©iStockphoto.com/monkeybusinessimages

The economy may be lagging, but organic food sales are booming. In 2009, sales of organic food and beverages were up an estimated 5.1 percent over 2008—a grand total of $24.8 billion in sales; organic fruits and vegetables alone increased 11.4 percent compared to 2008. Sales of organic baby food have trended upward as well, with a whopping 21.6 percent increase between 2006 and 2007. It is estimated that by 2012, organic baby food will be a $2.26 billion business.

Parents who give their babies organic foods typically do so because they believe they have higher levels of vitamins and minerals, and lower levels of pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals. However, many parents question whether organic baby food is really worth the price.

Organic vs. non-organic
“Results actually do show that organic produce tends to be higher in certain nutrients,” says Amy Marlow, RD, MPH, a nutrition advisor at HappyBaby, and co-author of HappyBaby: The Organic Guide to Baby’s First 24 Months. “I will concede, however, that when it comes to some vitamins and minerals, there has not been a consistent finding that organic is more nutritious than conventional.”

Marlow cites a 2008 review suggesting that, over the long haul, organic foods tend to win out. “The researchers looked at 97 studies and compared 236 matched pairs of organic versus conventional crops,” says Marlow. “They found that in 61 percent of the pairs (145), the organic sample was more nutrient-rich, mostly in antioxidants.” What Marlow doesn’t point out is that the review was conducted by the Organic Center, an organization supported by businesses and individuals with a vested interest in organic food production and distribution. That’s not to say that the review is without merit, only that, like all scientific data, the risk of bias must be considered.

A similar analysis was performed in 2009 by a group of British researchers with funding from the Food Standards Agency, Britain’s version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The researchers compared the nutrient content of conventionally produced crops (non-organic) with those produced organically. Out of 52,471 articles they identified 162 studies—of those, only 55 were of satisfactory (not good but adequate) quality. Eleven nutrients were examined. With the exception of nitrogen and phosphorus—non-organic crops had a higher nitrogen content and organic crops had a higher phosphorus content—the nutrient levels in organic and non-organic foods were the same. The researchers did not measure levels of pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides. Nor did they attempt to look at taste and freshness. Given the lack of good quality data, the authors concluded that more research is needed before the nutrients in organic and non-organic foods can truly be compared. The Lancet, in an editorial response to criticisms of the British study advised its readers to buy organic food—not because it’s more nutritious, but “… do so because it might be fresher and taste better, contains far less chemical residues, and is kinder to farmed animals.”

Organic food and chemicals
For many moms and dads, there is no doubt in their minds that organic foods have lower levels of potentially harmful chemicals compared to conventional foods. But once again, the research is inconsistent.

One survey conducted in New Zealand found that organic products are more likely to contain pesticide residues than products grown conventionally. But that the average pesticide residue level is more likely to be higher in the conventionally grown products.

In contrast, an analysis by the USDA of USDA and other data documenting pesticide residues on fresh vegetables and fruits found that organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than conventional produce.

A recent study examined urine samples from 23 children ages 3-11 for pesticide residues. Samples were collected each morning for 15 consecutive days. During days 1-3 and 9-15 the children ate a normal diet; during days 4-8, organic foods were substituted for conventional foods. The results, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, showed that immediately after eating the organic foods, the children had significantly lower levels of pesticide residues in their urine; and that the levels remained low until conventionally grown foods were reintroduced.

“For me, this is the main health-related reason to buy organic foods,” says Marlow. “We know for a fact that young children who eat organic foods are exposed to fewer pesticides than children eating conventionally grown foods. We also know that exposure to synthetic pesticides has been linked to negative health outcomes. Further, babies and young children are more susceptible to the health effects of pesticide exposure because of their high percentage of body fat, because they are so rapidly growing, and because they eat more food per pound of body weight than adults.”

The bottom line on organics
Most parents tend to take a cautionary approach, which may explain why organic foods have become so popular with new moms and dads. If you’re on a tight budget, you might want to confine your organic purchases to those fruits and vegetables known to be highly contaminated. The Environmental Working Group publishes a list of the most- and least-contaminated fruits and vegetables each year—Dirty Dozen & Clean 15. This guide will help parents easily determine which fruits and vegetables are the most contaminated and replace them with their organic counterparts or with more of the conventionally grown Clean 15. Parents should also remember that diet is not the only method of pesticide exposure for children. A chemical-free environment both inside and outside a home is equally important.

