Don't Put Breast Milk in Your Vagina or Armpit

In my past life as a radical crunchy mom, I thought breast milk could do anything. When my daughter got a little case of pink eye and I squirted breast milk into it, it cleared up almost immediately and I declared the treatment successful. Never mind, of course, that most cases of conjunctivitis in babies are caused by viruses or clogged tear ducts, and clear up on their own.

I wasn't the only mom who was amazed by the magical healing powers of breast milk. Online, I saw thousands of moms all across the world recommending it to treat... well, everything. And I mean everything.

Let's take this one list, for example, by a mommy-blogger who clearly had her granola laced. She suggests breast milk for the following uses, among a few dozen others:

In the Ear

..."put a few drops of breast milk in the ear canal every few hours. This usually works to clear up the infection within 24-48 hours and is far safer, less expensive and a better solution than putting the child on antibiotics"
In the Nose

"For congestion in adults, try putting breastmilk in a neti pot to flush your nasal passages. If you don’t have a neti pot, just put a few drops of expressed milk in the nose like you would saline."
On Contact Lenses

"Did you get something on your contact, but you don’t have saline solution handy? Clean it with some expressed breastmilk!"
In Your Armpits

"One of my readers shares that she uses breastmilk as deodorant. Just rub some milk on your clean underarms and let dry."
In Your Vagina

"Sexual lubricant- Express breastmilk and use it as you would any lubricant."
Most people are aware that breast milk is milk and not panchrest, but since a few of us made the mistake of drinking the breastmilk-blended Kool-Aid, here's a breakdown of why breast milk doesn't belong in your ear, nose, eyes, armpits, or bajingo.

Inflamed eye? Angry vagina? Infected ear canal?
Regardless of what the Eye of Sauron looks like to you, it's definitely not a place where breast milk goes. 

It's loaded with sugar. You know that whole thing about "human milk for human babies?" Well, there's a reason our milk is very different from, say, cows and goats. We make milk that has a high sugar content because lactose helps stimulate brain development and ensures that we feed our babies frequently. Breast milk is very sweet, which means that it tastes good to babies... and also to bacteria and yeast. After a couple of hours at body temperature, breast milk is going to invite all the yeast and germs in a hundred miles to a party in your crotch or sinuses. Gross.

It doesn't magically kill germs. It's true that the probiotics and antibodies in breast milk can help to fight infection in a baby's body. That's one of the reasons breastfeeding is so beneficial, especially in the first few days of life, when babies' immune systems are still immature. But that doesn't mean that expressed breast milk kills germs on contact and keeps them away. If it were truly inhospitable to bad bacteria, it would never spoil, but if you left your breast milk outside on a 99-degree day-- human body temperature-- it would no longer be something you'd want in your baby's body... or your own.

It's gonna stink. Breast milk has a nice smell, but please, for the love of all things holy, do not use it as a deodorant. Any mom who survived those first few days postpartum-- with milk leaking all over her shirt and a fussy baby who wouldn't let her shower-- can tell you that breast milk starts to smell after a while, just like any other kind of milk. You know: sour, acrid, and gag-inducing. If you do decide to put breast milk in your armpits, please do me a favor and stay a few feet away from me. I can do without the hugs, thanks!

It's not going to get to the infection anyway. Garlic oil, olive oil, coconut oil, vinegar, alcohol... There's a reason that putting things into your child's ear almost never works to treat an ear infection. Almost all ear infections in small children are in the middle ear or inner ear, not the ear canal. Ear drops can sometimes work to treat outer ear infections, but breast milk squirted into your child's ear  canal isn't even going to touch his middle ear or inner ear. So, even if breast milk actually were the Philosopher's Stone, it wouldn't do anything for an ear infection.

The bottom line? Breast milk is a wonderful thing to feed your baby, but it's not a good idea to run around sticking it into random orifices in your body.

Goat's Milk for Babies- A Deadly Mistake

"Human milk for human babies!"

That's the mantra of the crunchy community, for for good reason. Breast is best. Except in special cases, it is the ideal way to feed babies for at least the first twelve months of life. That's why I breastfed my oldest for two and a half  years and risked my life struggling to breastfeed my youngest. I'm in absolute agreement with my fellow crunchy moms that human babies are meant to drink human milk.

