Usually Wednesdays are wordless on my blog and many others, but this Wednesday I want to bring you some incredibly important words. Alison from Nummies nursing bras put together a beautiful video where they asked moms if they could go back to right before they had their first child, what would they tell themselves. Check it out and share it with your new mom, old mom, and expecting mom friends.

If you are part of my network on twitter or facebook, you’ve probably seen this by now. But I know a lot of my readers aren’t and I wanted to be sure to spread the beauty of this video as far as possible.

For other inspiring pieces on motherhood that I’ve shared in the past, check out LIFE with Mother and Mom 2.0: A Defining Moment.

My kids both have a great little tasty package waiting for them in their lunch boxes today. It is the culmination of searching, testing, shopping, hinting, and baking.

So what are those, you may ask? They are mini nut-free granola balls, similar to the very unhealthy sugary processed packaged ones my kids constantly begged me to buy last year, except that these ones are:

• Made using a version of @missfish from a Peek Inside the Fishbowl‘s famous nut-free Healthy lunchbox granola bar recipe. I had the opportunity to test the recipe by proxy when @capitalmom baked these for a Kids in the Capital (@kidsincapital) play date. I made them myself last week and they turned out quite well. When I decided to make them again this weekend, I thought I would improvise and use a portion of the batter to make mini granola balls (about a centimeter or so in diameter, on parchment paper on a cookie sheet) and then put the rest in a square (instead of rectangle) pan. Instead of 1/2 a cup of raisins and 1/4 cup of cranberries, I used 1/2 cup of no-sugar-added cranberries and 1/2 cup of dark chocolate chips.

• Packed up in a Greentainer to cut down on waste. I purchased these at @spearso‘s store The Extraordinary Babyshoppe after Refashionista (@refashionista) told me on twitter that they had received a huge order of great stainless steel stuff at the store when I was asking for advice on where to buy eco-friendly lunch containers, lunch bags, and backpacks.

• Labelled with stickers from Mabel’s Labels (@mabelhood). This includes stickers with my kids’ names (on the lid – not shown) and a custom “Homemade and Nut Free” sticker from the Label Out Loud series that showed up in my mailbox after I put a few bugs in @mumby, one of the Mabel owners’ ear, on twitter and at BlogHer ’10.

My kids may not be using social media yet (thankfully), but as they bite into those yummy little circles tomorrow, they will certainly be appreciating it!

I’ve told you about how bad Nestle’s breastfeeding advice is. I’ve looked into the conflict of interest in Babble offering a breastfeeding guide that is sponsored by Similac’s feeding hotline and WebMD offering a breastfeeding guide that is sponsored by Nestle’s Gerber Good Start.  If this is bad, what is good? Is it possible for a company or publisher to offer breastfeeding support and resources without having unethical sponsorship from an infant formula company? Why yes, it is.

Evenflo, the only bottle company that I am aware of that complies with the WHO Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, has a Breastfeeding Support and Information page on its website. It also sends a hard copy of these resources out with some of its products (I received one in the packaging for a breast pump that I reviewed). Rather than linking to formula companies or talking about how you will need to introduce a bottle at some point (some parents do, but not all need to), they refer their customers to trusted third parties.

In addition to that, long before these “bad” breastfeeding guides came out, I agreed to help Heather and Whitney from Rookie Moms to compile a list of breastfeeding resources for rookie moms. Today they published their breastfeeding resources for rookies, along with my recommendations. I would encourage you to check it out.

Companies and publishers that truly want to help mothers breastfeed should seek out the best sources on breastfeeding and refer their readers to them. They should not simply seek out the ones that are willing to pay the most to have their flashy ads splattered all over the page. Don’t you think?

Image credit: Daquella manera on flickr

Yesterday I wrote about Babble.com conflict of interest in allowing sections of its Breastfeeding Guide to be sponsored by Similac. I know that formula companies engage in predatory marketing practices on a regular basis, but I hoped that Babble was an exception in terms of taking them up on their offer to sponsor a breastfeeding guide.

Turns out I was wrong. I was informed by Elita from Blacktating and Kelly from Kellymom on facebook, that the WebMD Breastfeeding Guide is sponsored by Gerber Good Start (one of the Nestle brands).To some extent, I find this more reprehensible than the Babble/Similac sponsorship, since WebMD pretends to be a medical website versus just being a magazine style fluff website (but at least they aren’t suggesting parents call Gerber for breastfeeding help…what was Babble thinking? GAH!).

