria from binding to the infant gut and airway. For preterm infants, formula exposure raises rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, a devastating and often deadline complication of prematurity. And evidence continues to mount that formula feeding increases risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Furthermore, mothers who don’t breastfeed face higher rates of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart attacks. None of these outcomes were addressed by the recent sibling study.

узнать пароль почты мой мир вход в систему маил ru мой мир почта взлом маил ру бесплатно зайти в почту на яндексе взлом маил ру бесплатно

новые анкеты проституток элитные проститутки питера найму проститутку анкеты проституток питера шлюхи от 35 комендантский проститутки

Календарь зачатия и дней безопасного секса и топ-один, Обзор видеокарты ASUS GeForce GTS 450 DirectCU TOP

скачать взлом mail ru программы для взлома соц сетей бесплатный взлом одноклассников взломать e mail программа для подбора пароля в контакте взломать e mail

Posted by Cindy Galloway, 0 comments