HOME PAGE HEALTHLIBRARY CATALOG
|Front Matter |
I Disease--Two Views
II The Slaughter of The Innocents
III Prenatal Care
IV Babies Should be Born in the Spring
V Baby's Growth and Development
VI The Child's Teeth
VIII Fat Babies
IX Mother's Milk
X Should Baby be Weaned
XI Three Year Nursing Period
XII Cows Milk
XIV Three Feedings a Day
|XV No Starch for Infants |
XVI "ReguIar" Crimes in Feeding
XVII Feeding of Infants
XVIII Baby's General Care
XIX Feeding Children from two to six years
XX A Healthy Child
XXII The Acute "Infectious" Diseases of Childhood
XXIII Skin Disorders
XXIV Common Disorders of Infants and Children
XXV Child Education
XXVI Corporal Punishment
XXVIII Serum Poisoning
XXIX Commercial Medicine
"Before we examine the effects of vitamin C deficiencies upon the teeth of monkeys, let me remind you that all of our efforts to affect these teeth by fermentation in the mouth for long periods of time by the feeding and injection of micro-organisms associated with caries have been unavailing so long as the diet was normal."
Experiments by Drs. Howe and Hatch (1917) in America andby Sir James McIntosh, Warwick James and Lazarus Barlow, working together in England,in trying to produce dental carries by using acid forming bacteria all resulted negatively.Dr. Howe says that:
"So long as the diet is normal it has been found impossible to cause dental caries or pyorrhea by maintaining fermentation in the mouth or by feeding or injecting the bacteria believed to be most actively associated with dental caries."
It was, until a few years ago, thealmost universal opinion among civilized man, and it is still the prevailing opinionamong most of these, that when an infant begins to teeth it is peculiarly liableto intestinal and other disorders and many deaths are attributed to this cause. Anydisorder which may occur while an infant is teething is at once ascribed to the teething,and it is thought that the baby's illness is an unavoidable misfortune.
Never was there a greater mistake.The ignorance of parents, attendants and physicians is the real misfortune in thesecases. For, sickness is in no sense the result of the process of teething. "Canit be supposed," asks Dr. Page, "by even the most ignorant, that the cuttingof the teeth was an afterthought of the Creator, and that since the little ones generallycome into the world toothless, this great mistake could be corrected only by a painfuland dangerous abnormal process?"
It is absurd to even imagine that theCreator has inflicted the young with an abnormal physiological process which is dangerousto life. Cutting the teeth is a perfectly natural process and should not be anticipatedwith dread or anxiety nor blamed for troubles which may develop during the teethingperiod.
Practically every child, from the ageof six months to two and a half years, is cutting teeth almost continuously. It isan undeniable fact that most children cut all their teeth without any trouble whatsoever.But because the process of teething is almost continuous for a period of two years,it is practically impossible for the child to develop any trouble during this period,which is not coincident with the cutting of teeth. Multitudes of infants do becomesick with stomach and bowel disorders during this time and mothers and grandmothers,and sometimes even physicians blame these troubles on the teething when the troubleand the teething are merely coincidental and are not related to each other as causeand effect.
In a few cases the child may be madetemporarily irritable and fussy and may lose its appetite. This is especially likelyto be so where the teeth erupt late and three to six of them come through at once.But it is due in most cases to over feeding. Teething does not produce any of thederangements it is accused of causing. These troubles are always due to other causes.
The common practice of rubbing an inflamedgum with paregoric is stupid. The drug possesses no local anesthetic action and canrelieve the pain only if the baby swallows enough of this vicious dope to stupefyit.
A nipple dipped in cold water and placedin the baby's mouth and renewed every few minutes will give temporary relief. Butthe most important measure is to stop all food, save, perhaps, orange juice untilthe feverishness and fretfulness are passed. This will lessen the pain, reduce theinflammation and prevent the digestive derangement present in such cases from developinginto a more serious condition.
Many babies cut their teeth, earlyor late, in rapid succession with little or no disturbance to them and there is noreason why all of them should not do so providing only that they are properly caredfor and are maintained in good health.
Where there is slight inflammationof the gum with restlesness and discomfort, a reduction of the child's food willsoon remedy this. It is my practice to take all milk from such a child and give itonly fruit juice, preferably orange juice.
Yet there is a popular superstitionthat baby requires more and "stronger" food at this time. Dr. Page says:"I refer the backwardness of teething, that is, the delay and difficulty andsickness so common, in many instances to fatty degeneration caused by excessive feeding;and the consequent cessation of the normal growth of the body, including, of course,the teeth."
Most animals are born with a mouthfull of teeth, but they usually also cut some teeth after birth, but without difficultyor distress. Children seldom or never have difficulty with their second set of teeth,due, no doubt, to the fact that these erupt after the period of forced feeding ispassed. Among savage children the teething period is not dreaded.
In his Shut Your Mouth, Catlinquotes the Register General of England as saying that 3660 infants died in Englandeach year under one year of age "from the pains of teething." At the sametime Catlin could not find any evidence of Indian children dying from teething. ASioux Chieftain told him that the children 'always seemed to suffer more or lessat that period, but that he did not believe that in the whole Sioux Tribe a childever died from that cause." The Pawnee- Picts told him their "childrennever die in teething."
After comparing the enormous quantitiesof milk fed to infants with the relative amount a man would consume, if fed as theinfant is fed, Dr. Page says: "Is it to be wondered at that the alimentary canal,from mouth to anus, becomes irritated, and the whole body, including the gums, becomesinflamed, in the case of our food-salivated infant, whose purging wetting, nose-running, and drooling, attest to nature's efforts to get rid of the excess? And when,in due time the teeth ought to appear, they prove to have become 'stunted,' likethe bones and muscles of the ribs, legs and arms, either through fatty degenerationor for want of the nourishment of which they have been deprived by reason of theinability of the diseased organs to digest and assimilate enough food. Nature iscrying out for the nourishment impossible to obtain from undigested and unassimilatedfood--she cries out for growth--and there must be an upheaval, a 'cure'.
"When diarrhea or cholera infantumhave purged and cleansed the body of its impurities, including more or less of thefat--when the cure is effected, or well under way, and the general growth of thebody resumed, the teeth also resume their growth and begin to make their appearance.It is not, perhaps, strange, in view of the universal belief in the superstition,that under such circumstances the cause of the sickness is attributed to 'teething.'"
Dr. Tilden says: "The great sensitivenessof the gums in teething children is caused by the general systemic derangement. Whenthese little folks are properly cared for, they will not be sick, and if they arenot sick they will surprise their mothers by showing them a tooth every little while,without the slightest suspicion of any kind."
A farmer once remarked to Dr. Page,in discussing the tenderness of his pig-pork which he had raised himself, "why,even the bones are so tender, they are almost as soft as the flesh itself."
Fat, rachitic children present aboutthis same condition. But mothers, nurses and doctors all, as a rule, answer wellto Dr. Felix Oswald's description in the following words from his Physical Education(P. 202):
"The representative nurse believes in cramming; babies like prize-pigs, are most admired when they are ready to die with fatty degeneration. The child is coaxed to suckle almost every half-hour, day after day, till habit begets a morbid appetite, analogous to the dyspeptic's stomach distress which no food can relieve till overrepletion brings on a sort of gastric lethargy."
The fat-disease is developed ininfants as early as possible for everyone admires a fat baby. Such babies, however,are like fat animals; their muscles are very lean and attenuated. Muttonand beef, when excessively fat have very little muscle, and this is so "tender"that it hardly merits the name muscle. Fat hogs have very little muscle, sometimesbeing actually unable to stand up or to get to the trough to eat. Such hogs are welladapted to fill lard-cans but they are not the kind that supply meat eaters withham or breakfast bacon. Such hogs are by no means healthy animals.
Of the fat babies so much admired,Dr. Page says -- "The excessive fat, so generally regarded as a sign of a healthybabe, is as truly a state of actual disease as when it occurs at adult age. Not onlyare the muscles enveloped with fat--they are mixed with it throughout and so arethe vital organs--the kidneys, liver, heart, etc. Dissection, in these cases, oftendiscloses the fact that these organs are enlarged and degenerated with fat; the liver,for example, is often double the normal size. The disease finally culminates in oneof two things--a considerable period of nongrowth, or a violent sickness, which stripsthem of the fat, if not of life."