How many Gerber ads can you count on that page? I count at least 6.

As with Babble, WebMD insists that content and advertising are separate. However, like with Babble, the breastfeeding advice is far from stellar.  For example, in their Expert Q&A Tips on Breastfeeding, there are sentences like:

• “In terms of how often and how long to nurse, I advise new moms to do 10- to 15-minute sessions on each breast. At the same time, I encourage them to nurse frequently — every three to four hours or so — to build up milk supply. Also, colostrum, the early milk, is very nourishing, so I like to see the baby get plenty of that.” [NOTE: How about nursing on demand? Best way to get supply established and baby nursing well]
• “Nipple confusion is actually pretty uncommon” [Not really]

I’m sure others can find plenty of other examples, but those are two I pulled from just looking at one article for less than five minutes. I didn’t even bother clicking through to the Gerber stuff, because I know how horrible Nestle’s breastfeeding advice is.

Taking action

Do you want to let WebMD know what you think of its breastfeeding advice and/or its partnership with Gerber (Nestle)?

• Contact WebMD: I can’t find contact info for the editors of the Breastfeeding Guide or the Health and Baby Center that it is part of. Nor can I find contact info for the CEO Wayne Gattinella. If anyone else can, please let me know and I’ll update the post. There is, however, a generic contact form for Web MD where you can send an e-mail. They must get a lot of questions about their sponsors, since there is a link to info on that right on the contact form.

• Post on facebook: Post on WebMD’s facebook page letting them know what you think of their breastfeeding guide being sponsored by a formula company. They don’t seem to allow wall posts, but they do allow comments on their postings, so I guess posting on a somewhat related or unrelated article is the only option. Updated to add that if you “Like” the WebMD page, you can create and/or participate in a discussion. There was a discussion started there on this issue and you can add your thoughts to it.

• Blog it: Write something on your own blog, tweet about it, or write a facebook note.

Any other suggestions? Let me know. There has to be a way to stop this incredibly unethical and predatory infant formula marketing on websites pretending to offer breastfeeding support. It is sickening.

If you wanted to eat a healthy lunch, but had a craving to scarf down two Mars bars instead, would you call the Mars company for advice on how to curb your cravings? If you were trying to get in shape and exercise, but didn’t feel like going for your morning run, would you call your couch potato friend who always tries to convince you to skip your workouts and join her on the couch? If you were struggling to remain faithful to your spouse, would you call the hot guy who is always flirting with you at work for advice? If you were struggling with breastfeeding, but really wanted to continue, would you call an infant formula manufacturer for advice? I hope the answer in all cases is an emphatic “NO!”

But if you were an online media property that is trying to turn a profit, would you be willing to sell-out your breastfeeding readers, by feeding them a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Would you be willing to partner with Similac, an infant formula company, on your Breastfeeding Guide?

I wouldn’t. But apparently Babble and Similac see nothing wrong with this scenario.

Most of us (including Dou-la-la and I) realize that infant formula companies are not really there to support breastfeeding moms, they are there to sabotage them. The Similac sponsorship of the Babble guide goes beyond simple advertising and takes things to a whole new level. The Common Breastfeeding Problems section of the Breastfeeding Guide is clearly marked as being “brought to you by Similac“. It includes a large banner at the top encouraging you to call a Feeding Expert for your baby’s breastfeeding problems. They indicate that “lactation consultants” are available, but I doubt they are International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLC), since their Code of Ethics would prevent them from working for an infant formula company. The huge ad to the right of the content even encourages you to enter your mobile number so that someone from Similac can text you their phone number, but who knows what else they will do with your phone number.

Want to take action?

If you want to take action against this ridiculous pairing, I have a few suggestions.

Mystery Calls to Similac

The information in Babble’s breastfeeding guide is lightweight at best and doesn’t even begin to provide true guidance for dealing with breastfeeding problems. So if you are left wanting more, you may be tempted to pick up the phone and call that number for Similac, especially when they are promising lactation consultants and the text of the guide tells you over and over to contact a lactation consultant.

But what is the quality of the advice you would be getting?

