Like most of the world, I was mistaken. I thought that the aggressive promotion of baby formula was a problem confined to the poorer nations, where weak or complicit governments are pushed around by corporations, and mothers are gulled into swapping the breast for the tin. But after I wrote about the bullying of the government of the Philippines by baby formula companies a fortnight ago, the National Childbirth Trust and Baby Milk Action got in touch to tell me a story much closer to home.

We don’t have mass deaths from dysentery in the United Kingdom, though babies here are five times more likely to be admitted to hospital with gastroenteritis if they are bottle-fed. But if children don’t breastfeed they become susceptible to an astonishing range of illnesses and conditions, regardless of how rich their parents are. A study of 600 Dutch people around 50 years old found that those who had been bottle-fed had higher rates of risk factors for cardiovascular disease than those who had been breastfed. A meta-analysis of studies covering 69,000 children found that breastfeeding protects against obesity. It also appears to reduce the incidence of asthma, allergies, childhood cancers, diabetes, ear infections, Crohn’s and colitis (the references are on my website).

So how well do we do- About as badly as a developed nation can. In a recent survey of 16 European countries, the UK comes second to last, beating only Belgium. When our babies are six months old, just 21% receive any breastmilk, while in Norway the rate is 80%; 24% of British babies never taste breastmilk at all – in Norway it’s 2%. Remember this next time someone tells you that the rate can’t be increased because lots of women can’t produce milk. The constraint is not biological but political. The Norwegian government has passed laws that make breastfeeding as easy as possible: all women are entitled to a year’s maternity leave on 80% pay, and state employees are given special breastfeeding breaks.

Here we have been allowed to remain in an almost medieval state of ignorance. A survey by the Department of Health found that a fifth of women under 24 thought breastfeeding would ruin their bodies, and that women greatly overestimated the difficulties of producing milk. Perhaps most significantly, 34% believed that infant formula milks were ” very similar” to or ” the same” as breastmilk. A poll by Mori for the National Childbirth Trust found that about a third of women had received the impression that infant formula was ” as good as” or ” better than” breastmilk.

How could this idea have persisted, despite all that we now know about breastfeeding- Partly because the formula companies have been able to keep making bold claims about their products. In January the body that coordinates the enforcement of trading standards sent a letter to all the local authorities in the UK. It listed five kinds of claim that are not compliant with British regulations on selling infant formula. One of them was ” closer than ever to breastmilk” . Yesterday morning I bought three cartons of infant formula from my local co-op and chemist. On the front of Cow & Gate’s packet is ” Closer than ever to breastmilk” . SMA Gold is ” now even closer to breastmilk” , while Milupa’s Aptamil is ” the closest to breastmilk” .

The claim that ” prebiotics” support a baby’s ” natural defenses” is also ruled out. But yesterday I learned that ” babies thrive when their natural immune system is supported, so Cow & Gate babymilks are developed with special nutrients, such as prebiotics, that can do this. It’s our way of helping you to protect your baby.” The Aptamil packet claims that ” prebiotics … support your baby’s natural immune system” . It also made claims, about fatty acids, nucleotides and betacarotene, of the kind the letter warned against. All five of the examples listed in the letter, in other words, appear on just three packets. The packaging also seems to contravene a guideline laid down by the World Health Assembly in its international code on breastmilk substitutes: that containers should not show ” pictures or text which may idealize the use of infant formula” . The Aptamil box carries a picture of smiling faces hanging from a baby’s mobile. Cow & Gate’s carton has a cute picture of a teddy bear with a bottle, and SMA has a fluffy duckling sleeping with a contented smile.

Baby Milk Action contends that some companies have found a clever way of getting round the law banning adverts for infant formula. They legally advertise follow-on formula instead. The packets of infant and follow-on milk sit next to each other on the shelf and look very similar: the advertising for one product is likely to affect sales of the other. Campaigners point to some adverts that don’t make it clear which of the two products they are promoting. When Baby Milk Action complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, it was told that the authority won’t investigate unless the adverts specifically mention infant formula. Follow-on milk, according to the World Health Assembly, is unnecessary.

I would not suggest that a woman sees a fluffy duckling and thinks, ” Right, I’ll give up breastfeeding.” But if she is having trouble producing milk, the packaging appears to offer reassurance: ” Closer than ever to breastmilk” might sound close enough.

The law can be tightened, but only with your help. For the past three years, the Food Standards Agency – having at last got something right – has been pushing the European commission for tougher rules. Outgunned by corporate lobbyists, it has mostly failed. In December the commission issued a new directive that, far from banning the advertising of follow-on milk, appears to ban the banning of it. Though the commission’s own scientific advisory body says the manufacturers should remove all nutrition claims except ” lactose free” , the new directive would allow companies to make other statements for which the scientists say there is no evidence. An obscure rule allowed the commission to draw up the directive without consulting the European parliament. The bureaucrats and the corporate lobbyists have been unmolested by the interests of the hoi polloi, and it shows.