No farmer would think of fatteninghis growing animals. He knows that this stunts their growth. The same farmer adoreshis baby when it is "as fat as a butter-ball." The wise farmer has learnedthat early fattening stunts the growth of pigs, and does not permit them to fattenafter they are weaned--they very rarely posses any surplus weight when weaned. Thefarmer who fattens his pigs never rears the largest hogs. Growing pigs and shoatsare fed just enough to keep them growing steadily. They are fattened only after alarge, healthy frame is secured.
Animals are born little more than "skinand bones" and are never, with the few exceptions of hibernating animals, fattened,unless man fattens them. Calves that are intended for a useful life are never fattenedby the farmer. The young colt is never fattened by nursing.
Examine a litter of kittens and youwill find that, however round and plump they may appear, this is due chiefly to furand not to fat. But you cannot question or doubt their health or the rapidity oftheir growth.
We may safely put it down as a generalrule, that animals do not fatten early in life. On the other hand, we know from ourexperience with our domestic animals that when animals are fattened while very youngthey do not grow and develop so well.
Most of us are aware of the evils offat in the adult animal and man. We know that the trainer of race horses carefullyremoves all fat from his horses before entering them in the races. The hunter knowsthat he cannot hunt with a fat hound. The wrestler, boxer, runner and other athletesare in the "pink of condition" and ready to do their best work when thereis no fat left on their bodies.
Knowing these things, why do we pointwith pride to our fat offspring? Why are we so proud of a fat baby? Only a few daysbefore I wrote the above lines there was held here in the city of San Antonio a contestin which prizes were offered for the babies and children who weighed the most atcertain ages. The winners weighed from twice to three times what they should. Theannouncement of the winners and their weights caused my mind to run back to my boyhooddays when we used to fatten hogs to kill.
Why not give prizes to the best developedchildren? Why not offer prizes for the healthiest children? Why offer prizes forthose children who show the greatest amount of fatty degeneration--who present theworst stages of the fat-disease? Fat babies are not healthy babies. Why encouragea people, already over-burned with ignorance, to build disease in their children?
Fat and plethoric children, with cheeksso red one can almost feel the fever in them, when he looks at them, are regardedas healthy children. In excessively fat infants says Dr. Page, there: "Followsone of three things--death; a saving sickness; or a feverish freful state, with agradual reduction of fat, an emaciated stage, when perhaps for a year his body andlimbs resemble those of a calf, a kitten, or a young robbin. Under this 'raw bone'state he grows as do the young of other species. The body and limbs stretch out andhe grows tall." After a time their digestive powers recuperated, another periodof fattening begins. Each year death eliminates thousands who are unable to endurethe strain. "This culling process goes on, in a lessening degree, up to aboutthe age of five, when the spindling age is fairly set with the survivors, and thereis a corresponding exemption from disease, the proportion of deaths from five totwenty-five being very small."
All around us we see these fat, over-fedbabies and children with running noses, difficult breathing, frequent colds, spellsof feverishness, etc. If such children live, they gradually "work out of thefat stage into a correspondingly ematiated stage, seldom retaining a fair degreeof roundness all the way along."
Surfeiting has gotten in its work.At the ages of ten or twelve, or even younger, we see these once fat specimens, "thin,cadaverous, with fitful appetites; eating at times like cormorants, of such thingsas they 'like,' at others having no appetite at all."
Fat babies are usually stupid. Theyusually present an appearance of dullness which is quite a contrast to the appearanceand action of healthy and well-fed babies. At a later period, those who survive infancy,and learn to use their legs "run off the fat," and become not only brighterin appearance but more muscular also than during their fat stage.
The normal condition of man is notthat of obesity at any age. Why, then, are parents so anxious to see their babiesfatten up at the rate of a pound a week during their first few months of life? Whytheir anxiety to have "the fattest baby in the neighborhood," and "consequentlythe one most likely to die before it is a year old?" Ignorance, just plain ignorance,is the answer. They run the digestive organs of their babies at high pressure andkeep them laying on fat, their little stomachs, which, are treated like toy balloons,vomiting. up what milk they cannot possibly retain, until finally, these little stomachsare so overworked that they no longer possess power to digest anything.
When this stage is reached parentsand physicians begin a fruitless search for something that will "agree withbaby's stomach" The only thing that will agree with such a stomach is rest,and if it does not receive this, serious illness and, perhaps, death, will be sureto follow. Such a child will waste away from want of nourishment--starve from surfeiting.
Infants are frequency saved from thisfatty degeneration and its attending evils, due to the mother's inability to supplyan excess of milk. The mother may, and usually does, lament this fact, the childdoes not. On the contrary it grows at a normal rate.
Human milk is secreted for the useof the human infant and under normal conditions, in healthy mothers, will be secretedin sufficient quantity, and proper quality and over a sufficiently long period oftime, to supply the entire milk-needs of the infant.
The secretion of the breasts duringthe first few days after birth is somewhat different to ordinary milk and is calledcolostrsum. It is scanty in amount, thicker than milk and of a deep lemon-yellowcolor. Its chemical composition differs greatly from that of the later secretion.It is supposed to have a laxative effect upon the child.
Colostrum changes gradually into truemilk which is thinner and bluer. The flow of milk is usually well established bythe end of the first week while the complete change is finished by the end of thesecond or third week.
As the child grows the secretion ofmilk gradually increases in response to his demands. Much of the milk is actuallyformed while the baby nurses and is secreted in proportion to the vigor, strengthand persistence with which he sucks.
The complete emptying of the breasteach time he nurses is the most effective means of increasing the production of milk.If the breasts are not emptied each time, the secretion of milk gradually decreases.Farmers and dairymen have known this fact, with relation to cows, for ages. Somewomen like cows, give more milk than others, but aside from this the amount of milksecreted depends very largely upon the demands of the baby-- Increasing when moreis consumed and decreasing when less is taken.
Human milk resembles cow's milk butdiffers from it in several important particulars. It is much sweeter than cow's milk,has no odor, and varies in color from a bluish white to a rich, creamy yellow. Howeverone cannot judge of the quality of milk from its appearance, for the yellowest milksowe their color to a substance called carotin which is found in certain vegetablesused for food.
The composition of human milk is verymuch the same throughout the whole of the nursing period. The greatest variationis in its protein content which diminishes as time passes. However, the compositionof the milk varies from day to day and even from one feeding to the next, as wellas from the beginning to the end of each nursing.
Human milk, on an average, containsabout 7 per cent milk sugar, 3 to 4 per cent fat, 1.50 per cent protein, and 0.20per cent of salts. The percentage of whey or soluble proteins in human milk is muchgreater than in cow's milk. Its salts are in a form much more easily utilized bythe baby than are those of cow's milk. There is sufficient of these salts for thebaby's needs except that of iron. But since the child is born with a good supplyof iron stored in the liver, it does not suffer, at least for many months, due tothis deficiency. This is, indeed, a remarkable instance of the precise adaptationof the milk to the needs of the child.
Analyses of mother's milk to determineits quality are of no practical value unless the whole of several nursings are used.Samples taken in the evening are likely to be different from those taken in the morning.At the beginning of the nursing the fat in the milk varies from 2 to 3 per cent,at the end of the nursing it varies from 6 to 10 per cent.
Considerable variation in the compositionof the milk of various women is found. But babies thrive well on all of these. Ababy that was thriving well on its mother's milk will thrive equally as well on themilk of a wet nurse. It is also true that one baby may thrive well on milk which,for some reason, another baby failed on. A baby may even take the milk of severalwet-nurses and thrive well on all of them.
There can be no absolute standard forgood milk. Unless some extreme variation exists, chemical analysis of the milk cannotdetermine its fitness or unfitness for the baby. Most of this laboratory monkey-workis just part of commercial medicine.
There is only one test for the adequacyor inadequacy of milk and this is the feeding test. If a child is growing normallyand thriving on the breast milk it is receiving, it is quite evident that the supplyis adequate But if it is not growing it is possible that the supply of milk is insufficient.
The amount of milk the baby receivesmay be determined by weighing it before and after nursing. Usually the baby receivesone-half of its meal during the first five minutes of sucking. During the secondfive minutes it gets an added quarter of its meal.
There are only two ways of increasingthe supply of milk--namely, an improved diet, and the complete emptying of the breastsat each nursing.
Water drinking will not help. Thereare no drugs to be taken internally or applied locally and no patented foods thatwill stimulate milk production.
Eating large quantities of rich foodsis useless. These only derange digestion and destroy the mother's appetite. The oneclass of foods that greatly increases milk production in animals, and there are reasonsfor believing they will do so in woman, are green foods. An abundance of these shouldbe eaten.
