Arsenic and Old Ladies

I’ve learned a valuable lesson this week: don’t put off until tomorrow what you could do today, because tomorrow something even more aggravating might happen and then you find yourself buried in a pile of horse manure.

There are two big stories going down in the infant feeding world at the moment. First, arsenic was found in baby formula. Second, a meddling concerned grandmother decided to investigate the sugar present in formula, and discovered a sticky sweet conspiracy to hook America’s children on simple carbs from day one.

Let’s start with the arsenic scare, because it’s the least annoying story of the two, and better we should ease in to this evening’s exercise in frustration. A group of researchers hypothesized that brown rice syrup, a sweetener often used in organic foods in place of villainous high fructose corn syrup, would have high levels of arsenic. This is because organic arsenic (not the same thing as inorganic arsenic, the kind we commonly hear about in old detective novels) is often present in soil; rice tends to soak up the arsenic, and if brown rice syrup is used in a variety of foods that we eat, it could add up to potentially harmful levels. High levels of organic arsenic have been linked to cancer, heart disease and other health problems. Now, theoretically (and not-so-theoretically, as arsenic has been found in other rice products), any kind of rice-derived food could be a source of trace amounts of arsenic. But if we’re talking baby food, we’re also talking tiny humans who are far more susceptible to chemicals and such. As NPR explains, “The risk appears to be dose-related… with higher levels of arsenic increasing disease risk… Concentrated foods like rice bran or brown rice syrup, which is sometimes used as a sweetener in vegan recipes, can be very high in arsenic…”

(Just want to pause for a moment to muse about the irony of everyone turning up their noses at table sugar and HFCS as if it is poison, and yet something totally organic and supposedly better for you ends up being truly poisonous. As we’ve discussed on here quite a bit, “natural” or “organic” does not always necessarily mean “perfect”. Death is natural and organic, and so is body hair, and I really dislike both of those things and do my best to keep them out of my life.)

So, to be clear – this study was looking at products containing brown rice syrup, especially those fed to babies and children, as their relative risk is higher due to lower weights, developing bodies, and the fact that a lot of kids eat massive amounts of certain products like cereal bars, rice cereals, and yes… formula. One of the types of products tested was infant formula; out of a slew of formulas tested, only two – both organic brands- contained significantly high levels of arsenic. While the researchers would not call out the companies manufacturing these formulas by name, a bit of investigative journalism unearthed that only one company used brown rice syrup in their formulas, and that was Nature’s One, makers of Baby’s Only Organic Dairy Toddler Formula and Baby’s Only Organic Soy Toddler Formula (I say this with an arched eyebrow, as it took me all of 10 minutes to figure out that brown rice syrup was only used by one type of organic infant formula by checking the ingredients of all commercial organic formulas. And yet it took at least a day before anyone was naming names on the news… seriously, guys. It’s called Google.)

Interestingly, Nature’s One is pretty adamant about marketing these formulas as toddler formulas anyway, so they aren’t even technically “infant formulas” – semantics, but important semantics, as the news bytes made it sound like the arsenic problem was a common one, endemic to all infant formulas. Not so much.

Bottom line? The only folks who need to worry about this particular risk of formula feeding are those using Nature’s One products. And if this is you – please don’t worry too much. I might consider switching to another product if you can, at least until more research is done about the true risk of the measured levels of arsenic – but it’s highly doubtful that your baby will suffer any ill effects if s/he has been using these formulas. Talk to your physician, but remember:  all this study showed was that there are relatively high levels of arsenic in ONE relatively unpopular brand of formula – it did not show that this particular level of arsenic was harmful in any way. 


Speaking of Nature’s One, the very reason they got in this pickle in the first place offers a perfect segue into my next topic: sugar in formula. The company prided itself on being the only formula manufacturer to use brown rice syrup as a source of carbohydrate, rather than the other types of sugars typically used in formula: lactose and sucrose:

Organic lactose and evaporated cane juice are simple sugars. Simple carbohydrates are quickly digested and absorbed into the bloodstream, increasing insulin levels. A more complex carbohydrate, such as organic brown rice syrup used in Baby’s Only Organic® formulas, requires more time for digestion resulting in slower and steadier absorption of the carbohydrates into the blood stream and a more constant production of insulin…The medical community has expressed concern over using cane sugar in infant formulas because it is five times sweeter than lactose and could pose health or medical issues related to obesity or dental caries. The carbohydrates in Baby’s Only Organic® Dairy Formula consist of 35% naturally occurring lactose from the organic non-fat cow’s milk and 65% organic brown rice syrup.


