Soda pop industry branded baby bottles with soft drink logos

(NaturalNews) We’ve been covering the soft drink industry lately, publishing articles on soda pop marketing to children that seem so bizarre, many people are simply unable to believe them. So for this article, I’ve quoted numerous sources to allow everyone to verify the “unbelievable” facts of this story for themselves. This story concerns the fact that the PepsiCo company began branding plastic baby bottles with soft drink logos in the 1990′s, hoping that parents would begin feeding their infants and babies soft drinks such as Pepsi and Mountain Dew. Once again, many people find this very difficult to believe and they think we’re just making this up. But of course, we’re not: Check out the February 1, 1996 issue of Pediatrics for Parents which contains the following published report: Soft drink manufacturers are now putting their logos on baby bottles. The logos of many carbonated drinks (Pepsi, diet and regular; 7 Up: Dr. Pepper; Orange Slice: and Mountain Dew), non-carbonated drinks (Kool-Aid), and juice drinks (Mott’s; Welch’s; Very Fine; V8; and Perrier) can be seen on plastic baby bottles. Health experts are concerned over this trend. They fear that parents will be encouraged to give their babies inappropriate beverages in their baby bottles. In a study of 314 California mothers, almost a third admitted to giving their baby’s either soft drinks or Kool-Aid. Over half had baby bottles with soda, Kool-Aid, or juice logos. You can see this citation on Highbeam.com: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19710691.html A similar article appears in a October 27, 1994 article of the Austin America-Statesman , entitled Logos send bad message about soda baby bottles. The Q&A article begins: Question: I recently noticed at the grocery store baby bottles that have been made to look like soft drink bottles. The bottles carry the name of a soda and its logo. I know babies can’t read, but I’m concerned that somehow this encourages a habit that isn’t good for youngsters. Answer: Your feelings on these bottles are right on target. Those baby bottles with the carbonated beverage logos might seem cute to some people, but the decorated bottles… Link: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AASB&p_theme=aasb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAD95F8B5A31C88&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Soda pop industry has always promoted soft drinks for children in magazine ads The soda pop industry, by the way, has always promoted soda pop for children in magazine ads. Here’s an ad from Canada Dry (a popular soda beverage a couple of generations ago) which says, The Special Sparkle is Canada Dry while showing a child chugging a bottle of soda: http://www.magazine-ads.com/SOD1275.php Here’s a partial image of a Tab soda ad featuring a young mom drinking a bottle of soda while her small child chugs one with her: http://www.magazine-ads.com/SOD1247.php This Canada Dry ad from 1966 pushes their grapefruit flavored soda pop for cheerleaders: http://www.magazine-ads.com/SOD1270.php You can see all sorts of bizarre ads from Coca-Cola on that same website (Magazine-Ads.com) including this one, showing a crowd of young male swimmers all trying to woo a sexy (in 1963, anyway) lifeguard: http://www.magazine-ads.com/COK1327.php For many years, the Coca-Cola company also borrowed the image of Santa Claus, depicting him drinking bottles of coke: http://www.magazine-ads.com/COK1354.php This Pepsi ad from 1970 shows young boys drinking the beverage, with a goofy “Pepsi’s got a lot to give” headline, to boot: http://www.magazine-ads.com/PEP1370.php We have additional ads in our Museum of Badvertising , including an ad showing Seven-Up being chugged by an infant and an ad for Camel cigarettes featuring conventional doctors who recommend smoking. Ads for Camel cigarettes, by the way, were featured for years in the Journal of the American Medical Association . Here’s the link: http://www.naturalnews.com/index-Badvertising.html Some people insist that the soda companies never marketed their products to children. Many of the internet naysayers who dispute these stories are no doubt working for the P.R. companies of the soda industry, by the way. It’s the same fraud pulled off by promoters of high-fructose corn syrup who try to discredit everybody who writes the truth about HFCS. It’s no coincidence that the dishonest soda industry uses HFCS from the dishonest corn syrup industry as its main ingredient… At the same time, JAMA editors probably don’t want to be reminded that their medical journal used to push cigarettes, either. But history is worth learning, even if it’s hard to believe, because those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it . And yes, it is a historical fact that the soda pop industry ran decades of ads promoting sodas for children. Anyone who tries to deny that is a fraud.