I know a few people who have called already today and I have been told that the advice they were given was not necessarily wrong, but it also wasn’t complete. They would give people one small tip that might help with a problem, rather than truly assessing the problem or giving full information on possible solutions to the problem.

Do you want to test the quality of the advice that Similac is giving?

If you do, here is what I would suggest:

• Go to the Common Breastfeeding Concerns section of the kellymom.com website (a good resource for breastfeeding problems, unlike the Similac/Babble content) and pick a breastfeeding concern. Read up on it.
• Then call the Similac number and ask them your question (e.g. “Why are my nipples sore after months of pain-free nursing?” or “How can I increase my baby’s weight gain?” or some other typical or not so typical question).
• When you are done, come back and leave a comment here indicating what advice Similac gave and how it compared to the information on the kellymom website. In particular, if they ever mention trying formula or why their formula is the best, be sure to note that.

Tell Babble this is not appropriate

For Similac and the other infant formula companies, this is nothing new. They will do anything they can to get breastfeeding moms to call them and talk to them. They would love nothing more than to have moms think that they will get good breastfeeding advice from them, while attempting to subtly sabotage their attempts at breastfeeding (see, for example, the quality of breastfeeding advice offered by Nestle). So telling them what you think of their marketing campaign may not get you very far.

However, as I’ve said before, it may be more effective to express our concerns to the intermediaries that help formula companies spread their message.  So tell Babble that you do not think it is appropriate for them to have a Breastfeeding Concerns section that is sponsored by Similac because it is deceptive and because it violates the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes.

You can do this by:

• Sending an e-mail to Babble: Send an e-mail to the Babble CEO Rufus Griscom at rufus@babble.com and copy Alisa Volkman at advertising@babble.com (she is listed on their website as being the contact for advertising).

• Expressing your concern on Babble.com’s Facebook page:  Tell Babble what you think of its infant formula sponsored breastfeeding guide by leaving a comment on the wall of the Babble Facebook page. You will have to become a “fan” of Babble to be able to leave a comment and need to go to the “Babble.com + Others” tab to see what people are saying about Babble.

I truly hope that this was a mistake by someone who obviously doesn’t understand the role that infant formula companies play in trying to sabotage breastfeeding women and that once it is pointed out to them, that they will take down that section and consider linking to some real breastfeeding support websites like La Leche League or Kellymom or others.

Help spread the word

Please help inform people that breastfeeding support from a formula company is not okay and encourage them to put pressure on Babble too by sharing this post with your friends on facebook, twitter, StumbleUpon and elsewhere.  Just click on the Share button at the bottom of this post for options on where to share it.  Thank you.

]]> http://www.phdinparenting.com/2010/09/03/similac-and-babble-team-up-to-dupe-breastfeeding-moms/feed/ 185 http://www.phdinparenting.com/2010/09/03/similac-and-babble-team-up-to-dupe-breastfeeding-moms/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/phdinparenting/~3/UcmOc5x-V9c/ http://www.phdinparenting.com/2010/09/01/wordless-wednesday-still-baby-wearing-at-3-5-years/#comments Wed, 01 Sep 2010 04:01:12 +0000 phdinparenting http://www.phdinparenting.com/?p=5264

I certainly don’t wear her everyday anymore, but on a challenging hike through rough terrain, she still gets to ride. Our go to carrier at this point for longer walks is the Catbird Baby Pikkolo.

(Yes, I’m a bit red in that last picture. That was quite a climb with an extra 37 pounds on my back.)

Photo credit: Our friend Derek who joined us on the hike

Disclosure: Catbird Baby is an advertiser on my site. However, this is not a paid post and I have owned this carrier (which I paid for myself) since before I even started this blog.

As an agnostic humanist and mostly probably atheist, there are a lot of things about religion that I think are worth questioning. If there is anything I believe firmly, it is that everything is worth questioning, including religious beliefs and practices. That doesn’t mean that I dismiss all religions or religious people as being worthless and wrong. But it does mean that I judge individuals by their own beliefs, actions and values and not by those of others who carry the same label.

In in the introduction to his book Parenting Beyond Belief, Dale McGowan (who also blogs at The Meming of Life) writes about religious and secular co-existence. His clear explanation is today’s quotable:

In the Preface to this book, I said that I had “set religion aside.” Actually, that’s a bit like saying someone who rides a bike to worh has set traffic aside. I’m still in it, still surrounded by it, and I always will be. Religion, for better or worse, is likely to be a permanent part of the human world. Our job as secular parents is not to work toward a religion-free world, but to help our kids learn to happily and peacefully co-exist with religion.