Prof. McCollum says: "There isgood reason to believe that the common practice of confining the diet to too greatan extent to bread, meat, sugar, potatoes, beans, peas and breakfast cereals (beforebirth and during the nursing period) is in no small measure responsible for the failureof many mothers to produce milk of satisfactory quantity and quality for the nutritionof their infants. There is no great hardship (but great benefit) in the restrictionof the intake of meats, etc., and the increase of milk, fruits and green vegetables,and the mother who does so will greatly minimize the danger of a break In the healthygrowth of her baby."
Dr. Page says:- "The woman wholacks a reliable appetite for any sort of plain wholesome food, is not a well woman;if she indulges in that which is unwholesome, she cannot maintain good health; ifshe is overfed, abnormally fat and plethoric, she is a sick woman; and such motherscannot supply a perfect food for the nursing child." "Much sloppy food,hot drinks, profuse drinking between meals 'to force the milk,' are injurious toboth mother and child. Much animal food is not advisable either in winter or summer,and in the latter season especially should be avoided altogether." "Nausea,lack of appetite, fitful appetite, 'gnawing' at the stomach--the latter so generallymistaken for a demand for food--all result from excess or the use of unwholesomefood or condiments."
In treating of the causes of rickets,Dr. Eric Pitchard, of England, notes that the diet of the English is deficient inthe alkaline minerals and contains an excess of acid radicals. Commenting on theeffects of this upon nursing he says: "It is also worthy of note that, concurrentwith the deterioration of teeth in this country (England) there is to be observeda decreasing ability on the part of mothers to suckle their infants. The productionof milk entails an extraordinary drain on the calcium resources of the body; whenthese resources are depleted, the inability to produce milk is a natural sequence."
Fruits and green foods are our richestand best sources of alkaline bases and should do for the human mother, in the matterof milk production, what they do for other mothers.
Speaking of the long period (two tothree full years) over which the Chinese mother nurses her child, Prof. H. C. Shermansays:
"It is not improbable that the free use of green vegetables with their high calcium and vitamin content in the food of the mother may be a factor in her ability to nurse her children through such a long period.
"This must be true because McCollum has found that the vitamins of milk are not manufactured by the cow, but are taken directly by the cow from her food."
Fruits and fresh raw green vegetables shouldform the bulk of the diet of the mother during both gestation and lactation.
Mothers are often advised to drinkbeer, wine, ale, cocoa, chocolate and malted drinks, to increase and improve theirmilk supply. This advice is pernicious in the extreme. "It is a question,"says: Dr. Wm. J. Robinson. "if a mother partaking of considerable quantitiesof alcoholic beverages may not transmit the taste for alcohol to her children."
Aside from this the mother's diet shouldconsist of the usual natural foods. Nursing is not a disease and does not requirespecial diets. She should, however, especially avoid habits of eating which derangeher digestion.
An excess of protein in her diet mayresult in an excess of protein in her milk and this is likely to cause trouble inthe child. That this is true is well attested by observations upon human beings Inanimals it has been well tested in the laboratory.
Hartwell, one scientific investigator,found that an excess of protein in the mother's diet during lactation is detrimentalto the well-being of her young. L. T. Anderegg, of the Laboratory of PhysiologicalChemistry, Iowa State College, says:
"Evidence obtained in this laboratory shows that it is a matter of considerable importance that the ratio of fat to protein be within certain limits if optimum results are expected. If the proportion of fat to protein is too high, growth may be normal in the first generation, but the animals produce few or no young. Evans and Bishop and Mathill and Stone employed diets in which the ratio of fats to protein was too high for best results, and as a consequence few or no young were produced.
"Hartwell showed that the young were not reared when the mothers were given high protein diets at the time of lactation. The young went into spasms and examination of the alimentary tracts showed the cessation of the flow of milk. It has been observed repeatedly in this laboratory also that diets high in protein and comparatively low in fat are detrimental to the rearing of the young."
Nervousness or lack of exercise may alsoresult in too much protein in the milk.
The percentage of sugar in milk cannotbe increased or decreased by any means. The amount of fat cannot be increased exceptin mothers who are much underfed. It may be reduced, however, by cutting down thewhole amount of the mother's food. There is probably great variation in the amountof sales in milk produced by diet, while it seems certain that its vitamin contentmust vary greatly.
IF THE BREASTS ARE NOT THOROUGHLY EMPTIEDAT EACH NURSING, THE SUPPLY OF MILK WILL QUICKLY DIMINISH.
EMPTYING THE BREASTS AT EACH NURSINGWILL INCREASE THE QUANTITY OF MILK MORE CERTAINLY THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
Much inability to nurse the baby issheer unwillingness to do so. Many mothers can find the greatest number of flimsyexcuses for not nursing their children. Much inability to nurse the baby is due tocarelessness, neglect or to ignorance. I have tried to emphasize the necessity forthe complete emptying of the breast each time the baby nurses. Too many mothers allowtheir babies to nurse one breast for a few minutes and then give it the other breast.Neither breast is ever fully emptied and they both rapidly dry up. The child shouldbe given one breast at one feeding and the other breast at the next feeding. Seethat it. completely empties each breast before giving it the other breasts if onebreast does not supply enough milk for the feeding. It is a terrible thing for amother to fall down on the duty of nursing her baby. Cow's milk, despite all thevirtues attributed to it s a terrible food for child as well as adult.
That undernourished mothers cannotnurse their babies is proven by the results of fasting, by the experience of mothersin certain parts of war-ravished Europe, by animal experiment and by examples existingall around us. A fast quickly reduces the quantity of milk and impairs its quality.Experiments have shown that after 14 days of fasting the amount of milk secretedis only about one-seventh the normal amount. The milk becomes poorer in water, protein,sugar and mineral salts. The fat content remains practically unchanged. Lusk foundthat in fasting goats, the fat content increased. Others have found the fat contentof milk to remain practically the same in cow's milk, although the. other elementsall decreased.
Kauppe, in Germany, examined the milkof a number of nursing mothers during the war, and found the fat content practicallynormal. He resorted to a fanciful interpretation of psychical influences as an explanationfor the failure of infants to thrive on their milk. In Central Europe the half-famishedmothers during the war were unable to nurse their children. How ridiculous to callin "psychic influences" to account for what was so evidently due to partialstarvation.
Grief, worry, anger, fear, great excitement,rage, etc., may greatly diminish or completely suspend the secretion of milk; or,these may so alter the composition of the milk that the baby will be made ill. Ioften wonder if some women don't fail to nurse their children due solely to theirfear that they cannot and to their worrying that they cannot. Nervous and excitablewomen are liable to have too much protein in their milk, and this will derange thebaby's digestion.
It is recorded that angry mothers havekilled their children by nursing them. Worry and anger may so derange the milk asto cause convulsions in the baby. Any influence thee depresses, or excites, or over-stimulates the mother, will ruin her milk and nake her baby sick.
Many drugs taken by the mother areexcreted in the milk. Alcohol, opium, atropin, iodid of potash, salicylate of soda,the bromide, aspirin, urotripin, and antipyrin are among chose drugs which find theirway into the mother's milk. Cathartics and laxatives taken by the mother are aptto produce colic and loose movements in the baby.
Mothers should be careful not to takedrugs and poison their babies. We are told by medical men thee these drugs neveroccur in the milk in sufficient quantities to do harm to the baby, but this mustbe viewed as merely a defense of their drugging practice. Anyway, they never recognizethe harm from a drug unless the drug nearly kills you.
SHOULD BABY BE WEANED
Elsewhere I have pointed out the advantagesof breast-feeding over unnatural feeding. That the natural food of a baby is itsown mother's milk is so obvious it hardly needs emphasis. It is, then, certainlythe duty of the woman who brings a baby into the world to do the best she possiblycan in caring for it. Breast milk being the ideal food for the infant, it is certainlyher duty to promote a sufficient supply of good milk for her child.
A woman whose maternal instincts havebeen lost or have failed to develop, and who has not attained a degree of moral andethical responsibility, which compels her to protect her child, should not becomea mother. If she does not feel the responsibility for giving her child the best antenataland post-natal care she should not bear children. Men who are lacking in a senseof responsibility, in aiding their wives in the proper care of their children, shouldrefrain from becoming fathers. They are better off single.