Source: Nature’s One Website

In other words, Nature’s One was trying to distinguish itself from other organic formulas with its sugars. Their marketing team was on to something, although sadly for them, by the time society caught up and started freaking out about sugar in formula, it happened to coincide with the discovery that brown rice syrup may pose its own “medical issues”. Coincide as in the very same week.

This sweetener scare was started by a grandma who was troubled by her granddaughter’s rapid weight gain (four pounds in a month) after switching from breastfeeding to formula feeding. She went on a mission to find out just how much sugar was in these “baby milkshakes” her grandbaby was chugging, and was shocked to find out that some formulas contained as much as 13.4 grams of sugar per serving. But the amounts varied, with some formulas only having about 3 grams, and in the formulas with higher sugar, the sugar tended to be lactose, which is the same sugar that’s found in breastmilk (and considered to be a “good” type of sugar). These findings apparently make one pediatric dentist nervous:


Chicago pediatric dentist Kevin Boyd, who also has a Masters in nutrition and dietetics…said he has long been concerned about the sweetness of formula and the effect it has on babies. 

“We’re conditioning them to crave sweetness,” Boyd said. “I would say any formula that has sucrose, it?s super sweet, it makes the kid crave sugar. It triggers the release of dopamine in the brain, and it’s a comfort-level thing. It makes the kid want to eat more, so they become hypersensitive to sweetness.” 

While the amounts of sugar grams may be low, Boyd said the impact on babies is huge.
“They’re conditioned to just really like super sweet?. And their fat cells are saying more, more, more please.”


But color me confused, because breastmilk has around 7 grams of sugar, in the form of lactose, as well.

Formula is trying to get as close to breastmilk as it can in terms of its constituents. Because, as any breastfeeding website will gladly tell you, it’s supposed to be a substitute for breastmilk when babies can’t have the gold standard It’s not being produced as part of a nefarious plot to make the human race a bunch of sugar addicts. Babies are pre-programmed to like sweet things; this is exactly why breastmilk is so much sweeter tasting than cow’s milk. Nutrition guru Dr. Cinque explains it quite nicely:


Breast milk is loaded  with sugar!  Human breast milk has nearly  40% of its calories as sugar! Human milk is the sweetest milk on the planet, and by far.  In this whole wide world of mammals, going from the tiny pygmy shrew which weighs less than 2 grams all the way up to the blue whale, which is the largest animal that has ever lived, to every mammal in between,  none makes a milk as sweet as ours.  Nothing even comes close. Human breast milk, by weight, is over 7% sugar! In comparison, cow’s milk is only 4.8%, goat’s milk 4.4%, sheep milk 5.1%, and water buffalo milk 4.9%…

The news reports were all up in arms that formula companies weren’t listing the amounts of sugar in their products, and I can understand why people might think this was sketchy. But if you look at the back of a formula can, the nutritional information doesn’t look like a normal nutrition label. That’s because formula is not really considered a food as much as a supplement. I’m not condoning that, necessarily, but what other food has a warning on the label stating that you shouldn’t eat it because something else is so much better? (Imagine if the back of your V-8 said “Fresh fruits and vegetables are best. We recommend not drinking this in place of eating fruits and veggies.”) Most parents (and apparently most grandmothers and new reporters) don’t understand the difference between sugars – lactose and sucrose are beneficial in different ways; lactose is the sugar which is in breastmilk and thus preferable for babies, but lactose-intolerant or milk allergic children can’t tolerate this sugar, which is why hypoallergenic or sensitive formulas often use corn syrup solids or sucrose as a carbohydrate instead.