Co-existence does not mean silent acceptance of all consequences of religious belief. To the contrary: Silence and inaction in the face of dangerous immorality is itself immoral. We have to engage religious people and institutions in just the way we wish to be engaged ourselves, as co-participants in the world. We should reasonably but loudly protest the intolerance, ignorance, and fear that is born of religion while at the same time reasonably and loudly applauding religious people and instititutions whenever charity, tolerance, empathy, honesty, and any of our other shared values are in evidence. An important part of this is recognizing that not all expressions of religion and not all religious people are alike. Be sure to help kids recognize that the loudest, most ignorant, and most intolerant religious adherents – whether raving radical muslim clerics or raving radical Christian televangelists – do not represent all believers, nor even the majority. Though institutional religion itself is an unfortunate thing, the majority of individual believers are decent and thoughtful people with whom we have more in common than not. Saying that to yourself once in a while, and to your kids, can move the dialogue further forward than just about anything else.

The vision we should encourage in our children is not a world free of religion but one in which no idea or action is granted immunity from discussion and critique – including, of course, our own.

I thought this quote was particularly pertinent in light of all of the recent discussion about Mosques at Ground Zero. I also think it is relevant when we are condemning stoning someone to death, circumcising infants, or teaching children that evolution is “just a theory.” These acts, which could all be considered immoral (although not equally so) and which are all done in the name of religion, are all worth condemning. But it doesn’t mean that every Muslim, Jew or Christian is an immoral person or is guilty of immoral acts. Just as not everyone who worships or practices a religion is a terrorist. In fact, I think a Mosque at Ground Zero would create a unique opportunity for a group of Muslims to condemn and distance themselves from the horrible acts committed on 9/11 while promoting greater tolerance and co-existence with other religious cultures.

I believe that religion is dangerous when its followers, either by force or by choice, do not question the beliefs and rules that are handed down. Our world is evolving and religion, if it is to survive, needs to evolve too.  That will only happen if people with different beliefs can sit together and learn about each others’ beliefs and remain open to a critique of their own beliefs. It will only happen if we can learn to see individuals as individuals, instead of assuming the best or the worst about someone, based on the actions of the best of worst people of the same faith.

For that reason, I am very supportive of the Ethics and Religious Culture curriculum that was introduced in the Province of Quebec a few years ago and that replaces the previous option of either Protestant or Catholic moral and religious education. The new curriculum is a non-confessional program that is used all the way through elementary school and high school and that allows children to:

acquire or consolidate, if applicable, an understanding of how all individuals are equal in terms of right and dignity

learn to reflect on issues

explore, depending on his/her age, different ways in which Québec’s religious heritage is present in his/her immediate or broader environment

learn about elements of other religious traditions present in Québec

grow and develop in a society in which different values and beliefs coexist

Children that have been through that program, whether Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, Atheist or Buddhist, Pagan or Kuksu, or just entirely unsure, should be more prepared for peaceful co-existence than those who only learn one world view.

Parents who want to teach their children about co-existence can:

• use the materials on from the Ethics and Religious Culture curriculum
• read books such as Dale McGowan’s Parenting Beyond Belief and the companion practical manual Raising Freethinkers
• read blogs such as  The Meming of Life and Raising Three Thinkers
• make friends with people from different religious backgrounds and share traditions with each other
• visit museums, read books, and participate in cultural events that teach about diversity

I’m sure there is more that they can do. I’m sure that there is more that they should do. But mostly, I think that people need to refrain from making assumptions about someone’s character or motives based on their religion alone. If we treated people like people and modeled that for our children rather than spewing intolerant remarks at the dinner table or on the evening news, that would be a step in the right direction.

I read a lot of books, newspapers, blogs, and journal articles. Sometimes I have the time and inclination to write a book review or a detailed deconstruction of something I have read. Sometimes I don’t. But that doesn’t mean the other things I read are not worth discussing. Many of them are very worthy of discussion. So I’ve decided to start a series called quotable, where I will grab a paragraph from something I’ve read and initiate a discussion on it. I hope you’ll enjoy it.