Many parents may continue to purchase organic foods, motivated by the belief that every little bit helps. But still one wonders if the growing demand for organic food is a good thing or a prelude to “a future of less efficient, more expensive food?”

©iStockphoto.com/JoeBiafore

Parents already have plenty of reasons to choose organic foods for their babies, given the potential health risks–including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and mental illness that have been linked to the pesticides found in non-organic foods. While many of the health risks related to pesticides are unproven, some experts believe pesticides pose the greatest risks to infants and children.

A recent study linking pesticide levels in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, better known as ADHD, gives parents one more reason to choose organic.

Research
The purpose of the study, conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Montreal and published in the May issue of Pediatrics, was to examine the levels of a group of pesticides known as organophosphates in the urine of children ages 8 to 15 to see if there was any correlation between pesticide levels and the risk for developing ADHD. Organophosphates are a common pesticide used on non-organic fruits and vegetables that have been linked before with mental health problems.

“Previous studies have shown that exposure to some organophosphate compounds cause hyperactivity and cognitive deficits in animals,” says lead author Maryse F. Bouchard of the University of Montreal Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and the Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center. But this is the first time the effects have been examined among a large group of children.

To determine the children’s levels of pesticide exposure, the researchers measured the levels of organophosphates in urine samples taken as part of the much larger National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Samples from 1,481 children were available for analysis. After eliminating those children with other risk factors for ADHD, such as low birth weight, 1,139 children remained. The results were compared with the National Center for Health Statistics’ data on whether each of these children had been diagnosed with ADHD.

Results
Of the 1,139 children studied, 119 (or 10 percent) had been diagnosed with ADHD. The children with the highest concentrations of organophosphate pesticides in their urine were more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD compared to those with the lowest levels. In fact, children who had high levels of a common indicator of organophosphate levels in the urine (dimethyl thiophosphate) were twice as likely to have ADHD as those children who had undetectable levels of the indicator.

“Our study found that exposure to organophosphates in developing children might have effects on neural systems and could contribute to ADHD behaviors, such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity,” says Dr. Bouchard.

Recommendations
Although more research is needed, parents should be cautious when choosing foods for their babies. According to a 2008 report by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 28 percent of frozen blueberries, 27 percent of green beans, 25 percent of strawberries, 20 percent of celery, and 17 percent of peaches (among other fruits and vegetables), contain traces of at least one type of organophosphate pesticide.

Organic fruits and vegetables can be expensive, so if you want to know which fruits and vegetables are the most and least pesticide-laden, the Environmental Working Group provides a handy list that you can use as a guide.

Researchers on this study were quick to point out that the findings are preliminary, and a clear-cut connection between ADHD and pesticides is still a ways off. But parents wishing to err on the side of caution might want to consider organic foods, especially when it comes to fruits and veggies.

©iStockphoto.com/jfmdesign

Ignorance is bliss. Or so they say. Remember the good old days, when you didn’t worry about what your baby’s bottle was made from? Glass, plastic…it didn’t seem to make a difference other than the look, feel, and style. That all changed in 2008, when the National Toxicology Program released its report on bisphenol A (commonly known as BPA), a chemical found in plastics. At that time, the government agency stated a series of concerns about the chemical used in many plastic food containers, including baby bottles. Among those concerns was that human exposure to BPA could cause brain, behavior, and prostate gland problems in fetuses, infants, and children. (See our previous post that addresses many of these concerns here.)

The resulting firestorm included a wave of alarming media reports about BPA…and a rush to dispose of baby bottles and other food containers made with BPA in favor of new BPA-free alternatives. Soon, “BPA-free” was a major advertising catchphrase as companies sought to profit from the controversy. Despite the media frenzy, the risks of BPA appear to be very real. And parents should remain vigilant in this time when BPA remains unregulated.