Human milk.

That means not cow's milk, soy milk, almond milk, rice milk, or goat's milk. What I can't understand is why so many of my fellow natural mamas agree with the first four but try to make an exception when it comes to goat's milk. Raw, unpasteurized goat's milk is widely touted as a safe and acceptable substitute for breast milk even though it is decidedly not human milk.

Goat's milk is made for this kid, not your kid.

Most moms I know who feed goat's milk do so because they believe it's similar to human milk and therefore more natural and healthy than formula. There's really no evidence to back this claim, though: goat's milk is much more similar to cow's milk than it is to human milk. After all, goats and cows are both cloven-hooved herbivores who give birth to young that can walk soon after birth. Goats and cows have wobbly, bleating babies with similar nutritional needs. A human babies' needs are unlike either.

Human babies, for example, are meant to have a diet high in sugars that support brain development but don't keep our babies full for very long. That's why lactose comprises 7% of human milk but only 4.1% of goat milk and 4.6% of cow's milk. Newborn calves and goat kids also need to grow very large bodies very quickly, so their milk is rich in protein: the milk of both goats and cattle is about 3.5% protein, compared to human milk, which is only 1% protein.

Maybe too much protein doesn't sound like a bad thing, but human babies' kidneys aren't mean to process that much protein at once, so drinking the milk of a cow or goat can be seriously damaging. The USDA warns that babies who drink these high-protein milks are at a very high risk of suffering from fatal damage to their kidneys because their little bodies just can't process it. When their little kidneys can't do their job of getting rid of acid in the body, it can also cause metabolic acidosis-- when their blood becomes dangerously acidic.

That's really just the beginning of it, though. According to a jarring case report by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which was released after a baby had several strokes after being given goat's milk, it can trigger many other life-threatening complications. Goat's milk doesn't contain the careful balance of electrolytes found in human milk, so babies given goat's milk sometimes suffer from serious electrolyte problems that can kill them. And, despite claims to the contrary, goat's milk is not hypoallergenic; it causes serious allergic reactions in many babies. Those can include anything from intestinal bleeding to horrible rashes to body-wide swelling and death.

Even if your baby is one of the lucky few who can process goat's milk with no problems, she won't get the nutrition she needs to thrive. Goat's milk doesn't contain nearly enough B vitamins or vitamin C to sustain a human baby, and unlike formula, it contains essentially no iron or vitamin D. Some moms try to address this by adding vitamins to make "homemade formula," but even in the best of circumstances, goat's milk can't emulate breast milk nearly as well as commercial formula can. 

My son had to be weaned at five months.
We switched to formula-- not goat's milk.

Goat's milk is dangerous for human babies even when it's been pasteurized, but it is even more deadly when it hasn't been processed or boiled. Proponents of goat's milk often believe that pasteurization is harmful, even though unprocessed goat's milk tends to be teeming with bacteria that, while often manageable for healthy adults, can be fatal to newborn babies. E. coli, which often winds up in milk of all sorts, causes severe diarrhea, while brucellosis-- which is nearly eradicated among vaccinated livestock but still pops up on Luddite farms-- has a death rate of about 1 in 50. Human milk and formula don't carry these risks.

Human babies are meant to drink human milk. When that's not possible, the only responsible thing that any parent can do is to feed them a commercially produced baby formula. Formula has been perfected over the course of the last century to be as close as possible to human milk. It may not be perfect-- breast will always be best-- but it has been fine-tuned and carefully engineered by the world's leading scientists, pediatricians, and nutritionists to provide the closest possible approximation to breast milk. It may not be "natural," but I'd rather have a living baby who drinks formula than a dead one who drank the milk of a free-range goat.

Don't Wait Too Long to Introduce Solid Food

One of the biggest weaknesses of the crunchy community is the constant struggle to one-up any medical recommendations. The evidence suggests that delayed cord clamping might be beneficial? Great, let's leave the placenta to rot. The AAP says that room-sharing is healthiest for babies? Let's demand bed-sharing for absolutely everyone, even when the mother is on Xanax and hydrocodone, and then blame the anti-cosleeping movement when a mom kills two babies in a row this way.  Experts recommend waiting until around six months to introduce solids? Well, let's go ahead and wait a year. 