As for the pediatric dentist who jumped on board this particular media circus caravan – the sugar in formula is no more likely to “program” us to like sweet things more than breastmilk, which is (at least in most cases) equally sweetTake a taste of breastmilk, and a taste of formula. Which tastes better? Why would a baby learn to crave sweet things from something that tastes kind of odd and not all that sweet in the first place? Haven’t we all read a ton of anti-formula literature that talks about how bad formula tastes, how much sweeter breastmilk is, etc.? One of the higher-sugar formulas in the study was a hypoallergenic, and this just proves to me how many holes are in this report, because the hypos most certainly do not taste sweet. (This is one of the reasons I knew how much my son was hurting on my milk when we switched from bottled breastmilk to hypoallergenic formula – if he looked so satisfied with something that tasted so god-awful, breastmilk had to have been making him feel horrible.)  From a business standpoint, what benefit would there be to a formula company to make their formula sweeter? It’s not like babies have a say in the matter; parents choose formula based on what coupons they get in the mail, what their friends or pediatricians recommend, or what ultimately works best after a lot of trial and error. How “sweet” a formula tastes does not factor in.

In terms of obesity – there’s no evidence that the sugar in formula causes obesity, as far as I know. If you watch the video about this story, you’ll notice that the baby in question isn’t at all obese, which makes me wonder what the circumstances were prior to her rapid weight gain. Why was she switched to formula? Perhaps the mom had low supply or other feeding problems which were not allowing the baby to gain properly? Without more information, we’re left with half a story. Also, FFF Siobhan caught something interesting in the video that she posted over on the FFF Facebook page – at one point, the grandmother appears to be encouraging the baby to keep drinking her bottle, even though the baby is showing no interest in doing so… “Try a little more?” she says, as milk dribbles out of the baby’s mouth. Perhaps teaching this woman better bottle-feeding techniques would help her combat her fears of baby obesity and feel a bit more proactive.

To review: sugar is not inherently bad, especially for babies; formulas use sucrose or other sugars in place of lactose because some babies can’t tolerate lactose or milk-derived ingredients. Except for a few formulas, most commercial formulas have equivalent (or in some cases less) sugar to breastmilk.

Got it? Sweet.

Suzanne Barston is a blogger and author of BOTTLED UP. Fearless Formula Feeder is a blog – and community – dedicated to infant feeding choice, and committed to providing non-judgmental support for all new parents. It exists to protect women from misleading or misrepresented “facts”; essentialist ideals about what mothers should think, feel, or do; government and health authorities who form policy statements based on ambivalent research; and the insidious beast known as Internetus Trolliamus, Mommy Blog Varietal.

Suzanne Barston – who has written posts on Fearless Formula Feeder.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

35 thoughts on “Arsenic and Old Ladies

  1. Funny, but the first thing that popped into my head when I read the 4 lbs gained in 1 month was – wow, that poor baby must have been starving! I'll bet you anything he/she was underweight. It would be nice to hear the whole story, huh?

  2. I wish you'd posted this one day earlier. I just ordered some Baby's Only Organic Lactose-Free Toddler formula single serve packets. My son is almost 2 and still can't tolerate lactose and drinks Lactaid instead of regular milk. We're traveling soon and I bought the toddler formula singles (like crystal light sticks) so that he can have “milk” while we're out of town since we won't have a fridge in the hotel or easy access to a grocery store. Yikes!

  3. Hmm. I wonder if any of the other lactose free formulas come in single-serve packs like that? Or if he would drink soy just for the few days, they have soy milk in “juice boxes”…?

  4. Have you seen the other article regarding arsenic in formula and baby foods that was published by the same main author this month as well? We have been using Baby's Only and the company linked to it on their Facebook page today. The article discusses the inorganic arsenic found in 15 different formulas as well as purees and stage 1/2 foods. Although the levels seem lower than the OBRS related foods, the article seems to be raising potential concern… (although as you point out no actual harm has been shown). Here is the link: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/printarticle.aspx?id=279137804

  5. I hate to sound all conspiracy theory paranoid here, but I was watching a quick segment on Fox News about this around a week or so ago and interestingly enough the so called expert reporting this to Megyn Kelly left out the little detail that this was only found in formulas strictly marketed to toddlers, and OF COURSE threw in for good measure that arsenic is NOT excreted in breast milk and that this is one more reason for new moms to 'think about breastfeeding.' Why can't they just report these things as they happened, JUST THE FACTS, no more no less.

    First off-I find it very difficult to believe that some level of arsenic is not excreted in breastmilk, considering the discussions around all of the other crap that is actually excreted in breastmilk. Even if that is a non-issue, this formula is marketed to TODDLERS. I understand and respect the fact that some moms chose to continue breastfeeding toddlers but for this person to say that this is a reason for moms to think about breastfeeding is nothing more than just a convenient way to, yet again, push breastfeeding and distort facts and risks. By the time your child is a toddler and consuming these formulas, the ship has sailed as far as considering breast/bottle feeding.