Two years later, researchers are able to tell us more about the risks of BPA. including a “growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.” And though it’s been known for some time, it is just starting to resonate with consumers that the resin lining the inside of many cans also contains BPA. Even canned foods can lead to exposure to the potentially harmful chemical for you and your children. In fact, recent tests in Europe found trace amounts of BPA lining beverage containers made by the likes of Becks, Fanta, Sprite, and Red Bull, though the levels found are currently considered safe.

BPA legislation update
Despite our increased knowledge of the risks of BPA, the government has done surprisingly little to protect us from these inherent risks. As the President’s report indicates, the use of BPA in food packaging, beverage containers, can liners, or any other use is unregulated by the government. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration is maintaining its position that exposure to low levels of BPA is safe.

Change seems to be coming, though, at least on the international front, as Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA) recently advised manufacturers, importers, and users of BPA to choose alternative substances that pose less risk to human health and the environment.

Parents who are worried about BPA may get some protection from U.S. Congress in the form of a pending food safety reform bill, but exactly what effect that will have on BPA in food packaging is unclear. The bill has passed the House of Representatives, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California recently proposed an amendment to the bill that would ban BPA from all food and beverage containers.

However, several powerful food industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, have bristled at this proposed amendment. Some have suggested that the five powerful manufacturers of BPA, who sell $6 billion worth of the chemical each year, might be behind this pushback.

How parents can protect their families
While waiting for the government to make up its mind about BPA, the best thing you can do is protect yourself is to follow the National Institutes of Health recommendations:

• Don’t microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate is strong and durable, but over time it may break down from overuse at high temperatures.

• Avoid plastic containers that have a “#7” on the bottom. These are the ones that often contain BPA.

• Reduce your use of canned foods.

• When possible, opt for glass, porcelain, or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot foods or liquids.

• Use baby bottles that are BPA-free.

©iStockphoto.com/chesterf

As we recognize the 40^th anniversary of Earth Day, we need to reflect on the pollutants all around us—at home, in the environment, even in our bodies.

If there are pollutants in our environment, does that cause us to have pollutants in our bodies? What about our breast milk? Does that mean it’s not safe for our babies?

Pollutants are everywhere and everyone is affected: pregnant or not, breastfeeding or not, male or female, young or old. Even infants have tested positive for common contaminants immediately after birth.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: If a mother’s milk, produced inside her body and fed directly to her baby isn’t free from contaminants, then what is? Infant formula is manufactured out of products taken from the environment, augmented with synthetic fatty acids, packaged in containers that are lined with Bisphenol-A (BPA); so it, too, must be contaminated.

As a breastfeeding mother, you can be assured that your milk is still the best nutrition for your baby.

Research shows that when pollutants are removed from the environment (and let’s hope with the new Safe Chemicals Act this will be expedited) they will slowly diminish in breast milk. What better gift could we give our babies?

Choose toys wisely: Avoid phthalates found in soft plastics (like teethers and rubber ducks). ©iStockphoto.com/cujo19

Mom’s job is to protect baby. Feed him, clothe him, keep him warm and dry. Buy the safest toys and the healthiest foods. I thought I was doing plenty by choosing organic food and BPA-free bottles. As it turns out, that wasn’t enough. By digging deeper into the countless products that surround all of us, including our children—common household products, even—it is evident the list of harmful chemicals is exponential. Thankfully, this month, one U.S. senator introduced legislation to reform our nation’s outdated policies on the control of toxic substances and create a more comprehensive policy that truly protects our health and our environment.

How chemicals affect us
In the past 30 years, environmental health studies led researchers to conclude that chemicals in our homes are contributing to the rise of chronic diseases and are intimately connected with childhood cancers, asthma, infertility, birth defects, and learning disabilities. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 133 million Americans are now living with such diseases and conditions, which account for 70 percent of deaths and 75 percent of U.S. healthcare costs.

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families—a national diverse coalition of more than 200 organizations and 11 million individuals including the American Nurses Association, The Autism Society, Greenpeace, and Seventh Generation—cites chronic disease is on the rise and linked to chemical exposure:

• Leukemia, brain cancer, and other childhood cancers have increased by 20% since 1975
• Asthma rates have doubled between 1980 and 1995
• Since 1982, the incidence of difficulty conceiving and staying pregnant has nearly doubled in women between the ages of 18 and 25

This isn’t to say that chemical exposure is entirely responsible for the increase, but the coalition argues that it is a contributing factor. And as if our health and safety weren’t enough, according to the coalition, by reducing the nation’s exposure to toxic chemicals, the U.S. will also lower its cost on healthcare significantly. They estimate even a 0.1% reduction in exposure would translate into a savings of $5 billion each year.