I understand where the mistake comes from. After all, we do hear constantly that breast milk is ideal nutrition for babies for the first year of life. And we've heard that introducing solids too early can cause a variety of problems, including childhood obesity and the health effects that come with it. It's easy to infer from this information that it's safe and healthy to wait a full year before introducing solid food-- but that doesn't mean it's correct.

My son eating kale at seven months. He survived.

I've seen the scenario played out many times in breastfeeding support groups. A breastfeeding mom "hears" that it's best to wait as long as possible to introduce solid food, since breast milk is the perfect source of nutrition for babies and should be the primary source of nutrition in the first year. Yet, every mom I've known who has done this has ended up with the same thing: a baby who, by fifteen months or so, is suffering from failure to thrive and anemia. The mom almost always wants to know of "natural" ways to address this that won't compromise her breastfeeding relationship.

I might have been one of those moms if it hadn't been for the fact that both of my kids were positively insistent on eating solid foods before one year-- or even six months. My youngest, in particular, has demanded since four months of age that he absolutely must have whatever everyone else is eating. I'm lucky because of that, because the risks of waiting too long for solids can be serious.

You've probably heard that "food before one is just for fun," or some similar adage, from your pediatrician. About fifteen years ago, doctors started really emphasizing that babies should not be eating solids too early in life, because they were finding that babies who were given a lot of early solids (like cereal in their bottles at one month) were not healthy. And it's true that, for the most part, solids in the first year are for playing and learning. That doesn't make them any less important, though: knowing how to eat, and enjoy, healthy foods is critical. It's not good when your one-and-a-half-year-old doesn't like food at all and just wants to nurse, all because you thought that the "just for fun" meant that it was unnecessary.

Solids in the first year are also nutritionally pretty important, especially for breastfed babies. While breast milk is definitely the preferred and healthiest way to feed babies, it has its limitations. For one thing, most mothers' breast milk supply starts to even out at around six months. The babies' bodies need more and more calories, but their  mothers' breast milk production can't keep up. The result is that the little ones just don't get as much milk as they need, and after several months of this, they can stop growing or even sometimes lose weight.

Breast milk also contains almost no iron. Babies' bodies are prepared for this: they store up a lot of iron before birth and it keeps them going for several months. But midway through their first year of life, that iron starts to deplete and they need to be getting at least a little from their diets. It doesn't take much-- just a little bitty bit of cereal or prunes or greens or even beans-- but that small amount of iron is critical for keeping babies' brains and bodies developing normally. 

If you're breastfeeding, your baby should already be getting a vitamin D supplement, but on the off chance that you're for some reason not doing that, your little one needs to get vitamin D from his diet. A lot of baby cereals are fortified with vitamin D, as are baby yogurts. Introducing vitamin D-rich solids in the first year is absolutely necessary, especially for breastfed babies. 

Plus, while most moms believe that waiting to introduce solids will prevent allergies, science has actually found the opposite to be true. While pediatricians used to recommend delayed solids to prevent allergies, that recommendation may have actually caused more allergies. That's why, after a study in 2010 and several reviews that followed it, the AAP turned back on the delayed-solid recommendation and said that it's actually best to introduce food sooner rather than later.

So when should you feed solids? Your baby will probably let you know: he'll start grabbing food off your plate and generally showing interest in what the Big People are eating. The American Academy of Pediatrics further suggests looking for these signs:

• Your baby should be able to hold his head steady while he's sitting in a high chair.
• Babies who are ready for solids open their mouths when they see food, especially if you hold a spoon directly in front of their mouths.
• Your little one should swallow solids without much trouble. If he spits or gags, wait a few more weeks.
• Most of the time, babies aren't ready for solids until they're physically large enough: about 13 pounds. That means premies and low-birthweight babies might need to start solids a little later.

For most babies, those milestones are going to be reached at around six months, although any time between four and seven months can be considered normal. Before that point, the AAP strongly encourages moms to exclusively breastfeed if at all possible. After that, breast milk should still be the main staple of you little one's diet until at least his first birthday. But that doesn't mean that there's no point in giving him solids at all.