Alternative birthing centers reduce drug use, promote more natural births

(NaturalNews) Where you have your baby can determine how natural the birth is, says a new review in The Cochrane Library . According to an analysis of over 10,000 women from various randomized trials, those who bear children in alternative birthing centers rather than in conventional hospital rooms require less pregnancy drugs and other unnatural interventions. Hospital rooms, where most women have their babies, can be dreary and drab, indicative more of sickness and death than of a new life coming into the world. Alternative birthing centers, on the other hand, feel more like home with comforting, peaceful decor in a relaxed setting. In the alternative birth setting, women use roughly 18 percent less epidural anesthesia, 22 percent less oxytocin, and are 17 percent less likely to have an episiotomy. They are also 11 percent less likely to require a Caesarean section. According to Ellen Hodnott, author of the study and chair of perinatal nursing research at the University of Toronto, woman who give birth in alternative facilities are nearly twice as likely as those who birth in hospitals to be satisfied with the overall experience. And these same women are more likely to breastfeed their children as well. “Birth environment affects not only the women who are laboring but also the behavior of care providers,” explained Hodnett. “In a setting that seems less ‘medical’, staff might listen to women more, empowering them to make their own choices.” Because all the women were randomly assigned to birth settings apart from their personal preferences, it is undeniable that the birth setting itself plays a primary role in both the quality of the pregnancy and in how natural it ends up being. Sources for this story include: http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000012.html http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2010/09/study-alternative-birth-centers-help-increase-vaginal-birth.html

Breastfeeding better than vaccines at preventing infection

(NaturalNews) Researchers in Greece are urging mothers to exclusively breastfeed their babies for at least the first six months of their lives, based on new research findings. According to the study, babies who are exclusively breastfed for the first six months experience fewer infections than those who are either breastfed for a shorter period of time, or fed formula in addition to breast milk. Professor Emmanouil Galanakis and his colleagues tracked nearly 1,000 infants for a year, keeping track of their health. They then evaluated how the children were fed throughout their early months of development, and compared the results. They found that fully breastfed kids had significantly fewer infections than the other children. “Mothers should be advised by health professionals that, in addition to all the other benefits, exclusive breastfeeding helps prevent infections in babies and lessens the frequency and severity of infectious episodes,” said researchers. Mothers’ breastmilk contains vital antibodies, nutrients, vitamins and immunological factors that babies need to develop natural immunity to disease. In other words, breastfeeding is the optimal and natural way to instill immunity in children, eliminating the need for chemical-laden vaccines that often cause more harm than good. The research also serves as another wake-up call to mothers everywhere about the importance of breastfeeding, not only for their children’s health but also for their own. “We know that breastfeeding is the default method of infant feeding for babies; good for mothers and good for…health,” Janet Fyle from the Royal College of Midwives in the U.K. is quoted as saying in a recent BBC article. “This is why we need to continue our efforts to ensure that we maintain a high rate of breastfeeding.” Sources for this story include: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11417490