Mothers who turn their babies overto the tender mercies of a nurse or a day nursery while they go to business, anddeny their children the benefits of their breast milk, are not deserving of children.There are cases where the mother is the support of the family and in such cases shecannot avoid this, no matter how much she desires to do so, but there are probablymany more of the other kind. Mothers who deny their breast milk to their babies andwho dry up their breasts so that they can shine in social functions or be forever"on the go," or because of the mistaken notion that nursing will ruin theirfigures (as though the figures of their children are not of more importance thantheir own caricatures of the human form), are fiends. If a woman is unwilling tosacrifice her parties, swimming, club work, drinking, and chocolate and indolence,for the sake of the health and normal development of her child she is morally andbiologically unfit for motherhood. She should avoid it.
No woman of sound mind and normal instinctswould ever think of refusing to nurse her child if she fully realized how much morelikely it is to live and develop normally and how much less likely it is to be sickand die, when it is breast fed than when it is bottle-fed.
Nursing a child benefits the mother,as well as the child. Mothers who cannot or who will not nurse their children aredeprived of these benefits. There is, first, an improvement in the nutrition of herown body. Second, nursing the baby assists in involution of the uterus. Theuterus of a nursing mother returns more quickly and more perfectly to its normalprepregnancy condition, than does the uterus of a woman who does not nurse her child.It is claimed that the reciprocal affection between mother and child is greater,if she nurses her child, than between babies and mothers where the mother does notnurse her child. This is not a far-fetched claim and is quite likely true. I putno credence in the claim that the nursing mother transmits, through her milk, traitsto her child which the non-nursing mother does not. Not only is proof of this entirelylacking but I can find no grounds upon which to base such a belief.
Too many women are looking for an excuseto give up nursing their children and there are too many physicians who encouragethem in this. They give up nursing their children on insufficient grounds, becausethey do not want to nurse them. They wean their babies too early because they donot want to go on nursing them to the normal limit of the nursing period. In thisthey are encouraged by doctors and manufacturers of patented baby foods who tellthem that their milk is not good for the baby after a certain period. The manufacturersof "Dr. Moffett's Teethina" advise:
"Baby should be weaned for its own sake as well as for it's mothers sake at about ten months. By this time the child should have become accustomed to artificial feeding from the bottle, gradually introduced as the breast is gradually withheld so as to avoid a too sudden change."
This is pernicious advice and is followedby the equally pernicious advice to "try some of the prepared foods," "ifthe first substitute food does not agree with the child," and lastly, "wherecertified milk cannot be had, give the baby some one of the standard makes of condensedmilk or baby foods." The advice to take an infant off the wholesome milk ofits mother and put it on such stuff is criminal, and any mother who follows suchadvice, after learning the truth, deserves to lose her baby.
Women often give up the effort to nursetheir babies because there is no milk, when, if they will persist for a few days.the milk would be forthcoming. The supply may be small at first and will later increasein amount.
Other women are unwilling to bear thediscomforts of cracked nipples for a brief spell. Doctors and others frequently tellthem that it will make the child ill if, where the mother does not have enough milkfor the childs needs, she feeds it both from the breast and from the bottle. Theinformation is both false and pernicious. The baby will fare all the better for receivingthe mother's milk. Babies should have the advantage of their mother's. milk in additionto the other foods used, as long as possible.
There are many women who make up theirminds that they cannot nurse their baby long anyway, so they give up at once. Sucha thing cannot be too strongly condemned. A mother's milk is of more importance toher child during the first few weeks of its life than subsequently.
It sometimes happens that a woman couldnot nurse a prior baby and she gives up the duty of nursing the present one, becauseshe thinks she can not do it. Inability to nurse one's first baby, for instance,does not mean she cannot nurse subsequent ones.
Some women imagine themselves to betoo nervous or too delicate to nurse their children. But many of these "toonervous" women have good milk while many delicate women will find their healthimproved while nursing. "Delicate" and "nervous" women owe itto their children to at lease make an honest effort to nurse them.
Small breasts do not constitute a reasonfor not nursing one's child. There is no necessary relation between the size of thebreast and the ability to nurse one's child. It is a fact that many women with smallbreasts secrete more and better milk than women with large breasts. The normal breastis not a large pendulous bag, anyway. There are of course, women who have no breasts.The glands never develop and their chests are adorned with nothing more than thenipples. Such women, if it is possible for them to become mothers, should avoid motherhood.
The resumption of menstruation is,due to the persistence of ancient superstitions about this function, often considereda cause for weaning. It is estimated that almost half of all nursing mothers beginto menstruate again as early as the third month after birth. Children should notbe weaned because of this. They do not suffer because of the menstruation.
A slight and brief illness should notcause the mother to wean her child or to with-hold her baby from the breast. Onlyserious illness should cause her to wean her baby.
Pregnancy need not result in the immediateweaning of the child. Although, this is usually advised, on the grounds that it istoo much of a drain upon the mother to nourish two lives besides her own, and herbreast milk is likely to become too poor and scanty to nourish the baby properly.I am sure this objection to nursing during pregnancy is valid only if the motheris eating the denatured slops advised by those who make the objection. Most of thedrains blamed on pregnancy and lactation are due to a denatured diet and lack ofhygiene.
There are a few conditions which demandthe weaning of the child. Dr. Tilden says:-- "Convulsions in nursing children,not traceable to objective causes, will usually be found to come from slight septicinfections of the mothers, due to injuries incident to child birth; hence it is wellto carefully investigate all unaccountable sicknesses occurring in young childrensoon after birth, with a view of locating the trouble in a blood derangement of themother and discovering, if possible, whether it comes from septic poisoning.
Again he says:-- "Many, if notall, children born under conventional circumstances, are more or less encumberedwith flesh; instead of weighing 5 or 6 pounds, they weigh from 10 to 12 pounds andbecause of this overweight mothers have long, tedious, and painful labors, and toofrequently are forced into instrumental deliveries. As a sequel these mothers suffergreatly from bruises, contusions and lascerations. It matters not how careful thephysician who officiates at such confinements is to be scrupulously clean, thesewomen usually have enough septic infection to cause their milk to be unwholesome,and even if they escape having a slight septic infection the severe labor breaksdown so much tissue that the blood is deranged and the secretions, including themilk, are impaired to such an extent that before the doctor and the nurse are suspiciousthat anything is wrong the baby is very sick. This necessitates taking the childfrom the mother's breast, which is equivalent to weaning it, for the mothers areusually as much encumbered with flesh as the children, and because of this encumbrance,plus the blood impairment described above, they cannot be restored to health untillong after they have lost their milk."
Many women who have prolonged and painfuland even instrumental deliveries are able to nurse their children well, however.
Women with tuberculosis should noteven try to nurse their children. Of course, such women have no business having children,in the first place.
Any acute or chronic disease whichderanges the mother's milk should cause her to wean the child. Insanity and epilepsyare usually listed as reasons for not nursing one's baby, but I think these are evenbetter reasons for not having children. So-called syphilis is not a reason for weaningthe child.
Babies with lip deformities and prematurebabies that are too weak to nurse are best fed their mothers milk after this hasbeen expressed from her breasts. The milk should be forced from the breast by theuse of the hands. The breasts should not be massaged in this operation.
The breast pump is not advisable. Itinjures the tissues and invariably causes the breasts to dry up prematurely. Dr.Tilden says of this:
"I found that when the pump was used the breasts were more or less bruised and that the bruising caused inflammation and suppuration. In time I proved to myself that there were more abcesses following the use of the pump than when it was not used."
THREE YEAR NURSING PERIOD
A few years ago, upon insufficientdata, I conceived the notion thee every human infant should nurse from three to fivefull years, the time depending upon whether or not the child was born in the tropicsor in the far north. My theory was simply that milk should constitute all or a largepart of the child's diet until it has reached a definite stage in its physical development.I believe, also, that this period, during which the child or the animal should normallytake milk, bears a definite relation to the length of time the animal requires tocomplete its physical development. Someday the ratio between the normal nursing periodand the period of physical development will be worked out.
When this theory presented itself tomy attention I began to search for evidence of it and also to find whether or notanyone else had ever presented this theory. I found Alfred McCann declaring (PhysicalCulture, March, 1919); "It is sufficient to declare, as a law, supportedby incontrovertable evidence, that every child until its twelfth year, should receiveon the average one quart of milk every day."