    As far as the grandma and the sugar in the formula, does she seriously not have anything better to do? Sorry-end rant. Just so frustrated… and don't even get me started on the ridiculous stream of articles that came out on Monday when the AAP reaffirmed their unwielding breast is only for the first 6 months policy. It's enough to make me hope for infertility… :-(

  6. Well if they took to the Google, they would have to quash the sensationalism of the headline before it got started — I'm sure page-views on “Arsenic Found in Formula” were through the roof.

    The whole thing with sugar-fearing grandma bothers me; it speaks more to her issues with weight than it does formula. We're so obsessed with finding some root cause to weight problems, as though if we can find some sort of switch. Let's face it: breastfed or formula fed, a kid is probably going to settle into genetic weight gain habits so long as they are well-fed.

    (And hell, my breastfed kid would have made her weep; he gained something like 20 lbs in his first six months of life. Some kids just gain. At three you'd hardly even know.)

  7. Mine gained extremely well on breastmilk and slowed down a bit when he weaned but that could have just been the age he was at…also, does anyone else find it paradoxical that BFing advocates insist BFing will keep babies slimmer through life and help the mother lose weight faster yet rebuke anyone for being so vain as to worry about breast shape and sagging as a result of BFing? And that yuppie-crunchies salivate over the French model of eating and point to France as a place with excellent nutrition and public health outcomes and yet it's a place with really low BFing rates? Correlation and causality all over again…

  8. Yes, I saw the AAP statement and it made me tired. I will not be having any more babies, so it will not directly affect me, but I know plenty of women who are not done with having children, and I don't want them to feel pressured or guilted into BFing. They should do it if they want to and if they can, but not by coercion.

  9. Thank you Amy. I completely agree and things like that definetly make me wish I was done having children but unfortunately I haven't even started yet. In your experience, are all/most pediatricians heavily influenced by such statements/publications?

    From what I've seen/heard on this board and elsewhere it sounds like your doctor can definetly make or break your experience where this is concerned and I intend to choose VERY carefully. I just hope there are some level-headed ones left who haven't totally thrown themselves on this bandwagon in the next 2-3 years when I would likely have a baby. As much as I would prefer not to have to approach a doctor on the defensive, I will do it if I have to.

  10. Even in those formulas with sucrose, it isn't the predominant sugar. Often corn syrup solids is, and funnily enough, corn syrup solids are less sweet, more complex and metabolized more slowly than brown rice syrup. The issue with Baby's Only and rice syrup is just capitalizing on fears of corn syrup, not real evidence. Oh, and while baby's only claims to be a toddler formula, it isn't really. They say breast is best, so they won't advertise to parents of infants, but then repeatedly state that they meet the nutritional requirements for infant formula. the product comparison charts on their site compare their formulas to infant formulas. They also make a pediasure like product that is for ages one and up, that is actually aimed at toddlers.

  11. My favorite doublespeak is that a chubby FF baby is destined to a life of obesity, but a chubby BF baby is a sign that mama's milk is all that baby needs and must be super packed with goodness and rainbow sparkles.

  12. Oh Lordy I don't have enough hands for a proper facepalming at that one. I have a chubby baby. Like…90th percentile chubby as of the last Dr. visit. She's got rolls at two months! Oh no! I've wrecked her for life!

    I don't shove formula down her throat. I put the nipple somewhere on her lower face and she turns to it and eats. When she is done she turns her head away. Sometimes she uses her hands to push it away.

    Assuming the mother produces to meet baby's demand, how is this any different from the baby that eats from the breast until satisfied? It sounds like hearty appetites make chubby babies. Not formula.

  13. I can personally attest that breastmilk is sooo much sweeter than formula! Yes, sugar is not the devil. Althout I'd be in favor of labeling formula as a food product then it would be easier to garner information and compare the products. As a formula feeding mama I do a lot of research on which brand to feed and they are quite different I found. I'm in favor of more information for consumers.

    As a former-breastfeeding mama I think the message that “cow's milk isn't for human babies” get taken too far. Yes human milk is best but cow's milk (and thus lactose) is a much closer analog than a plant based sugar of any kind! Often “crunchy” breastfeeding-minded mamas turn to soy formula because they think it is healthier when in fact it is dangerous and rarely actually needed. In other parts of the world soy formula is by prescription only because of its dangers. Anyways, I think it is a matter of a little information being dangerous. You have to go all the way if you are going to educate yourself about feeding choices.