Mothers who fail to breastfeed double their risk of type 2 diabetes

(NaturalNews) Choosing not to breastfeed your babies can have significant health consequences. Researchers from the University of Pittsburgh have discovered that mothers who do not breastfeed are twice as likely as mothers who do to get type 2 diabetes. Published in the American Journal of Medicine , the study of over 2,200 women found that more than a quarter of women who do not breastfeed end up developing type 2 diabetes. On the contrary, women who do breastfeed are no more likely to develop the disease than women who have never had children. The connection between type 2 diabetes and not breastfeeding seems to lie in the belly. Women who breastfeed naturally decrease their maternal belly fat through feeding their children, but women who do not breastfeed tend to keep more of this fat around their midsections. “Our study provides another good reason to encourage women to breastfeed their infants, at least for the infant’s first month of life,” explained Dr. Eleanor Schwarz, assistant professor of medicine, epidemiology, and obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. “Clinicians need to consider women’s pregnancy and lactation history when advising women about their risk for developing type 2 diabetes.” However, the World Health Organization recommends that mothers breastfeed their babies for at least the first two years in order to provide them with maximum levels of immune-developing nutrition. After all, breast milk is rich in disease-fighting antibodies and contains a rich, perfectly-balanced array of vital nutrients that no formula can match. Breastfeeding also helps prevent mothers from developing other diseases like metabolic syndrome and breast cancer, so it is good for both the baby and the mother. “Along with providing optimal nutrition, breast milk also provides compounds that boost babies’ immune system and help protect them from bacteria, viruses and parasites,” explains the book Bottom Line’s Health Breakthroughs 2007 . “In addition, breast-fed children have lower rates of childhood illnesses and tend to be leaner than their formula-fed counterparts. And research has shown that breast-feeding benefits mothers as well, by helping the body return to normal faster after pregnancy.” Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uops-mwd082510.php

Moms can reduce risk of eczema in their babies by taking probiotics

(NaturalNews) About 20 percent of babies and toddlers have the condition known as eczema which causes red, swollen and intensely itchy skin. It usually develops on the forehead, cheeks, and scalp, but it can spread to the arms, legs, chest and other parts of the body. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 65 percent of eczema cases develop in the first year of life and 90 percent develop symptoms before the age of five. While many babies with eczema get better before they are two, others have cases of eczema that persist into adulthood. Evidence has accumulated over the past decade that this common skin problem is connected to something going on in the gut — and that probiotics, beneficial microorganisms similar to the “friendly” bacteria found naturally in the body’s digestive system, can help. For example, a review of 21 studies, published last year in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology , concluded probiotics were most useful in preventing atopic dermatitis, the most common type of eczema, from developing in the first place. And a groundbreaking new study, just published in the British Journal of Dermatology , found that when moms drank a probiotic supplement during their pregnancy and after their babies were born, the rate of eczema in their offspring was slashed by about half. This research, conducted by researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), is especially convincing because it was a randomized, double-blind study comparing mothers who drank one glass of probiotic milk daily to women who drank milk containing a placebo. The research subjects drank the probiotic or placebo-laced milk beginning at week 36 in their pregnancy and continued consuming the drinks for three months after giving birth. The results were dramatic: the women who received the probiotic drink reduced the incidence of eczema by 40 percent in their offspring. “The taste of both products was similar, and the milk was delivered in unmarked milk cartons. This means that neither the participants in the study nor the researchers knew who had received probiotic milk or placebo milk,” NTNU scientist Torbjorn Oien said in a statement to the press. “We can therefore say with great certainty that it was the probiotic bacteria alone that caused the difference in the incidence of eczema between the two groups.” In fact, although earlier studies have provided evidence that ingestion of some probiotics by children may prevent eczema, this is the first study to show that probiotics given to mothers during pregnancy and breast-feeding prevents eczema. As NaturalNews has previously reported, probiotics in dietary supplements or in food such as yogurt, have also been found to be useful and safe in treating antibiotic-associated diarrhea children (http://www.naturalnews.com/026037_Chi_alternative_therapies_health.html). For more information: http://www.ntnu.edu/probiotic-use-in-pregnancy http://www.naturalnews.com/probiotics.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/762045-overview

Baby making industry creating children with malformations, parents not told of risks