This, of course, I knew to be bunk.There is no such law. On the contrary, I declare it to be a law, supported by incontrovertableevidence, that every child will be weaned and its natural milk supply cut off longbefore its twelfth year. I have seen so many cases where children after the age ofthree or four years, have persistently refused all milk that I have become convincedthat were the diet of the child otherwise all that it should be, every child wouldinstinctively turn from milk at about this age. McCann, of course, is a laboratoryman, pure and simple. He is a food chemist, but not a dietitian; nor is he a closestudent of nature.
Milo Hasting declared in an articlein Physical Culture (The Extravagance of Meat), a few years before, that,"The natural period for nursing the human infant is three to four years. Andas the mother rarely conceives during the nursing period she would under such circumstancesonly bear five or six children in her lifetime. Civilization shortened the nursingperiod with the aid of the cow and has now in many instances eliminated it altogether.Two results followed this change. First, our utter dependence upon the cow; second,the absolute need of birth control to prevent too frequent child bearing. Somedayunder a perfectly rational civilization the longer period of nursing the human infantmay return, but there is little chance for it in our time and hence the cow is anecessity for the nutrition of our children."
Dr. Page said:-- "In the absenceof particular circumstances compelling premature weaning, I believe that the Mother'smilk, providing the mother be in fair health, and the babe evidently thriving onher milk, is the best food for the infant during the first eighteen months, and evenuntil the end of the second year."
Thus I found that my idea was not new,but neither of these men offered any evidence to support their views. Dr. Page offeredhis view as a belief, while Mr. Hastings presented his just as though it is generallyknown that the longer nursing period is the natural one. There are a few studentswho know that the three to four or five year nursing period is the normal periodfor the human infant, but the layman and most, if not all physicians are ignorantof this face. Dr. Felix Oswald (Physical Education, Page 29), had declaredthat "the appearance of the eye-teeth (cuspids) and lesser molars marks theend of the second year as the period when healthy children may be gradually accustomedto semi-fluid vegetable substance. Till then, milk should form their only sustenance.But mothers whose employment does not interfere with their inclination in this respectmay safely nurse their children for a much longer period."
In support of this he says:--"Thewives of the sturdy Argyll peasants rarely wean a bairn before its claim is disputedby the next youngster and the stoutest urchin of five years I ever saw was the sonof a Cervian widow, who still took him to her breast like a baby."
So far as I can learn from my researches,the long nursing period, three to five years, is universal among those people whohave not learned to substitute the mother with a cow or a goat. A few examples willsuffice.
A patient of mine, a native of Macedonia,informs me that in his country mothers nurse their babies two to three years andeven longer. A cousin of his was nursed for six full years. I may add that sinceI started my investigations I have met three American women who nursed their childrenfor more than two years. A Hebrew patient, who was born and reared in Turkey, tellsme that Turkish women nurse their children two years and longer.
Prof. Sherman, of Columbia University,says: "In China nursing is continued for two full years and not rarely for threefull years. The child thus has ample time to become adjusted to the consumption ofa variety of vegetable foods before its maternal milk supply is entirely cut off."
Westermark calls us (History ofHuman Marriage); "Very commonly, in a state of savage and barbarous life,the husband must not cohabit with his wife till the child is weaned. And this prohibitionis all the more severe, as the suckling-time generally lasts for two, three, fouryears, or even more."
He mentions a number of such peopleand attributes the long suckling time, not to the natural needs of the child, whichnature has provided for, in the same manner that she has provided for a supply ofmilk from the maternal breast, for as long as needed in the case of the lower animals,but "chiefly to the want of soft food and animal milk."
However, Westermark points out thatthis is not always the case saying: "But when the milk can be obtained, andeven when the people have domesticated animals able to supply them with it, thiskind of food is often avoided." He gives, as an example, "the Chinese who"entirely eschew the use of milk."
The Macedonian, previously referredto, assures me that, athough his native people have and use goat's and sheep's milk,they would never think of feeding it to an infant, providing the mother could nurseit, or of voluntarily cutting short the nursing period because these milks couldbe substituted for the mother's milk.
Wm. J. Robinson, M. D., in Woman:Her Sex and Love Life, tells us that in Egypt and other Oriental countries "itis no rare sight to see a child three or four years old interrupting his work orhis play and running up to suckle his mother's breast." I have seen two yearold children suckling their mother's breasts in this country. Dr. Robinson attributesthe long nursing period among Orientals to the desire to prevent conception. Thisassumpeion has no biological basis.
Catlin says:--"It is a very rareoccurrence for an Indian woman to be 'blessed' with more than four or five childrenduring her life; and, generally speaking, they seem to be contented with two or three."Westermark tells us that "this statement is confirmed by the evidence of severalother authorities; and it holds good not only for the North American Indians, but,upon thc whole, for a great many uncivilized peoples."
Catlin also says, in combatting thecharge, made by some half-informed people, that there was an enormous infant mortalitymong the Indians, "Amongst the North American Indians, at all events, wheretwo or three children are generally the utmost results of a marriage, such a rateof mortality could not exist without soon depopulating the country."
Replying to the charge made by somethat the "slight degree of prolificness" observed among the North AmericanIndians, and some other savage tribes, was due to "hard labour, or to unfavorableconditions of life in general," Westermark says:-- "That it is partly dueto the long period of suckling is highly probable, not only because a woman lesseasily becomes pregnant during the time of lactation, but also on account of thecontinence in which she often has to live during that period."
I hold, then, that the normal or naturalsuckling-period of the human infant is from three to five years; that the healthy,well fed woman can nurse her child for this period without harm to herself or child;and that, during this period, her own milk, if normal, is better for her child thanthat of any cow, gone, mare, camel, sheep, ass, or other milk animal used by man.I hold that it is the duty of every healthy mother to nurse her child during thewhole of this period and that for her to lay down on the job is to rob her childof its birth right.
I do not mean that the child shouldexist exclusively upon milk during this whole period. It, like the sucklings of otheranimals, should gradually include more of other foods in its diet as the maternalsupply diminishes.
The food essential to healthy developmentand growth of every infant mammal, including human infants, is produced for it inits own mother's breasts. The milk of each species differs widely from that of everyother, as we shall show later, and each is especially fitted to meet the needs ofthe young of that species. The infant continues, for some time after birth to feedupon the substance of its mother.
We are prone to take it for grantedthat man began to feed cow's milk or the milk of other animals to babies shortlyafter Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Delight and that he has continuedto do so ever since. We may even imagine that the practice is universal. We couldhardly make a worse mistake.
We know for instance, that few Chineseand Hindoo mother's have cow's milk or the milk of other animals for their babies.We know that the North and South American Indians had no milk animals and their childrenreceived no milk after they were weaned from the mother's breasts. In many otherparts of the world the same fact holds good.
So far as the record of history canshow us, a man by the name of Underwood is the first to have risked the experimentof feeding cow's milk to infants. This was in the year 1793--only 137 years ago.This was before the invention of the rubber nipple and we may well imagine what afine time he had feeding this calf-food to a human infant.
Prior to that memorable date--1793--ifa mother died and left her child to be nursed, it had to be done by another woman--awet-nurse--and not by the cow. Since then, the cow has not only become the fostermother of the American and most of the European portions of the human race, but wehave developed the absurd notion that "a baby is never to be weaned." Itmust have milk, not merely through the period of infancy, as nature designed, butalso throughout childhood, adolescence and adult life as well.
Milk is loudly proclaimed the one andonly "perfect food" and from every direction we are urged to drink milk.It is the "perfect food" for the infant, the child, the athelete, the officeworker, the invalid and for everyone. There is a strong commercial influence backof all this hue and cry about the magic virtues of milk, however. We need not taketoo seriously the mouthings of chose who are actuated by the profit motive.
Milk (cow's milk) is not the perfectfood for either infant or adult. But we have so endowed it with super-potentialitythat we even insist on nursing mothers also nursing. A quart a day, and even more,is sometimes prescribed for the nursing mother. This slavish adherence to milk hasbeen brought about as the result of a frame-up between the doctors and the dairymen,of which, the following deem taken from the Ice Cream Field, (National Journal),of July, 1927, and entitled Dairy Council Plans Educational Work," is only partialevidence:
"Latest developments in the health education and increasing the use of dairy products in the nation's diet were discussed at the sixth annual summer conference of national and regional dairy councils at Buffalo, N. Y., June 11 to 13. Speakers at the conference included M. D. Munn, President; Dr. Charles H. Keene, professor of hygiene, University of Buffalo; Miss Mary E. Spencer, health education specialist, Washington, D. C.; Dr. W. W. Peter, associate secretary, American Public Health Association; Dr. H. E. Van Norman, president Dry Milk Institute; Clifford Goldsmith, writer and lecturer; Miss Sally Lucas Joan, health consultant, and officers and trained specialists of thc council organization.