  14. Oh I wanted to add as well that the media didn't focus on the source of the arsenic. This is different than a contaminant getting in to the food supply. It is about the health of the soil where the rice is grown. I think it is important to look at the where and why of this arsenic level and its ability to turn into inorganic arsenic. But alas – headlines sell.

  15. I have a real beef with the breastfeeding advocacy that uses body image as another way to manipulate women into breastfeeding. It's nails on chalkboard to me.

    The idea that nursing makes you lose weight has not been proven. I know there was one study out fairly recently that didn't find BFing helped weight loss, but of course we need more before we can determine anything. All that means is that the science is not settled. There are a lot of individual factors (which makes it hard to control a study in the first place) at work. Some nursing moms feel the need to consume extra calories to keep up the supply, while others only modify their diets a little. Genetics, environment, exercise, sleep deprivation, stress, grieving, post-partum depression, so much more can contribute to weight loss or gain. Not to mention any underlying medical conditions, including thyroid problems that can cause problems nursing to begin with.

    But more than that, I find it very anti-feminist that we have to use body image to try to convince people to nurse at all. Breastfeeding or not breastfeeding is often put in terms of “success” and “failure.” As in, if your body couldn't do it, your body is a failure. Now, we have magazines and ads all over the place with photoshopped models and women all on the extreme end of the weight and height bell curve promoting a version of “success” for the female body. Some folks believe that magazine covers and rail-thin supermodels and actresses are a contributing factor in rising rates of eating disorders, and we know that perfectionism can be a factor in why some girls and women develop eating disorders. We also know that a perfectionist personality type may be a factor in post-partum depression. If a woman is struggling with breastfeeding and her weight, and is hearing how breastfeeding is the best way to lose that baby weight, might this contribute to mental health issues, whether it's PPD or eating disorders?

    And then there is of course the obvious anti-woman attitude that pervades the drive to be perfectly thin. I don't find it at all positive for breastfeeding activists to prey on that intense pressure. We see celebrities who have entire staffs dedicated to making them thin losing whole dress sizes practically before they leave the hospital with Junior in the designer sling wrap–which only reinforces the notion that only good moms have their stuff together enough to lose that baby weight 10 minutes after getting baby out. It doesn't surprise me that those who define who is a good mother by breastfeeding would use anything they can to put the pressure on–there's little difference at the 10,000 foot level between the dehumanizing attitude that thin = good and breastfeeding is the One True Way for becoming a good woman and good mother. There are some insidious similarities between the extreme pressure to breastfeed and the pressure to be thin, none of them good or humanizing for women.

  16. No, the pediatrician never said anything about it. He gave us free formula samples when I asked. He told us to start solids between 4 and 6 mos, and when I asked about peanut butter, he said “the AAP guidelines suggest waiting until the child is two, but I'll look the other way.” (My boys were 16mos when they got peanut butter–it went fine and they love it to this day.) What was most important to the doctor was that the boys ate well and grew well (they were a little premature and are still tiny for their age.)

    I live in MA, and while I'm sure there are crunchy cohorts around here, I don't think they are anywhere near the majority. I don't know the stats, but I'm pretty sure that state-wise, MA has a high percentage of working mothers. I think the more working mothers, the less BFing (as in, not neccessarily as long as the AAP suggests).

    I did try to BF, it didn't work out and that was ok by me. No one in real life ever gave me grief about it. And my children are thriving, so I don't feel as though I've shortchanged them.

    Disclaimer: I have twins, so I've wondered if that alone has made it so no one questions the infant feeding method. Most people say “wow, twins, what a lot of work” or something like that, and it seems to have prevented unwanted advice or criticism.

  17. Please excuse me while I flail in love for this comment.

    As a person I'm honestly a lot more interesting in seeing women have a healthy relationship with their bodies than I am seeing them breastfeed exclusively. Especially when it's set up with the idea “This will help you lose baby weight,” because you know that women will suffer through it the same way women who don't like to diet force themselves to pass on their favorite snacks. We're gonna breastfeeding, if we choose to do so, for what? A couple weeks on the inside, a couple years on the outside. But we have our bodies all our lives.