(NaturalNews) If you get your information about assisted reproduction technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from the mainstream media, you may think these are simply wonderful ways to help infertile couples have healthy babies. In fact, women like Nadya “Octomom” Suleman and Kate Gosselin of reality TV fame have become stars of sort after producing broods of kids using ART. What is rarely reported is the dark side of ART — high tech baby making procedures result in a significantly increased risk of congenital malformations as well a greater chance for several diseases down the road. Dr. Geraldine Viot, a clinical geneticist at the Maternity Port Royal hospital in Paris, France, recently addressed the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics to discuss some of these risks. She also pointed out that, at least in France, most doctors working in ART clinics only tell couples about such risks if they are asked specific questions. The multi-billion dollar medical reproductive technology industry has resulted in the births of millions of kids around the world being conceived through non-natural procedures. In the largest study of its kind so far, Dr. Viot and her colleagues conducted a survey of all ART births — 15,162 in all — from 33 clinics in France to document the prevalence of malformations. 500% increased risk of tumors “We found a major congenital malformation in 4.24 percent of the children compared with the 2 to 3 percent that we had expected from previous published studies. This higher rate was due in part to an excess of heart diseases and malformations of the uro-genital system. This was much more common in boys,” Dr. Viot said in a press statement. “Among the minor malformations, we found a five times higher rate of angioma, benign tumors made up of small blood vessels on or near the surface of the skin.” Moreover, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome — which is marked by a larger-than-normal baby, abnormally large tongue, hypoglycemia, increased risk for cancer and other problems — was six times higher among youngsters conceived with ART. And retinoblastoma, cancer of the eye, was 4.5 higher for ART children when compared to youngsters conceived the natural way. Dr. Viot added that the malformations don’t appear to have anything to do with the age of the parents. Instead, the causes of the abnormalities are probably multiple and related specifically to the assisted reproductive technologies. She is calling for researchers to investigate how embryo culture media, timing of embryo transfer, the effects of ovarian stimulation, the use of ICSI and the freezing of gametes and embryos could be causing these disorders. “We estimate that in France some 200,000 children have been born after ART and therefore a malformation rate of this magnitude is a public health issue. It is important that all doctors and also politicians are informed about this,” Dr. Viot emphasized. “At a time when infertility is increasing and more and more couples need to use ART to conceive, it is vitally important that we find out as much as we can about what is causing malformations in these children, not only so that we can try to counteract the problem but also in order for health services to be able to plan for their future needs.” As NaturalNews has previously reported, other researchers have found that children conceived with artificial baby-making techniques have an increased incidence of metabolic problems, such as high blood pressure, abnormally elevated fasting glucose levels and excess body fat (http://www.naturalnews.com/026863_IVF_sperm_glucose.html). In addition, a study recently published in the journal Human Reproduction concluded that women who became pregnant with a single fetus after treatment with IVF or ICSI had a four-fold increased risk of their babies being born dead when compared to women who conceived naturally (http://www.naturalnews.com/028448_infertiliy_stillbirths.html). For more information: https://www.eshg.org/13.0.html

Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant Arab women requires urgent attention, says doctor

Pregnant Arab women have an “extraordinarily high prevalence” of vitamin D deficiency — a potential health issue for them and their babies, according to a new study.

The government has your baby’s DNA!