How chemicals affect our world
Passed in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the amount and kind of chemicals used in Americans’ everyday lives. Under the current policy, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can only intervene after evidence mounts to demonstrate a chemical is dangerous. Therefore, in the last 34 years, the EPA required testing on only 200 of the over 80,000 chemicals produced and used in the U.S. To date, just five (5!) chemicals have been restricted. Additionally, more than 60,000 chemicals that were on the marketplace prior to the TSCA being signed into law were approved without testing requirements. As the law stands now, chemical manufacturers are not required to demonstrate product safety before entering the marketplace; instead, the government has to prove actual harm before controlling, replacing, or denying a dangerous chemical.

“America’s system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken,” says U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) in his official press release. “Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children’s bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe. My ‘Safe Chemicals Act’ will breathe new life into a long-dead statute by empowering EPA to get tough on toxic chemicals.”

The Safe Chemical Act of 2010 aims to finally flip the backward way the U.S. government protects its citizens from harmful chemicals. This legislation will finally overhaul the outdated and irresponsible regulations.

Among its provisions, the Safe Chemicals Act issues these protective requirements:

• Provides the EPA with authority to determine the safety of any chemical entering the marketplace
• Requires chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their chemicals and to make health and safety information publicly available
• Ensures chemicals meet a safety standard—one that would protect pregnant women and children alike
• Takes immediate action on restricting the most dangerous chemicals—such as formaldehyde, vinyl chloride, and flame retardants
• Establishes programs to foster the development of safe chemical alternatives

Protect your family today
The U.S. government will start making a shift toward control over our toxic chemicals, and groups like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families will continue to raise awareness on the issue at the national level. Every parent can raise awareness in their own homes. Healthy Child Healthy World offers these five steps for reducing your children’s exposure to toxic chemicals and keeping your kids safe:

1. Manage pests safely. Use only non-toxic, pesticide-free products indoors and out. Prevent pests through good sanitation and food storage. Remove shoes and wash hands after playing outside to prevent 70 percent of the dirt and chemicals that can be tracked indoors.
2. Use non-toxic products. Buy gentle, natural soaps and body care products, avoiding those that contain with toxic synthetic preservatives (parabens), petroleum-based ingredients, and other proven harmful chemicals. Furnish your home with products made of natural, organic, and reclaimed materials, without VOC, water-based adhesives, formaldehyde, or polyurethane.
3. Clean up indoor air. Make sure your furnishings are made of natural products, from fabric and carpeting to material glues to paint and wallpaper. Use non-toxic techniques to scent your home, forgoing chemical fragrances for orange or lemon slices boiled in water on the stove.
4. Eat organic. Organic food is grown without potentially harmful, long-lasting synthetic chemicals and reduces the pesticides in our bodies. If you can only be organic sometimes, avoid foods with the highest pesticide residues (or make sure to buy these foods organic): apples, cherries, imported grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, red raspberries, strawberries, bell peppers, carrots, celery, green beans, hot peppers, potatoes, and spinach.
5. Reduce use of plastics. Petroleum-based plastics can leach harmful chemicals into foods and drinks. Choose smart plastics that contain polyethylene and polypropylene, and avoid putting anything plastic in the microwave or the dishwasher, which can cause them to break down and release toxins.

Join the Million Baby Crawl (over 25,000 crawlers to date!) to show your support of toxic chemical policy reform.

©iStockphoto.com/loooby

Most moms would agree that staying healthy and setting a good example for their kids is a top priority; however, keeping up with all those annual health screenings isn’t always at the top of every mom’s to-do list. Help is here—at least when it comes to the annual skin exam (yes, everyone should be getting one each year). The Skin Cancer Foundation just kicked off their Road to Healthy Skin Tour. From now until the end of September, dermatologists will drive around the country in the foundation’s customized RV to provide free, full-body screenings for skin cancer, the most common form of cancer in the United States. Since the foundation started the tour three years ago, over 2,000 cases of pre- skin cancer and cancer have been discovered.