"Many new posters, leaflets, exhibits, moving pictures, health stories, plays and other educational means of presenting the Dairy Council story of the importance of the 'protective foods' in the diet were presented and discussed during the conference. An analysis of the type of work being done by the council organization and how it helps the dairy industry was presented by W. P. B. Lockwood, New England Dairy and Food Council, Boston, Mass. Business sessions of the officers and women workers, as well as a special session on publicity methods, completed the conference program.
" 'The Dairy Council is reaching the point now,' stated Dr. C. W. Larson, director, 'where its corps of trained workers must devote most of their time to the preparation of interesting and instructive projects and material which can be supplied to schools and colleges, health and welfare organizations and similar groups to be presented by them in their own localities throughout the United Seates. Formerly, most of our time was spent in schod work. Now, that is only one phase of the enlarged activities of the Dairy Council.'"
This is a cold-blooded business affairwhich raises the cry of health as a means of increasing the profits of thc dairyingindustries and the doctors that are associated with these industries, and which unblushinglylabels their propaganda, education.
Milk is not an "adult food"but is a temporary exepediency in the life of the young animal, lasting it untilthe time that it evolves teeth for independent mastication and is able to secretedigestive juices of a quaky and character to enable it to digest the foods it willnaturally live on for the remainder of its life.
Cow's milk is not only not a perfectfood for the human adult; it is not the best food for the human infant. It is noteven the best milk from the lower animals for infants. If doctors and dairymen arereally interested in the health of children, they should see to it that goats milk,which is far superior to cow's milk for infants, is available for them. Instead oftalking about the importance of "protective foods" in the diet, they shoulddevote their "educational (sic) campaign" to telling people of the dangersof the denatured foods. That their campaign is merely an effort to sell more milkand not an effort to tell the people the truth about their present denatured dietgives the whole show away.
It is wholly unnatural for cows togive the large quantities of milk, rich in fat, as our dairy cows do. By selectivebreeding and forced feeding, they are induced to give large quantities of milk andto produce this far beyond the normal nursing period for calves. Indeed many of thesecows are never dry, but continue to produce milk, that is sold in the market, fromone calf to the next, year after year. I have seen cows milked for ten or more years,without once being dry, and having a calf a year during this time.
This constitutes a drain on the cowswhich makes it impossible for one of them to be healthy. They are especially proneto tuberculosis and have their lives greatly shortened. While almost all dairy cattleare tubercular, this disease is extremely rare among the range cattle of the plains.
Added to the evils of excessive milkproducing, is the evil of over feeding on a one sided and high protein diet. Thistends to produce disease in the cow and to greatly impair her milk also. An excessof protein is particularly bad for infants. If an excess of protein in the mother'sdiet impairs her milk for her baby, then certainly an excess of protein in the dietof the cow, whose milk already contains far more protein than that of a woman, isbad for the child.
An excess of fat is also bad for theinfant. Our dairy herds have been so bred and they are so fed that their milk containsa great excess of fat.
Dairymen and farmers produce milk tosell and the more milk and butter-fat a cow produces the more profits there is init for them. Farmers and dairymen are not different to owners of coal mines or cottonmills--they are interested only in increasing their profits. They will produce onlythat kind of milk and those quantities of milk that brings in the most money forthem, regardless of its evil effects upon the users of the milk.
Cows from which certified milk is producedare kept through out the year in sunless barns, are allowed a very limited amountof exercise and are fed chiefly on dry food, being allowed little or no fresh greenfodder. This sickens the cow and assures the deterioration of her milk. Cows needgreen grass, exercise, fresh air and sunshine. Dr. Hess, of Columbia University,showed that milk from cows fed on pastures in the sunlight maintains the health andgrowth of animals, whereas milk from cows maintained out of the sun and fed on dryfodder will not.
Dairy cows and particularly "certified"herds, are now all tuberculin tested--that is, poisoned and sickened. The tuberculintest is a fraud. It is not a reliable test for tuberculosis, as every doctor wellknows. Give it to animals in large doses and they "promptly die with symptomsof an intense intoxication;" in "moderate doses," "the animalsdisplay the symptom; of a profound intoxication, but gradually recover, with a mildand chronic form of disease."
Tuberculin is the putrescent resultantof decomposing beef broth containing glycerine and is preserved with carbolic acid.It is not merely a poison, it is a whole array of poisons.
Pasteurizing milk leads to carelessnessand assures us dirty milk. This will be more fully discussed in the next chapter.
Milk also undergoes deterioration afterit is milked and allowed to stand. Its food value is markedly impaired by being frozen.
Present methods of producing and handlingmilk make it next to impossible to procure good milk in the markets. These presentmethods are largely the results of the work of physicians who urge us to use moremilk. Do not censure me too strongly, then, when I declare that the medical professionis determined that there shall not be a healthy child in America and that no childshall be permitted to have good food.
The word "protein" is a veryindefinite term and it is known that the same amount of protein and calories fromdifferent sources may have very different food values. Cow's milk possesses a differentand inferior protein to that found in mother's milk and, while well suited to theneeds of the calf, is poorly fitted to the nourishment of the infant.
Cow's milk forms a large, hard, toughcurd that is hard for the infant to digest. Human milk forms small, soft flocculentmasses which are easy of digestion.
These differing physical and chemicalcharacteristics of the milk of the two mothers are designed to meet the differentrequirements of the young of the two species and the two milks are not, therefore,interchangeable. It follows, logically, that the cow is not the best mother of thehuman infant and when she adopted our children, she did them an injury.
"By milk I mean safe milk,"says Alfred W. McCann, "and, the only scientific way of insuring safety is bythe process of pasteurizing."
McCann knows that safe milk dependsupon: (1) a healthy cow, (2) proper food, sunshine, fresh air and exercise for thecow, (3) clean handling. He knows that healthy dairy cows are extremely rare; thatno dairy cow is properly nourished; that their food is always denatured and unbalanced;and that milk is not always handled in a way to keep it clean. What then does hemean by calling pasteurized milk, "safe." He means this:
If the cow is sick pasteurize the milkand use it.
If the milk is deficient, due to adeficient diet or to lack of sunshine, pasturize it and use it.
If the milk is dirty, paseturize itand use it.
The false sense of security that theprocess of pasteurization gives people, who use such milk, is only one of the evilsof this process. It puts a premium upon carelessness and uncleanness in the handlingof milk.
In the process of pasteurizing, milkis heated to 145 degrees F., and maintained at this temperature for a half hour,or longer. This produces some very important changes in the milk itself, none ofwhich are beneficial. The process is intended to destroy bacteria which are supposedto cause disease. It does destroy
some of the germs in milk, including the lactic acid bacilli, which are the naturalprotectors of the milk. The destruction of these lactic acid bacteria allows themilk to rot--it will not sour.
The Welch's Bacillus and various putrefactiongerms are present in pasteurized milk and, due to the absence of the protective lacticacid germs, these set up putrefaction in the milk, which then becomes poisonous.Diarrhea is perhaps only the least of troubles resulting from such poisoning.
Many bacteria or their spores are notkilled, even by boiling. I put no stock in the germ theory, but it was this theorythat started this pasteurizing monkey-work, and I want to show its folly, even fromthis angle. Dr. Chas. Sanford Porter, who is considered an authority on milk, declaresthat pasteurization destroys the lactic-acid forming bacteria and that "thesebacteria are not dangerous to health, and the methods of restraining or destroyingthem are without effect on the bacteria of consumption, typhoid, or other feversthat might contaminate milk in certain places."
Dr. Kellogg declares that:-- "Presentmethods of controlling the milk supply are by no means entirely satisfactory. Thisis especially true as regards the bacteriological examination of the milk. At thepresent time this examination usually extends no further than the determination ofthe total number of bacteria present except when a special research is undertaken.The number of bacteria present is no criteria whatever of the character of the milkas regards safety to life and health. In general the greater number of bacteria presentare ordinary sour milk germs which are entirely harmless."
So much for that; let us come now tothe changes in the milk itself. These are the serious effects of pasteurization.If pasteurization only killed a few harmless germs nobody could offer any objectionto it.
