I’ve got a problem with the food system conversation in the U.S.  It neglects to include what I call the “first food”—breast milk—and emphasize the critical importance of breastfeeding. No conversation about equitable food systems can truly exist without including the first food and understanding how the racial and social inequities around breastfeeding adversely affect vulnerable populations.

If access to healthy food is a basic human right then doesn’t that right start at birth? Shouldn’t our smallest and most vulnerable citizens have fair and just access to the healthiest food for them?

Consider the facts: For the past 30 years, breastfeeding rates among black women, particularly those in underserved, food desert communities, have been significantly lower than all other ethnicities. In the U.S., African American infants are more than twice as likely to die before their first birthday than other infants. In some cities, the stats are even more sobering: Memphis, Tennessee ranks at the top of the list for infant deaths in American cities—where a baby dies every 43 hours.

A recent study [NS1] concluded that increasing breastfeeding rates alone could help close this racial gap across the board.  The many health benefits of breastfeeding, including an improved immune system and fewer ear and respiratory infections would address some of the leading causes of infant death in low-income communities.

In addition, several studies, including one by researchers at the University of Copenhagen show that breastfed infants are more likely to try new foods later in life. Because breast milk contains flavors from foods eaten by mothers, breastfed infants are exposed to a variety of tastes early in life. In contrast, artificial baby milk (formula) always tastes the same. These nuances are simple yet powerful steps that can lead to a greater likelihood for more varied and healthier food choices as an older child.

Given these sobering facts, it is hard to argue against the fact that by removing the barriers to access to the first food we can have a tremendous impact on infant nutrition and maternal health. And it is equally hard to understand why the food movement isn’t talking more about breastfeeding.

Instead, far too many babies are born into “first food” deserts, communities with limited breastfeeding resources and support.  The reasons why more African American women aren’t relying on the first food for their newborns are a multifaceted mosaic—ripe with politically nuances, deep racial undertones, social taboos, and complex cultural subtleties—similar to many other areas of the food systems work.

Some of the barriers may be related to historical trauma. During slavery, slave owners used and purchased black women as wet nurses for their own children, often forcing these mothers to stop nursing their own infants to care for others.

“On the one hand, wet nursing claimed the benefits of breastfeeding for the offspring of white masters while denying or limiting those health advantages to slave infants. On the other hand, wet nursing required slave mothers to transfer to white offspring the nurturing and affection they should have been able to allocate to their own children,” writes historian Wilma A. Dunaway, in the book The African American Family in Slavery and Emancipation.  And since breastfeeding reduces fertility, slave owners forced black women to stop breastfeeding early so that they could continue breeding, often to the health detriment of their own infants, Dunaway writes.

Although African American women had a stunted and complex breastfeeding experience at the hands of slave owners hundreds of years ago, that may still linger culturally today. Perhaps an unconscious legacy of thinking that breastfeeding is something we did for others and not for ourselves.

Then there’s something I call the National Geographic factor—that is, most of the images we see of black women breastfeeding are semi-naked women in Africa whose lives seem so far away from our modern, African American lifestyle and experience.

A lack of culturally competent breastfeeding resources in our communities also play a part.

Whatever the root causes, the correlative impact is clear: A woman is more likely to eat nutritious food when breastfeeding. Conversely, when a woman lives in a food desert and knows her diet is not and cannot easily be healthy, nutritious and affordable, she is less likely to breastfeed.

Our destinies are inextricably linked.

By breaking downs the racial and social barriers to the first food, we can give more infants a healthier and more equitable start in life; make the first food, fair food and improve the health of their mothers, too.

That would be true justice for all.

The Senate made substantial progress on the pending Food Safety Bill Wednesday. To move the sweeping food bill forward, the upper chamber voted 74-25 to limit debate, circumventing Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) objection.  And key stakeholders resolved the two controversial issues that have plagued the bill: bisphenol A and small farm exemptions.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) amendment–which originally aimed to ban the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, in all food containers, but had since been scaled back to only containers meant for infants and small children–was officially defeated.

“Unfortunately, the compromise agreement on a BPA amendment to the food safety bill has been blocked,” announced Feinstein on the floor of the Senate. Feinstein said she and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) had, after months of negotiation, finally reached a compromise that would have banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups and required the FDA to issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by Dec. 1, 2012.

That compromise was shut down by the leading chemical industry group, according to Feinstein.  ”Unfortunately it has become clear that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has blocked and obstructed the agreement from being added to the Food Safety Bill currently on the floor.”