Today’s quotable is from the third edition of The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business by Gabrielle Palmer (if you want to learn more about the book, you can read the review of it by Elita from Blacktating). This book was first written in 1998 and was most recently updated in 2009.

From Chapter 1: Why Breastfeeding is Political in the section who profits?:

A doctor who invents a new artificial milk may get a royalty on each batch sold. Those who support breastfeeding and see a conflict of interest in industry links will rarely get as rich as those who have close ties with a powerful company. Our current economic structure does not encourage the promotion of products or systems which provide long-term benefit and do not make rapid financial profits. As with so many of the biological solutions to the ecological devastation of the planet, the money makers would not benefit immediately if we adopted them, though in the long term the world and all society would be wealthier.

…

One sad fact of the 20th century was that the more contact mothers had with health workers, the less they breastfed. Industrial society is founded on technological solutions and indifference to the costs of primary extraction; it is often easier, and more lucrative, to work out a stopgap way of alleviating a problem than to discover why it occured in the first place. Now that researchers have revealed the risks of not breastfeeding, there is no excuse for the medical and commercial promoters of substitute milks to continue their practices, but many are so caught up in the whirlwind of career progress and profit-seeking that they seem unable to stop to review the damage they do.

…

If society were organised so that the true baby milk manufacturers, women, earned the rewards they deserve for their production, the baby food industry would dwindle and much of the poverty that causes infant disease and death would disappear.

Whether we are talking about breastfeeding instead of manufactured artificial baby milk, fresh food from the garden instead of processed food full of all kinds of unhealthy ingredients, playing outside in the natural environment versus stocking up on plastic toys, the people manufacturing the unhealthier alternative have a vested interest ($$$) in convincing you to buy it. In a lot of cases, our own lack of confidence, love of shopping, and search for convenience means that we reach for the product on the shelf instead of considering the better (healthier, more environmentally friendly) option.

Is there any hope for us humans? Can we change?

I’ve grown up with a love of water. Swimming in it, boating on it, relaxing near it, drinking it. Water brings me peace and gives me life. I’ve often taken water for granted — both the free water that I have such easy access to and the affordability and convenience of bottled water.

I’ve made a lot of changes in terms of my relationship with water and I could be more vigilant yet. To motivate myself and hopefully to educate and motivate others, I’ve decided to share what I’ve learned along the way as part of the Healthy Child Healthy World blog carnival on clean water and air solutions.

Water as a human right

In July 2010, the United Nations declared clean water to be a fundamental human right. According to a BBC article on the topic “about 1.5 million children under five die each year from water and sanitation-related diseases” (many of them drinking infant formula that has been mixed with dirty water) and “884 million people have no access to safe drinking water and more than 2.6 billion lack access to basic sanitation.”

According to the World Health Organization‘s (WHO) publication The right to water, ensuring that access to clean water is a human right is essential to ensuring that it becomes a reality. Water as a right should mean that:

fresh water is a legal entitlement, rather than a commodity or service provided on a
charitable basis;

achieving basic and improved levels of access should be accelerated;

the “least served” are better targeted and therefore inequalities decreased;

communities and vulnerable groups will be empowered to take part in decision-making
processes;

the means and mechanisms available in the United Nations human rights system
will be used to monitor the progress of States Parties in realizing the right to water
and to hold governments accountable.

Canada, apparently out of concern over its sovereignty over its natural water supply, abstained from the vote on the United Nations motion (which did pass), despite the fact that Canadian water activists say the resolution does not put Canada on the hook for sharing its water resources (source: Montreal Gazette).

This United Nations resolution is important because the availability of a clean water supply is still so uneven around the world, as can be seen in this graph from the WHO’s The right to water:

Access to clean water “on tap” is something we take for granted. According to the WHO, when water is provided through a tap in the home, water consumption is around 50 litres per person per day and many households use, for example, up to 30 times more water for child hygeine compared with communities where people have to collect that water from a communal source. Our household consumption of water from our taps could certainly decrease (see Crunchy Domestic Goddess’ Five Minute Shower Challenge if you want to try to decrease water consumption in your home).

Although we should reduce our household consumption of water overall, there is one exception. We should be turning our taps on more often to drink up instead of reaching for a bottle from the fridge.