There is a great and physiologicallyimportant reduction of the bone-nourishing salts of the milk. calacim-magnesium carbonophosphateis broken up into its constituent salts and at least three of these--calcium phosphate,magnesium phosphate and calcium carbonate--are practically insoluble and their usefulnessalmost destroyed.
There is a partial coagulation of themilk protein, the coagulated portion being precipitated with the salt, and the milkalbumen being practically destroyed as food. This destruction of the protein anddisturbance of the mineral balance of the milk destroys much of its food value. Thatfood quality to which the term vitamin C has been given, is also destroyed by pasteurization.The sugars are broken down and to some extent the colloids are agglutinated. Theoriginal structure of the milk is broken down and there is a slightly reduced creamline. The chemistry and physical structure of the milk are altered. its growth-promotingand life-sustaining qualities are greatly impared. It is more unfit as food thanraw milk.
Its digestibility is markedly impaired.It produces constipation and if fed exclusively, scurvy, rickets, scrufulosis andkindred diseases, if fed continuously. Dogs fed pasteurized milk develop mange andother disorders. The same litter, fed on raw milk thrive. Pasteurized milk is simplynot capable of sustaining life, health and growth for very long.
McCann says:-- "In early infancy,during an exclusive milk diet, a few teaspoonsful of sweet orange juice strainedthrough a clean linen cloth, will offset any so-called disadvantages that here andthere the enemies of pasteurized milk have charged against it."
This is ridiculous, although it isthe attitude of Sherman, McCullom, Howe, and most other experimenters who recognizethe impairing work of pasteurization--and these "so-called disadvantages"are not merely charged against pasteurized milk by its enemies; they are admittedby its friends.
A few tespoonsful of orange juice,or tomato juice, or lemon juice will not and cannot replace the destroyed and impairedsubstances in pasteurized milk. Dr. Howe says: "If milk is to come from unknownsources, I prefer to have it pasteurized, because I can compensate for the loss ofvitamin C by taking enough orange juice." But there is more loss to milk throughpasteurization than the mere loss of this hypothetical vitamin and orange juice andtomato juice cannot entirely take the place of the qualities lost. The whole theoryof denaturing some of our foods and "offsetting" these with foods thathave not been denatured is false and ridiculous, whether we are dealing with milkor with white flour.
Assuming that orange juice, lemon juice,or tomato juice will prevent the development of scurvy in infants fed on pasteurizedmilk; this is not enough. We don't want our infants merely to escape recognizablescurvy. We want the maximum of health and development. A child may present no recognizablesigns of deficiency, may appear normal, and still not have the high standard of vigorouspositive health that is always desirable.
Dirty milk is almost assured by pasteurization.The false sense of security created by faith in the protective power of the processdiscourages rigid cleanliness and promotes carelessness in handling on the part ofthe producer and all concerned. A high standard of cleanliness is not demanded bythe friends of pasteurization. Milk produced under all kinds of conditions, eventhough pasteurized afterward, is not as desirable as raw milk produced under sanitaryconditions. Pasteurization does not make unclean milk clean.
In many instances there is nothingwrong with babies except that they are being starved by being fed pasteurized milk.Babies do not thrive, or cease to thrive on heated milk. The same babies do wellwhen changed to raw milk.
The London Lancet reported,a few years ago, some experiments by an English physician who fed a number of kittensand puppies on pasteurized milk. They died . Kittens and puppies fed on raw milkthrived well.
The very best of cow's milk is poorenough as infant food, without making it still worse by pasteurization. The bestof cow's milk can be obtained only from healthy, range-fed cows, which get plentyof green foods, an abundance of sunshine and fresh air, and are not tuberculin tested(poisoned) and are not stuffed on protein-rich foods to overstimulate milk production.
The present method of keeping cowsfor producing certified milk, in sunless barns, feeding them dry food and tuberculintesting them at frequent intervals and force feeding them assures us a milk of poorquality. Milk from cows out of the sunshine is not good milk. Dr. Hess found thatit will not sustain life. The infant death-rate in Toronto, Canada is 29 per centhigher than that of London, England and double that of rural Ontario. Toronto usespasteurized milk while both London and rural Ontario use natural milk. When pasteurizedmilk was substituted for raw milk In Toronto, the death rate in three of the cityslarge homes and hospitals for children increased.
THREE FEEDINGS A DAY
The baby that is healthy at birth possessesthe power and ability to digest and assimilate, easily and continuously, an amountof food necessary to produce normal growth. This rate of growth cannot be exceeded,although it may be and often is retarded, by feeding the child excessively for asmany children have their growth checked by too much food as by a deficiency.
Most people have a mania for fat babies;they like to be able to say the baby gains a pound a week. This gives rise to excessivefeeding. Most cases of gastro-intestinal disorders in infants are due solely to toomuch nursing and can be remedied simply by giving the digestive organs a much neededrest.
When a baby is increasing in weightduring the first three months after birth from a half to a pound a week it is merelya rolling on of fat--disease--and is not healthy growth. It is always abnormal andis a snare and a delusion. Fat children do not have great resistance to disease.
From time immemorial it has been thoughtnecessary to keep babies stuffed with something, to keep them growing and fat--theymust be fat. From the time they are born until they die, the greatest anxiety hasbeen to keep their little bodies full of something. During the first year of theirlives, infants are, as a rule, stuffed early and late. This is the chief cause ofthe great mortality at this time .
After the first year they are allowedmore time between meals and hence a less proportion of them die. About one-thirdof the deaths are in children under one year and only about one-fifth between theages of one and five. After the age of five children are fed on something like athree-meal plan and comparatively few die between the ages of five and twenty. istrue, as Dr. Page says, that those children who reach five years are, as a rule,the toughest and therefore the "fittest" to survive.
Dr. Page says:
"The farmer who wants to raise the best possible animal from the calf, lets the creature suckle in the morning at milking-time, and again at night. He is wise enough to feed his calf only twice and the result is, the calf thrives from birth, and sickness is unknown.
"The same farmer has a baby born, and a contrary course is pursued, with a contrary result. Even before nature supplies the food--before the mother's milk comes--the ignorant nurse undertakes to supply the seeming defficiency, and doses the baby with sweetened water, cow's milk, safron, or the like, instead of giving nothing but what nature supplies, which for the first few days at least is sufficient.
"The dosing referred to results in stomach-ache, and the cries of pain being mistaken for cries of hunger, down goes another dose, until finally, when the mother's milk does come, the child's stomach often is in a condition to revolt at anything. If the little victim goes along for a few weeks or months, it is generally fed every hour or oftener, unless it happens to be, as is often the case, in a lethargic state for several hours, sleeping off the surfeit as an adult sleeps off a 'drunk.'
"It is often the case that an infant is eating and vomiting, alternately, from morning till night; indeed, so common is this that it is regarded as altogether natural. It is expected that the child will 'throw up' continually, at least after being fed, and the nurse declares that 'it is all right--nature takes care of all of that.'
"It is not all right; it is all wrong. Nature indeed revolts at this barbarious treatment of the baby's stomach. Early and late, often during the night, as through the day, the stomach is kept; full and distended, every hiccough is an attempt of the stomach to eject its overload, or evidence of an undigested residue, and the habitual vomiting is simply the result of cramming, until the little, helpless babe has become a confirmed dyspeptic. The mother or nurse habitually flies to the sugar-bowl to relieve the infant's hiccough. But the remedy is worse than the disease and although the hiccough may disappear, it will, if the habit be continued, be succeeded sooner or later by symptoms of deeper disease in the form of so-called cold, feverishness, etc., the result of the excess of food and excess of saccharine maker."
Happily such gross feeding has disappearedamong the better informed classes with a consequent improvement in the health ofour babies. But it is still all too true that babies are greatly overfed and arefrequency dosed. There are no reasons for doubting that dyspepsia which Page calls"the parent of nearly all our ills," is the result of overfeeding in infancy,confirmed by continued over-indulgence through life.
However well intentioned mothers andnurses may be, the almost universal custom of constantly feeding infants is extremelycruel, and we may be sure that were such mothers and nurses compelled to take foodas often and in the same excessive quantities that it is forced upon the baby, nightand day, the abuse would soon be ended. The cruelty of the practice would soon beapparent.
Children thus punished sooner or laterarrive at a condition where their digestive organs are unable to function efficiently.The constant overwork will impair and cripple them. Then it is that we see childrenliterally starving to death on five, six and even more meals a day. As paradoxicalas it may seem, many children starve because of being over-fed, just as many adultsdo.