(NaturalNews) According to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center, all babies born in the United States are required to be screened for a host of genetic diseases. The government has mandated that all newborns be evaluated genetically to see whether or not they might be predisposed to developing a genetic disease and most parents are not informed about the tests. The Browns from Mankato, Minnesota, are one such couple who was informed by their pediatrician that their daughter, Isabel, has a gene that allegedly heightens her risk of developing cystic fibrosis. Curious as to how the doctor obtained information about Isabel’s genes, the couple inquired of her about this, only to find out that Isabel had undergone gene tests when she was born without their consent. Many states not only conduct gene tests on newborns but they store them indefinitely in government labs, which has caused an uproar among concerned parents. “Why do they need to store my baby’s DNA indefinitely? Something on there could affect her ability to get a job later on, or get health insurance,” explained Annie Brown, Isabel’s mother. Her concern is shared by millions of parents across the country, many of whom have filed lawsuits in their own states against the government. In Minnesota, the explanation for why DNA is stored indefinitely is so analysts can perform repeat tests if need be. The state claims that in case a child ever goes missing or dies, DNA blueprints can be used for tracking and identification purposes. It also admits that samples are used for “medical research”. Genetic testing on newborns first began in the 1960s to allegedly help detect serious conditions like retardation in order to save babies’ lives. According to records, many newborns’ lives were saved from such testing. However, new tests were gradually added to the panel over the years. In some states, babies are screened for up to 54 different conditions. Their results are then stored in state labs for indefinite periods of time but, according to Therrell, parents need not worry about it. “The states have in place very rigid controls on those specimens,” he explained. “If my children’s DNA were in one of these state labs, I wouldn’t be worried a bit.” In reality, outside researchers often have access to the samples as well as the babies’ names to whom they belong. One study conducted in Minnesota found that over 20 scientific papers published in the U.S. since the year 2000 used newborn blood samples. In many states, parents can request that their babies’ DNA be removed from labs and destroyed. Whether or not the state actually obeys is another story. Sources for this story include: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/index.html

Metal hip replacements in pregnant women leach chromium and cobalt into babies

(NaturalNews) Between 200,000 and 300,000 hip replacement operations are performed each year in the U.S., mostly in people over the age of 60. However, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), five to 10% of these procedures are in patients younger than 50 — including women of childbearing age. Now comes a disturbing report that suggests women who have the metal-on-metal type of artificial hip joint and become pregnant could be putting their unborn babies at risk. A study by researchers at Rush University Medical Center recently presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons held in New Orleans revealed that expectant mothers with metal-on-metal hip implants pass metal ions to their offspring during pregnancy. The ions, it turns out, result from wear and tear as well as from corrosion as the parts of the artificial joint, called prosthesis, rub against one another. Dr. Joshua Jacobs, professor and chairman of orthopedic surgery at Rush University Medical Center, and his research team investigated three women who had metal-on-metal hip implants and gave birth two to six years after their surgeries. Blood samples from the mothers as well as umbilical cord blood samples were obtained at the time of delivery and tested for blood serum concentrations of titanium, nickel, cobalt and chromium. The researchers used inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry , a highly sensitive technique that can detect even minute amounts of metals in biological samples. The results showed that the moms with metal-on-metal implants and their babies had significantly higher levels of two metals — chromium and cobalt — compared with a control group of seven women who did not have metal hip replacements and their offspring. In addition, the levels of the metals in the blood of mothers with implants correlated with the levels of metals identified in the umbilical cords. The amount of cobalt found in the newborn babies was about half that in the mothers’ blood; chromium was about 15 percent as high in the infants as the levels in their mothers’ blood. The lower levels in the umbilical cords showed that the placenta stopped at least some of the transfer of metal ions from mother to fetus, although it was obviously not a complete barrier. “We don’t know whether metal ions pose any health risks for pregnant women and their babies but as metal-on-metal implants increase in popularity and use, especially among young, active patients, women of child-bearing age and their doctors need to be aware of these findings when considering options for hip replacements,” Dr. Jacobs explained in a statement to the media. While there’s no absolute proof the metal ions are dangerous for moms or babies, previous research concerning these metals should raise some concern. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the EPA have all determined that chromium metal compounds are known human carcinogens. In addition, based on animal studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that cobalt and cobalt compounds could possibly cause cancer in humans. Bottom line: women who plan on having children would be wise to consider natural and less invasive alternatives to metal hip replacement surgery. For example, keeping weight under control and appropriate exercise such as yoga can often help ease symptoms of osteoporosis, a condition that can lead to hip replacement surgery. For more information: http://www.rush.edu/webapps/MEDREL/servlet/NewsRelease?id=1359 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts7.html http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts33.html