More than 13 million cases of skin cancer (the most common cancer in the world) are diagnosed annually and worldwide. More than 65,000 people die every year from skin cancer; more than 20 Americans die each day. As a result, early detection is key. During the tour, The Skin Cancer Foundation will offer the latest information on skin cancer prevention and pass out free samples of sunscreen.

The Road to Healthy Skin Tour will stop in approximately 80 locations nationwide. Visit SkinCancer.org to find a location near you.

©iStockphoto.com/BlackJack3D

As you’re planning your activities for this weekend, you might want to add Earth Hour to your Saturday schedule. Beginning at 8:30 p.m. local time (wherever you are) on March 27th, participants will turn off their lights to raise awareness for energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Earth Hour began in 2007 as a cooperative effort between World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the city of Sydney, Australia.  In 2008, the event went global, and videos on the event that year and the event in 2009 impress with displays of candlelight celebrations and renowned landmarks going dark worldwide.

We can’t think of a better excuse to get active with your kids.

When we turn off the lights for this event, let’s turn off the televisions and computers and video games, too. Let’s take full advantage of the opportunity to get the children moving and remind them how much fun it is to use their bodies (and imaginations) in good, healthy play.

Flashlight tag, anyone?

©iStockphoto.com/SensorSpot

I cultivated my sweet tooth at a young age, born into a family where Hostess Sno Balls and Twinkies were the preferred after-school snack. I could have/should have washed down the crumbly treats with a glass of milk, but chose instead an ice cold Coke—21 teaspoons of sugar, the equivalent of 90 grams or 450 calories. Is it any wonder that my siblings and I struggle with weight gain?

The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends that women consume no more than 6 teaspoons of added sugar a day (100 calories or 25 grams). For men the recommendation is no more than 9 teaspoons (150 calories or 38 grams)—the equivalent of one 12 ounce can of Coke for guys and one cup of vanilla ice cream for gals.

In 2009, the AHA, citing new evidence showing that added sugars increase the risk of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, issued a public warning, “Dietary Sugars Intake and Cardiovascular Health,”  cautioning Americans to limit their intake of added sugars.

Added sugars (as opposed to sugars that occur naturally in foods) have been described by the AHA as discretionary calories. For example, an average woman needs 1800 calories a day. In order to get the amounts of vegetables, fruits, lean protein, dairy products, and whole grains her body needs, she will spend 1600 calories, leaving only 200 calories for whatever else she wants to eat or drink. If what she ‘wants’ exceeds 200 calories, she will need to burn those extra calories or risk gaining weight.

Between 1970 and 2005, Americans’ average annual intake of sugar increased by 19%, with sugar-sweetened beverages, particularly soft drinks leading the way. In a study of 51,000 women, those who gained the most weight over a four-year-period were those who went from drinking no more than one soft drink a week to drinking at least one a day. So much for, “Have a Coke and a smile.”

While weight gain, especially in the mid-section can increase the risk of heart disease, data suggest that sugar-sweetened beverages may cause heart disease regardless of whether you gain weight. Harvard researchers followed nearly 90,000 women for 24 years and found that those who drank two or more sugar-sweetened beverages a day had a 20% higher risk of heart disease compared to those who drank less than one a month. Researcher have theorized that the increased risk may be related to the fact that sugar, specifically fructose, raises triglyceride levels.

Fructose versus glucose
Sucrose (table sugar) contains equal parts of fructose and glucose. Fructose is taken up by the liver where it is converted into fat. Much of the fat is excreted into the bloodstream, increasing triglyceride levels and the risk of heart disease. In contrast, glucose is absorbed directly into the bloodstream, increasing blood sugar levels and the risk of diabetes. When it comes to sugars, one is as bad as the next.

Calorie-free but not risk-free
Research shows that artificial sweeteners can reduce the risk of weight gain. But given the lack of safety data, artificial sweeteners should be used with caution, especially in children and young adults.