The British government has some discretion about how this directive will be passed into law, and the Food Standards Agency is currently drawing up a legal instrument for implementing it. But it has hit another obstacle: a corporate sleeper cell inserted into the heart of government by Tony Blair, called the Better Regulation Executive. Its function seems to be to block any rule that might interfere with a company’s ability to make money. Its executive chairman, William Sargent, previously ran a company which produces digital images for the advertising industry. Government officials report that Sargent is fiercely opposed to making the advertising rules any tougher than the directive requires.

Left to their own devices, our two prime ministers will put healthy profits ahead of healthy children. So they must not be left to their own devices. We have one chance, by lobbying Downing Street, to help the progressives in government to beat back the corporate yes men. We should use it.

Most people calculate the cost of baby formula by adding up the price of formula, feeding bottles and rubber nipples. They might also include the cost of sterilizing everything, which requires clean water and energy.

However, the real cost of baby formula includes the costs of increased risks for diseases that formula-fed children have, compared to breastfed children. These include medical care, medicine, hospitalization and time off from work that parents have to take to care for the sick child. Increased illness also impacts on the child’s growth and development. Finally, the manufacture and use of baby formula places a burden on the environment.

The World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and INFACT Canada have concluded that infants fed with baby formula have increased risks for:

Diarrhea and Pneumonia

Formula-fed babies have been shown to get sick twice as often and 3 times longer than breastfed babies. They also have increased risk of pneumonia and diarrhea. In contrast, exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life prevents at least 33 per cent of diarrhea cases.

Asthma

Babies fed infant formula have a 40-50 per cent higher risk of developing asthma and wheezing than infants breastfed for at least nine months.

Allergies

Children who were breastfed the longest in infancy had the lowest incidence of atop, eczema, food allergy and respiratory allergy.

Reduced Intelligence

Children who were formula-fed in infancy had lower IQ points than breastfed children. Greater differences were observed with children who were breastfeed longer.

Infection From Contaminated Formula

The International Food Safety Authorities Network says that it is not possible to manufacture sterile powdered baby formula. Therefore, the risk of contamination is always present. In fact, baby formula products are being recalled all the time, because of contamination with anything from molds to metal particles to bacteria.

Chronic Diseases

Children who receive little or no breast milk are at increased risk for becoming overweight and developing diabetes and cancers, including leukemia.

The true cost of baby formula cannot be counted in dollars and cents. It is not possible to calculate the cost of illness and even death of a child in a family. However, it must be considered that increased risk for illness and disease – even death – are part of the cost of baby formula. The loss of human potential in the form of potential intelligence that was not realized because of formula-feeding is another important and incalculable cost. Parents who want to make an informed decision on how to feed and nourish their children should be aware of the true cost of baby formula.

A two-year international investigation has revealed an increase in the number of stunted children in the occupied Palestinian territories and conditions so extreme that Palestinian women have on occasion been forced to give birth at Israeli military checkpoints.

A series of articles published today by the Lancet concludes that the occupation, the recent conflict in Gaza and inter-Palestinian fighting are undermining the health and development of the population. The best solution to health in the territories is peace and security under a sovereign Palestinian state, argue the authors, who are doctors and academics from Birzeit University in Ramallah and Oxford, with assistance from international health scientists, the World Health Organization and other UN agencies.

Since 2000, Rita Giacaman from Birzeit University and colleagues say, ” life for Palestinians has become much harder, more dangerous and less secure” . There is evidence that health gains during the 1990s are being eroded.

A humanitarian crisis had emerged in the Gaza Strip, ” intensifying as a result of the Israeli military invasion in December 2008 and January 2009, and because of destruction of homes and infrastructure, the death and injury of civilians and shortages of food, fuel, medicines and other essentials” , they say.

Infant mortality dropped between 1967 and 1987, but stalled between 2000 and 2006 at 27 per 1000 live births (the rate in Israel, they note, is 3.9 per 1000).

The rate of stunting – the failure of children under five to grow as they should – has gone up. In 1996, 7.2% of young children had stunted growth, but in 2006, the proportion had risen to 10.2%. ” Stunting during childhood is an indicator of chronic malnutrition, and is associated with increased disease burden and death,” the authors write. It can also result in damage to a child’s mental development and link to obesity and chronic diseases in adulthood. Between 1999 and 2003 rates of tuberculosis have risen by 58% and meningococcal meningitis by 53%.