Breastfeeding is great. Breastfeeding exclusively for six months is even better. Giving mostly breast milk for at least one year is fantastic. However, it's not helpful to you or your baby to forgo solids entirely for a year or more. Not only does it not provide any benefits to either of you, but it can even be dangerous. Go ahead, guilt-free: give your baby solids when he's ready and when your pediatrician approves-- not when your Breast Buddies suggest it.

Camel Milk for Autism? Nah.

Every time we think we've seen and heard it all, there will be some new trendy wave in the alternative treatment of autism. These treatments range from the reasonable, like selective diets and experimental play-therapy, to the utterly bizarre, like crystal healing and "blood purification." The latest in bizarre autism treatment? Camel milk-- milk, from the teat of a camel, which costs more than its weight in gold in the U.S. Parents are claiming that camel milk has the ability to reduce the symptoms of autism or even cure it entirely. I'm not buying it. 

Camel milk as a treatment for autism is neither scientifically founded nor completely discredited. Overall, there are actually relatively few treatments for autism that are truly evidence-based. The Autism Science Foundation recommends only a few possible options-- including speech therapy, occupational therapy, applied behavioral analysis, and early intensive behavioral intervention-- for parents seeking to "cure" autism or reduce its symptoms. These treatments are backed by solid and extensive evidence showing that they improve function and quality of life for autistic children, with a low risk of any harmful side effects.

Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration has released many statements condemning the use of unproven and potentially harmful autism treatments. These, they say, can not only strip parents of much-needed money and resources, but can actually be harmful to children with autism, with some treatments actually causing life-threatening side effects. Although the FDA does not mention camel milk in particular, it does warn against any trendy treatment that hasn't yet been investigated by science: "The bottom line is this: if it's an unproven or little known treatment, talk to your health care professional before buying or using these products."

Camel milk is a bit different from an average unscientific "miracle cure," though, because it does carry a relatively low risk of side effects and, while evidence of its efficacy is limited, it's not entirely unavailable. One study published in 2013 in the journal Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, for example, found some pretty promising results. Compared to autistic kids given cow's milk as a placebo, autistic kids drinking camel's milk scored better on the well-known CARS (Childhood Autism Rating Scale) test. The scientists behind the study also documented that kids drinking camel's milk had less molecular cell damage than kids drinking cow's milk. The conclusion? "Our findings suggest that camel milk could play an important role in decreasing oxidative stress […] and improvement of autistic behaviour."

These findings are certainly promising, but that doesn't make them conclusive. One major problem with the study was the use of cow's milk as a placebo. Cow's milk contains more lactose than camel milk and also contains beta lactoglobulin and beta casein, the two main compounds responsible for milk allergy, which are not found in camel's milk. Combined, the compounds in cow's milk often cause stomach upsets in sensitive children, both on and off the autism spectrum, and these in turn can lead to behavioral and emotional problems. The authors of the study even acknowledged that many of the children being studied were known to be lactose intolerant or allergic to milk. With cow's milk as a placebo and many milk-intolerant participants, the study's findings could easily be rewritten as, "Autistic children with cow's milk allergies may be able to drink camel's milk instead."

But, with soy milk, almond milk, rice milk, and lactose-free cow's milk widely available, is there a good reason to spend a small fortune on camel's milk for autistic kids who can't drink cow's milk? There are tons of milk substitutes out there that are studied and safe alternatives to cow's milk. Besides, the study had far too few participants to draw any real conclusions. In medicine, for a treatment to be considered effective, it takes not sixty participants (the number of children involved in the camel's milk study) but tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. With only sixty participants, there's no way to know if the improvement among kids drinking camel's milk was coincidental or not.

Ultimately, if you can afford it and if it doesn't stop you from pursuing other well-established, evidence-based treatments, there's no harm in trying out camel's milk as an alternative treatment for autism in children. However, until a much larger and better-designed study has found that camel's milk can treat autism, I'll keep my money and spend it on treatments that are known to work... and maybe a carton of almond milk instead.