Reproduction industry risks: infertility treatments increase risk of stillbirths

(NaturalNews) The multi-billion dollar medical reproductive technology industry has resulted in the births of millions of kids. They were conceived through non-natural procedures including in vitro fertilization (IVF), also known as the process that produces “test tube” babies, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), which involves injecting a single sperm into an egg in the laboratory. But more and more problems are being linked to these high tech baby-making techniques. For example, as NaturalNews previously reported, evidence is mounting that children conceived using some assisted reproductive technologies have an increased incidence of metabolic problems, such as high blood pressure, abnormally elevated fasting glucose levels and excess body fat (http://www.naturalnews.com/026863_IVF_sperm_glucose.html). Now new research raises even more troubling concerns about the safety of IVF and ICSI. A study just published in Human Reproduction , Europe’s leading reproductive medicine journal, found that women who became pregnant with a single fetus after treatment with these techniques had a four-fold increased risk of their babies being born dead when compared to women who conceived naturally or after fertility treatments that did not involve IVF or ICSI. Dr Kirsten Wisborg, a consultant in the neonatal and intensive care unit at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, and colleagues investigated data from pregnant women taking part in the Aarhus Birth Cohort. These moms-to-be were all slated to deliver babies between August 1989 and October 2006. Out of 20,166 first-time pregnancies where only one baby was carried, there were 86 stillbirths — placing the overall risk of stillbirths at 4.3 per thousand pregnancies. But when the researchers broke down the statistics to see how many babies were born dead to women who had experienced infertility problems, the risk for stillbirths was clearly far higher for women who conceived after IVF/ICSI treatments when compared to those who conceived naturally. Specifically, for women who conceived after IVF/ICSI, the risk soared to 16.2 per thousand. For women who conceived after non-IVF fertility treatments, the stillbirth rate was 2.3 per thousand. In fertile and sub-fertile women (those who conceived naturally but only after a year of trying), the risk was 3.7 per thousand and 5.4 per thousand, respectively. “After adjusting for maternal age, body mass index, education, smoking habits and alcohol and coffee intake during pregnancy we found a significant, four-fold increased risk of stillbirth in women who conceived after IVF/ICSI compared with fertile women ,” Dr Wisborg explained in a statement to the media. “The risk of stillbirth in sub-fertile women and women who conceived after non-IVF fertility treatment was not statistically significantly different from the risk in fertile women.” “Until now, there has been speculation that the increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as stillbirths, in assisted reproduction might be due to factors related to the underlying infertility of the couples. However, we found the risk was similar between sub-fertile couples, women who had conceived after non-IVF fertility treatment and fertile couples. This may indicate that the increased risk of stillbirth is not explained by infertility and may be due to other, as yet unexplained factors, such as the technology involved in IVF/ICSI or some physiological difference in the couples that require IVF/ICSI,” she continued. “Hopefully, the results from our study emphasize the need for continuous follow-up of the outcome of fertility treatments, so that the information given to infertile couples seeking treatment can be differentiated to their individual circumstances.” Another recent study, also headed by Dr. Wisborg and published in the February 24th issue of Fertility and Sterility , reached an additional worrisome conclusion. The research team found a statistically significant increased risk of preterm deliveries in women who conceived after IVF/ICSI treatments, compared to women who conceived naturally. Although the Danish scientists’ studies did not discuss the possibility in depth, it seems logical that couples suffering from infertility problems that are so serious they turn to extremely expensive high tech baby-making technologies could have some type of systemic problems affecting their fertility. And these health factors might be either undiscovered, unknown — or ignored — by the medical establishment. A case in point: NaturalNews has reported on research showing that 93% of infertile women are deficit in vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000465_vitamin_D_infertility_womens_health.html). In addition, chemicals in the environment, including flame retardants called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) that are commonly found in household consumer products, have been linked to infertility. For more information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188361 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20179321

« Previous Page — Next Page »