“I regret that the ACC puts the sale of chemicals above the safety of infants and children,” she added. “The chemical lobby came in at the 11th hour opposing this ban.”

The ACC has maintained it should be up to the Food and Drug Administration, not Congress, to rule on BPA safety.

The Tester-Hagan Amendment, on the other hand, remains a real possibility. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) and supported by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), would exempt farms and food producers that either fit the FDA’s definition of “very small business,” sell most of their products directly to consumers, restaurants, or retailers within state lines or within 400 miles that have annual sales of less than half a million dollars.

Late last night, consumer groups and sustainable agriculture advocates, who have been at odds over the amendment’s language for months, reached a compromise that could be adopted into the manager’s package. Though the details are not yet public, the agreement is rumored to reduce the distance threshold and allow the FDA the ability to withdraw an exemption if a farm or facility is linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.

“We are happy with the outline of the final deal on the Tester-Hagan amendment,” Ferd Hoefner policy director of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said, adding that specifics of the deal were embargoed.

On Friday, leaders from the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced legislation to establish a federal ban on bisphenol A (BPA) in all food and beverage containers. The bills, which are identical, are sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

BPA—a chemical found in the linings of cans and in polycarbonate plastic, including some sports bottles, food-storage containers and baby bottles—has potential links to a wide range of health effects. The diseases and health effects to which BPA has been linked include an increased risk of diseases or disorders of the brain, reproductive and immune systems.

“The scientific evidence is mounting that BPA poses serious health risks, especially to children, and manufacturers and retailers have already started to pull items from their store shelves,” said Markey, reported Agence France-Presse. “It is time for Congress to act quickly to ban this toxin from all food and beverage containers so that parents can feed their children without worrying that the food contains poisonous chemicals.”

The federal legislation follows the March 3 unanimous decision by the Suffolk County, New York Legislature to ban BPA in all beverage containers for children under the age of three. Today, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy will hold a public hearing on this landmark legislation. Levy has until April 2 to either sign or veto the bill to sign the bill to make Suffolk County the first jurisdiction in the nation to effectively ban BPA.

“This legislation will set a new precedent and sends a strong message to FDA and to industry that consumers, like those in Suffolk County, want change now,” said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.

Consumers Union has repeatedly called on FDA to ban BPA materials in infant and children’s products and food and beverage contact containers. Recent studies have linked BPA exposure to problems with liver function testing, an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease and interruptions in chemotherapy treatment. A study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has shown that 93% of Americans excrete some BPA in their urine. New studies also show that BPA seems to stay in the body longer than previously believed.

In August 2008, the federal agency said BPA was safe for humans. But the agency only considered studies that had been financed by the plastics industry. At last month’s Science Board Hearing, FDA tacitly acknowledged the serious health concerns regarding BPA, but the agency continues to maintain the position that no public health safeguards should be implemented at this time.

Steven Stern, the Suffolk County legislator who sponsored the ban in that county, told the Associated Press that the FDA review prompted him to act. “We can’t wait. We don’t know how long it’s going to take.”

Several states, such as Oregon, Washington and California, and cities, such as Chicago, are also considering BPA bans as the FDA continues to research BPA while allowing the product to remain on the market. In 2008, the Canadian government banned its use in baby bottles. Major U.S. retailers, including Toys ‘R’ Us Inc. and Wal-Mart, already have removed products containing BPA from their shelves because of the growing controversy.

Shortly after the Suffolk County Legislature made its decision, six of the largest manufacturers of baby bottles—Avent, Disney First Years, Gerber, Dr. Brown, Playtex and Evenflow—decided they will no longer sell bottles made with BPA. The decision by manufacturers came after Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, joined by attorneys general of Delaware and New Jersey, wrote to the baby bottle companies urging them to stop using BPA because studies have linked the chemical to health problems in infants, including damage to reproductive, neurological and immune systems.

Almost immediately after this decision, gas and chemical giant Sunoco, acknowledging the safety concerns about BPA, announced they would restrict the sales of the controversial chemical in baby bottles and food containers for children under three. “We will no longer sell BPA to [Sunoco’s] customers who cannot make this promise,” Thomas Golembeski, head of public relations, wrote in a letter to two investors, according to the Associated Press.

While scientists continue to assess the health risks of BPA to consumers, the FDA is taking on a bigger risk by taking no action to protect the health and safety of consumers. Given the currently existing body of scientific knowledge about the health risks of BPA to consumers—and the growing consumer and industry movement again this chemical—the FDA should act immediately to protect high risk populations, such as children and babies, while it gathers more data.

Image: thesoftlanding