In spite of substantial funding and efforts, the Palestinian ministry of health has been unable to build up the health systems, the authors say. Restrictions on the movement of goods and labor between the West Bank and Gaza and within the West Bank have been a problem, as has the emergence of two Palestinian authority health ministers, one in the West Bank and one in Gaza. The problems have been compounded by the political divide between Fatah and Hamas. The absence of Palestinian control over water, land and the environment as well as movement has made public health strategies difficult if not impossible. Dysfunctional political systems, corruption and cronyism are among the other factors that ” have adversely affected an already fragile health service” .

The second article in the series, by Hanan Rahim from Birzeit University, with colleagues from Qatar, Glasgow and Yale universities, finds that the restrictions on movement in the occupied territories have made it harder for women in labor to get to a maternity unit. ” Between 2000 and 2006, the ministry of health reported 69 cases of Palestinian women giving birth at Israeli checkpoints,” they write. Ten per cent of women in labor were delayed for two to four hours on the road to the maternity facility, whereas the average time without roadblocks was 15-30 minutes.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton said Israel’s demolition of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem was ” unhelpful” and a breach of the road map for peace.

The US secretary of state’s comments came after she held meetings with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and prime minister, Salam Fayyad, in Ramallah, on the occupied West Bank.

In today’s society, it has unfortunately become increasingly harder to keep up on the health and nutrition of the lifestyles of our children. French fries and potato chips are prepackaged and ready right there for your children to eat. Picking up fast food is quick and easy, much faster than cooking up something at home, but unfortunately it is extremely unhealthy for our kids. Fortunately, taking the initiative to living a happier, healthier lifestyle does not require completely removing the indulgence and simplicity of junk food from our lives.

Caffeine and sodas are a pretty good place to start. Children are drinking sodas at a younger and younger age and too much sugar and caffeine isn’t good for anyone. Sodas are where the majority of children get their caffeine intake and just eliminating or reducing them from your child’s diet can reduce their risks of obesity, cavities, caffeine addiction, and dehydration. Fruit juices, water, and milk are great and tasty alternatives to soft drinks, and slowly introducing them to your child is a great way to cut back on sugary soft drinks.

Portion control is another key factor in your child’s health. In today’s society, portion sizes are absolutely huge, and more parents are feeding children amounts of food very similar to what an adult should be eating. By serving food on smaller plates, not only does a smaller portion appear larger, but also you just can’t fit the larger amount on there. Making sure your children always get the kids meals at restaurants and fast food chains is also key. By teaching your children about portion sizes when they’re young, you’re instilling a healthy idea of just how much food is ” too” much for when they’re adults as well.

Children love sweets, heck, we all do, and it can be very hard to say no to your child when they’re only asking for a couple cookies! Unfortunately though, too many sweets can lead to major health problems, such as obesity and diabetes. Fortunately, introducing fruit as an alternative to sweets is a great way to cut back on these health risks. Fruits contain a lot of antioxidants and vitamins, making them a very healthy option, and their natural sugars make them sweet enough to be enjoyed by everyone. They are also colorful and pretty, and it can be a lot of fun spending time with your child creating colorful fruity desserts.

We are so busy these days, that while nothing is better or tastier than a homemade meal, we cannot completely cut out the option of fast food for our kids. Fortunately most chains have added alternative menu items with your child’s kids meal other than french fries and cola, such as fruit slices and milk. Whenever you need to buy fast food for your children, look for these healthier choices on the menu and get your son or daughter those instead.

Taking the steps toward a healthier lifestyle for your family doesn’t have to be difficult or immediate. Slow introduction to healthier lifestyle choices is always the best way to go about it, and it can actually be quite enjoyable when everybody gets involved! Child obesity is on the rise in America today, and helping to prevent your child from falling into the fad is growing ever more important.

George Bush yesterday used his presidential veto for only the fourth time in seven years to block legislation that would have given health insurance to millions of poor American children.

He announced his opposition to the expansion of an existing insurance program last month. The exercise of his veto power yesterday isolates the White House on the most pressing domestic issue for many Americans, and puts Mr Bush in conflict with Congress, where there was widespread Republican support for the legislation.

The legislation would have extended health cover to 10 million poor children, and would have cost $60bn (£29.5bn) over the next five years. It had widespread support outside Congress, from state governors and even the health insurance industry.

The White House argued that the program represented a stealth effort to bring in government health care, and would have extended coverage to middle class families as well as the poor. ” This legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction,” Mr Bush said yesterday. ” Under this bill government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children.”

Democrats said the veto demonstrated Mr Bush’s detachment from the American mainstream. ” The same president who is willing to throw away a half trillion dollars in Iraq is unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to bring health care to American children,” said Edward Kennedy, senator from Massachusetts.

Republicans feared the veto could hurt their prospects in next year’s elections.