Dr. Tilden well says:-- "If motherscould be made to see the fearful price they pay for keeping their babies fat theywould hasten to learn a better plan of feeding. Children who are overweight are moresusceptible to disease influences than are smaller and lighter children. The fat,chubby baby, everything else being equal, is always the one to take the croup, tonsilitis,diphtheria, scarlet fever, and when a few years older, pneumonia, rheumatism, andother forms of common diseases."
In his In a Nut Shell, Dr. DioLewis relates the following experience of his:
"When I was a boy my sympathies were awakened by what I thought the crud starving of the calves. They were fed only twice a day, morning and evening. Eating all day myself, I thought it very cruel to tie up these poor, hapless things, and give them no food or drink from morning till night.
"Each of my brothers had a calf, my sister had a calf, and I had a calf. The others were satisfied with John's assurance that twice a day was enough. I knew better and made such a fuss about their starving my poor little Sam, that the 'powers that be,' ordained that the feeding in the case of young Samuel should be as his owner directed. Upon the procalamation of this ukase I determined to show 'em what's what, and to make sure I fed Samuel myself, and gave him all he wanted once in two hours.
"At the end of six weeks how the rest of 'em did crow over me. It was true, as they said that at the beginning of my sausage-stuffing system, as they called it, Samuel was the biggest calf in the lot, but at the end of six weeks what a fall there my countrymen. Even my smallest brother's little Fan could give Samuel odds. To cap the climax, when we untied and turned them all out together, little spotted Fan went at my Sam, upon whom my hopes had centered as the bully of the yard, and walloped him in no time. For a long time they wouldn't stop plaguing me about that good-for-nothing calf. My little sister asked me one morning at the breakfast table, 'howls 'ep'opher Sam'el this morning.'
"From that day to this I have never advocated the frequent feeding of calves. They do best on two meals a day, and now I have no doubt that some calves I wot of would do vastly better on two meals a day."
At my father's dairy we fed the calvestwice a day and they thrived well. I do not recall that we ever had a calf to dieand only one or two to ever be sick. I recall an occasion or two when a calf escapedfrom the pen and got too much milk, whereupon it would develop a severe diarrheaknown among farmers and dairymen as the "scours." In our home the babieswere fed every two hours during the day and every time they cried at night. Colic,constipation, diarrhea, hives, feverishness, croup, colds, and more severe typesof disease were as frequent among the children as they were rare among the calves.
In those days the medical professionurged two hour feedings and night feedings as well. Many older people have not gottenaway from this view yet. They still think that children should be gorged until theyare surfeited and sickened or else they are not fed enough.
Long prior to this time, however, Dr.Page and others had proven that three meals a day are enough for a baby. Assertingthat no infant can thrive unless well fed and assuming that a well fed baby is onethat secures the minimum amount of suitable food that will suffice to produce a comfortable,happy, thriving baby, with body and limbs well-rounded with flesh, not fat, and whosegrowth shall be uniform throughout its whole life, and until the frame is fully developed,he declared: "It is my belief, verified by experience in the case of my owninfant, and from other substantial proof, that three meals a day, with sufficientrestriction at each, will accomplish this end, and are all that should be permittedfrom birth, and the intervals should be at least five or six hours between meals."
He assumed, and probably correctly,that the rate of growth of the infant after birth should correspond with its rateof growth before birth. In the case of his own child, he says:-- "Our three-mealinfant has doubled in weight at nine months, verifying, to that extent, my theorythat the normal growth of infants corresponds to the (normal) foetal growth. Sheis taller than the average child at this age, and though less heavy than most children,she is more muscular, and, had I permitted it would have become fat, for she hasgiven abundant evidence of the ability to fatten rapidly on three meals."
He tells us that her sleep was perfect,sound and continuous, there was entire exemption from hiccough, throwing up, colic,constipation, diarrhea, stomach trouble, and all other troubles, and she completelyescaped the fat disease, with its pasty complexion. Her limbs lengthened by normalgrowth, were well-covered and rounded with muscle, her complexion was brown and ruddyfrom being perfectly nourished and being in the open air during winter, as well asin the spring and summer. She was able to hold her head erect from the fourth dayonward, and sat erect on the floor without support at four months.
My own experience corroborates allof this. I believe it to be an invariable rule that babies fed as herein directedgrow faster and develop better than the overfed children of the average home. Theydo not weigh as much, for they are never allowed to be
come fat. More than once I have stoppedall food but orange juice in my own children to counteract a tendency to get toofat.
Any normal baby should be able to holdits head erect at four to six days of age. My own children sat erect in my hand withoutsupport, I of course balanced them, at one week. They could stand erect in my handat three months, and stiffen their little backs and hold themselves out on a perfectlyhorizontal plane, without support, as I held them just above the knees, at four months.At five months the two boys could, while lying on the back, their feet held down,raise themselves up to a sitting position several times in succession. The girl waspractically six months old before she could do this. But she accomplished a new "stunt"which I tried. She held herself out horizontally, being held by the legs only, withher back down. All three of them could make a wrestler's bridge at four months.These are: only a few of the things they did that the average child does not do.
If children are fed three meals a dayand are not over-fed, the following high standard will be attained: "ease andcomfort through the day and perfect rest at night; freedom from hiccough, vomiting,constipation, 'colds,' diarrhea," digestive disorders, skin eruptions, etc."There will be a steady gain in weight from. month to month, by reason ofhealthy growth, without the abnormal accumulation of fat so surely indicativeof disease." There will be the greatest possible happiness for both the babyand those who care for him. He will not be forever fretting and crying due to thediscomfort of gluttony. Its chances of growing into hale and hearty manhood and womanhood,with good health and splendid physique, will be increased many-fold.
There is no reasonable basis for thestatement, often made, that, while some infants may thrive on three meals a day,some, probably most, infants would starve unless fed more often. We know that inthe feeding of hogs, cows, horses, etc., the ration that suffices for one individualsuffices for all. Among adult men and women we do not find the need to feed someof them but three meals a day and others six or eight meals a day.
Infants are fundamentally the same.Their bodies are all constructed alike and function in accordance with the same generalprinciples. One man is a type of the whole race.
Young animals, like the calf, cat,kid, etc., which grow more rapidly than does the human infant and reach maturitybefore the infant has passed babyhood, do not require to be fed as often as we arein the habit of feeding infants.
Dr. Page weaned a kitten at six weeksof age and put her on two meals a day of milk and whole wheat bread. Her meals vereserved at 8 A. M. and at 8 P. M. When she was two-thirds grown, he says of her thatshe "has outstripped the others of the same litter, who have been fed oftenerin thrift and growth, nd in muscular activity she excells them all. Certainly noone could well imagine a livelier or happier kitten than 'Topsy.' In flesh her conditionhas remained about the same as when feeding s commenced."
It overfeeding tends to stunt growthis well proven. Why should we go on stuffing our children in an effort to fattenthem or to force them to grow more rapidly than normal?
Dr. Tilden says that:-- "If achild (on the three meal plan) grows thin and really loses weight after the secondweek it will not be an indication that it is not fed often enough. My experiencehas been that the mother's milk is deficient in some of the important cements, orthat she does not give enough."
In discussing this three meal planhe says:--"If an infant is properly cared for from birth it will not be awakeoftener than two or three times--we will say three times--in twenty-four hours. This,then, I assume, is as often as nursing children should be fed, and I have succeededin influencing a few mothers to feed their babies according to this plan, and theresults have been gratifying, indeed.
"The children are smaller (notfat) and very active, and much stronger and brighter than children fed in the ordinaryway."
He also says:-- "Children fedthree times a day will not be troubled with constipation and will not have whitecurds in the discharges from the bowels."
|Front Matter |
I Disease--Two Views
II The Slaughter of The Innocents
III Prenatal Care
IV Babies Should be Born in the Spring
V Baby's Growth and Development
VI The Child's Teeth
VIII Fat Babies
IX Mother's Milk
X Should Baby be Weaned
XI Three Year Nursing Period
XII Cows Milk
XIV Three Feedings a Day
|XV No Starch for Infants |
XVI "ReguIar" Crimes in Feeding
XVII Feeding of Infants
XVIII Baby's General Care
XIX Feeding Children from two to six years
XX A Healthy Child
XXII The Acute "Infectious" Diseases of Childhood
XXIII Skin Disorders
XXIV Common Disorders of Infants and Children
XXV Child Education
XXVI Corporal Punishment
XXVIII Serum Poisoning
XXIX Commercial Medicine