The bottom line
Added sugars have no redeeming value. Most sugary foods are simply junk foods. The following suggestions will help keep you and your family healthy:

• Limit added sugars to no more than 100 to 150 calories a day for women and men.
• Avoid all sugar-sweetened beverages.
• Limit fruit juices to no more than 1 cup a day.
• Estimate your calorie needs and those of your children at mypyramid.gov

In case you were wondering, a two-pack of Hostess Twinkies and Sno Balls contain 9½ and 11½ teaspoons of sugar respectively—two days’ worth of added sugar.

While many find the slow pace of change frustrating, age confers a level of patience and confidence in knowing that measured, thoughtful change is more often lasting.

How we view breastfeeding was the subject of “Nurture,” a solo exhibition by New York- and New Hampshire-based artist Amy Jenkins, held January 9-February 28, 2010 at the Athens Institute for Contemporary Art (ATHICA) in Athens, Georgia. As compelling as the exhibit, is an accompanying essay by baby gooroo contributor Mary Jessica Hammes.

Hammes explores attitudes toward non-sexual nudity, artistic censorship, competing business interests, and the health benefits of breastfeeding.

“Nurture,” says Hammes, explores “the different meanings of what it means to nurture a child, to raise a human being, starting with the simple act of feeding one.”

But Hammes’ essay, like Jenkins’ images is about so much more than nutrition.

“In Jenkins’ images, breastfeeding begins to mean something deeper—something that links us to those hunter-gatherers of long ago, something that sustains modern families as we navigate contemporary parenting. At the very least “Nurture” makes breastfeeding visible. And if visibility makes something feel normal and therefore more accepted by our culture, then exhibits like “Nurture” could make a big difference in what goes into the mouths of babes.”

I hope Hammes is right. Time is running short.

©iStockphoto.com/nycshooter

First Lady Michelle Obama put eliminating childhood obesity at the top of her To Do list with the launch of Let’s Move, her much anticipated anti-obesity campaign. Mrs. Obama is hoping to reverse a dangerous and costly trend. Currently, one out of three U.S. children is overweight or obese. Among black children the rate is even higher, affecting one out of two children. For the first time since 1968, life expectancy is projected to decline.

Several high profile organizations and industries have agreed to join forces with the First Lady. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) announced that from now on its members will be encouraged to routinely measure body mass index (BMI), a measure of obesity, in their young patients. In addition, the beverage industry has promised to clearly label sugary drinks, and the food industry has promised to reduce the amount of sugar in school lunches.

But limiting sugar and measuring fat is only part of the solution. Keeping children from getting fat in the first place is the ultimate goal; a goal that many argue is best achieved when children are breastfed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was among the first to recognize the importance of breastfeeding as a strategy for preventing obesity. In 1999, the CDC funded obesity prevention programs in 25 U.S. states. Each program targeted five areas:

• Increase physical activity.
• Increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables.
• Decrease the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages.
• Increase breastfeeding initiation, duration and exclusivity.
• Reduce the consumption of high energy dense foods.
• Decrease television viewing.

Importance of breastfeeding

New York State recently identified five strategies for improving health with breastfeeding among them. Black children are least likely to be breastfed and most likely to be overweight or obese. According to the CDC, in 2008 only 20% of African American mothers breastfed exclusively for 6 months compared to 40% of Hispanic mothers and 35% of white mothers.

Knowing that Michelle Obama breastfed both her daughters, breastfeeding advocates are hopeful that breastfeeding will become a core component of her anti-obesity campaign. Many would like the First Lady to publicly endorse breastfeeding, but whether that will happen remains to be seen, given that prior support for breastfeeding by the Federal government has a somewhat checkered past.

The controversy surrounding the National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign launched in 2004 is still fresh in the minds of many. In a battle perceived by many as health versus wealth, the formula industry thought the campaign messages were too strong, while breastfeeding advocates felt they weren’t strong enough. The fact that it was a ground-breaking campaign that went further than any previous administration was lost in the debate along with its message that “Babies were born to be breastfed.” But if anyone can elevate the discussion of breastfeeding, it’s the First Lady.

Solving the problem of childhood obesity won’t be easy. Changing how and what America’s kids eat will require the cooperation of everyone involved in food production, distribution, and marketing—parents, teachers, childcare providers, healthcare providers, farmers, distributors, media outlets, and government agencies. It’s a battle we can’t afford to lose. The lives of our children depend on it.