Risks of bottled water

There is a huge market for bottled water. People now understand that it is healthy to drink water and they are decreasing their intake of other beverages in favour of water. Bottled water is convenient and people assume it is better and safer than what comes out of their taps. However, just like the promotion of infant formula (versus breastmilk), the promotion of bottled water comes with a huge advertising budget and a vested interest in trying to convince you that the free stuff isn’t good enough. But just because an argument has lots of advertising dollars behind it, doesn’t mean it is true.

According to the Mother Nature Network‘s (MNN)article 5 reasons not to drink bottled water, bottled water sales worldwide amount to between $50 and $100 billion annually and are increasing at an annual rate of 7 percent. This is shocking considering the downside of bottled water.

According to MNN’s article, the 5 reasons (described and substatiated in detail in their article) not to drink bottled water are:

1. Bottled water isn’t a good value
2. No healthier than tap water (and in some cases may even be riskier)
3. Bottled water means garbage
4. Bottled water means less attention to public systems
5. The corporatization of water

There are other great articles on this topic too, including Food and Water Watch‘s Get the Facts on Bottled Water (includes a great video) and the New York Times Bad to the Last Drop by Tom Standage.

Better than bottled

We should be drinking water. Adults and children alike should be decreasing their consumption of sugary and caffeinated beverages and replacing them with water. We should decrease our consumption of bottled water, but that doesn’t mean reaching for a bottle of Coca Cola or even a bottle of orange juice instead.

As an alternative to buying bottled water, people should consider the many benefits of purchasing a refillable stainless steel water bottle. Not only will you save money and avoid the other risks of bottled water mentioned above (such as endocrine disruptors leaching from plastic bottles), but you’ll be making a much smarter and more sustainable choice. If you like your water colder than it comes out of the tap, purchase several stainless steel bottles so that you can keep a few in the fridge.

Some people may worry about the pollutants that are in their tap water and in some cases they would be right to worry (more action is needed on this front). But if you educate yourself about the water quality in your area (U.S. only) and look into water filtration options, you’ll be much better off than purchasing a bottle of water than could come from an unknown tap source and be contaminated with unknown substances.

Fill up at the tap and put your money somewhere better

I mentioned above that the worldwide spending on bottled water is between $50 and $100 billlion annually and growing at 7 percent each year. I also mentioned the water crisis facing much of the developing world. Consider this:

Clean water could be provided to everyone on earth for an outlay of $1.7 billion a year beyond current spending on water projects, according to the International Water Management Institute. Improving sanitation, which is just as important, would cost a further $9.3 billion per year.  (ref:  Standage, Bad to the Last Drop, New York Times)

Imagine how much good we could do if instead of increasing our consumption of bottled water by 7 percent each year, we found a way to decrease it by 7 percent each year? What if we took the money we would have spent on bottled water and instead donated it to water and sanitation projects in countries in need? All it should take, theoretically, is one year of reversing the trend to ensure that clean water and improved sanitation is available around the world.

We should do this, as individuals, but our governments should be doing this too. According to Inside the Bottle, the Government of Canada spent over $5 million in a five year period buying tap water for locations that have access to safe tap water. The government’s purchase of bottled water increased about 70 percent between 2003 and 2009.  Just as individuals could opt to spend less on bottled water and put it towards water projects in developing countries, so too could the Government of Canada.

So grab a reusable water bottle. Fill it up at the tap. You’ll be doing your health and finances a favour, you’ll be doing the environment a favour, and if you do find a way to donate some of the money you saved to water projects in the developing world, you’ll be helping those less privileged than us access the most basic of human rights.

I already try to do this, but I’ll be trying even harder. I already use a stainless steel water bottle or a glass all the time at home and at work and I send them with my kids to school and carry them in my bag when we go out. But there still are times when we’ll crack open a bottle of water because we forgot our own or because we weren’t thinking. I’d like to eliminate those scenarios as much as possible and I’d also like to reduce my purchase of non-water bottled drinks (e.g. juices, soft drinks).

I’ll be trying harder. Will you join me?

Image credit: greekadman on flickr

P.S. – Do you know a Mom on a Mission? Healthy Child Healthy World wants to honour special and inspiring women in the United States who are dedicated to creating healthier and happier environments for children and families. Nominations close very soon! Get your entry in by August 31, 2010.