    I love breastfeeding, and I love to see more women try, but more and more of the high-profile “advocacy” is sounding anti-feminist to me lately, and that bothers me so much.

  18. Um, wait a minute. If I just skim over that, what do I learn?

    — That if someone doesn't want to breastfeed, they need help.
    — That they are probably uninformed.
    — That their reasons for not wanting to breastfeed are probably silly and vain.
    — That they are gambling with their baby's health and their own health.
    — That if they still choose not to breastfeed even after they have been “educated” they will probably regret it.
    — That you should make feeding their baby as complex as possible, exhausting every alternative to conventional formula you can because contrary to popular belief, conventional formula is not the next best thing to breastfeeding.
    — That bottle feeding will make 2:00 a.m. miserable, while breastfeeding will allow you to sleep through late night/early morning feedings.
    — That bottle feeding moms wear curlers in their hair while they sleep while breastfeeding moms have naturally pretty hair even in the middle of the night. Also bottle feeding moms apparently lack access to modern technology like bottle warmers and dim lighting. But it's not all roses for the breastfeeding mom because her husband snores.
    — That breastfeeding is hip and cool and trendy and if you do it you'll make new friends who like cool things like being eco-friendly and doing yoga. Your new friends will cheer you on and tell you what a great mom you are.
    — That bottle feeding, in contrast, will get you harassed by strangers when you feed your baby. No one will cheer you on and tell you what a great mom you are.
    — That the only really insurmountable hurdles to breastfeeding your baby are things like contraindicated medications (which there are only really a few of) and sexual assault.

  19. Huh, that was my first thought, too :-)

    Then I saw the video and wondered how often this grandmother was feeding her granddaughter. Is it my imagination, or is that baby trying to push the bottle away?

  20. Yeah, I could hardly believe the obnoxiousness of it – what's “bugging” you about BFing is probably petty and easily overcome (would Ms WallStreeter SAHM with nanny at home like to correct the bugging fact of my having to get to work at 8 am?) And after frightening you about all the terrible health outcomes associated with not BFing they offer you a ticket into the hip crunchy moms club if you do. Talk about reasons *not* to BF.

    Also, don't you love how they rail about people who harrass you for using a bottle and make a show of respecting your right to make a choice while sneering at you for being concerned with sagging boobs if you don't BF?

  21. I don't know how that baby can make it clearer she wants nothing to do with that bottle. She has her hand over the nipple, between it and her mouth at one point. I'm hoping it's just because the TV crew wanted video of her having a bottle and she wasn't hungry at the time. But if that's common behavior for her during a feeding, then probably she's being overfed, and it's not the formula's fault.

  22. Okay, just read it. This is a perfect example of why I worry about BfB more than any other lactivist organization – they are like the really pretty popular chick in all those 80s movie who all the teachers love, but as soon as they turn their backs she's making Molly Ringwald miserable. Or something like that.

  23. Speaking of anti-feminist, try to guess which century this is from and who might have voiced this idea: “You see, your main goal with a newborn is to not just to get him/her fed – but to get him/her settled—which means, satisfied, calm, nurtured and content. The best way to do that is by surrendering to the role your body and your baby need and expect you to assume for now – that is, the role of primary nurturer. The more you fight nature’s design, the less settled and content your baby will be—which can continue into toddlerhood and beyond — and the more irritable and tired you are likely to be.”

  24. It's not any recognizable name, btw, just an article from that infuriating Best for babes site that was linked through the other one – something about getting through BFing difficulties and the BFing learning curve. I still marvel at how retro many lactation consultants can be. They sometimes make Mad Men look enlightened

  25. Wow…how stupid do these people think women are? It's like “don't worry your pretty little head, dear. Your whole purpose in life is to have and raise children, so you just follow along with whatever your body is doing…brains need not enter into it. ”

    After all, animals are often cited for their excellent care of their offspring, and the fact that nursing comes naturally to them. Human women should strive to be more like animals? (natural, you know)

  26. I know one of the admins from Best for Babes comes around here from time to time. She declined to talk to me about the problems with her site in the open on this forum, despite the fact that I told her a private email won't communicate to the masses BfB's response to questions like mine we'd all like answered. I wonder what she has to say about this…

  27. Pingback: The biggest problem with the breastfeeding discourse has nothing to do with breastfeeding - Fearless Formula Feeder

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *