Monday, April 29, 2013

Circumcision: When Surgery is a Snip on a Board

Submitted 4-29-2013 © Sanfis Daly 2013




Contrary to popular claims, circumcision isn't a quick snip of dangling skin. Yes, it's performed on a very small person, hence a small body part. But it's actually quite major surgery if you think about it:

First, the organ has to be separated from the penis. As in, ripped away, since the body has a natural adhering mechanism similar to the way your fingernails are adhered to your nailed. Then the organ is clamped, then slit down and around. This has to be done by eye, since the retracting design of the foreskin organ is not "marked" on the penis. It's like "penis skin" as my brother in law calls it. How much of the penis do you want to take off for your son? Well, the doctor decides that in the moment.

Then the surgical wound has to be belled, clamped or stitched. The now-exposed penis is an internal organ, so it then has to successfully alter in thickness and cellular development to protect itself from being exposed for a lifetime. Imagine your eyes without eyelids and what they would have to do to continue functioning properly and without pain.

Finally, because circumcision removed the functioning organ protecting the penis, this means all of the other systems involved were destroyed as well. So the immune protection (such as the Langerhans cells) for the penis is now missing, along with the moistening membranes and healthy bacterial flora. You know how women are discouraged from douching frequently or they might irritate and strip their natural flora? The circumcised baby boy is now in a permanently stripped state.

What's most interesting about this surgical style is that all of what I described is performed on a neonate, the term describing an infant within the first 28 days of life. Neonates are fragile in the context of surgical procedures. They can't be safely anesthetized and any complication, infection or adverse reaction to medication is going to be more serious and potentially permanently damaging or fatal. And yet in addition to the heightened risk on these fragile people, the surgery is performed unlike any other surgery out there.

The babies are simply tied down to a plastic board, a basic sheet placed over the body to protect from blood sprays/drops and then off the surgeon goes into this delicate and dangerous surgery. Can someone tell me the last time they had an adult surgery like this? Even going to the dentist for oral surgery, you are hooked to a blood pressure cuff and monitored, after a thorough history is taken to ensure you won't react to medications. (Not that anyone knows the history for newborns as they are new.)

Where is the blood pressure cuff for the baby tied down on the board? Where is his heart monitor? Was he screened for heart defects and blood clotting disorders before surgery? Was he screened for allergies to anesthetics? Was he examined to rule out PID (primary immune deficiency) or other autoimmune or congenital disorders that would make an infection more likely and more severe, or harder to treat? 

Where is the carefully marked design of how much of the organ to remove, and from what area on his genitals? What other surgery relies fully on the doctor's hand and personal opinion without guide, laser, computer analysis or even parental confirmation since the boy can't give his consent or review the "finished" product? What kind of circumcision is he getting exactly?

The next time you think circumcision is a little snip, take a moment to ponder these questions. If you get more and better care as an adult going into the dentist to remove a rotten tooth, then your baby has been cheated out of not just his healthy organ and human rights, but his right to a safe, sterile and monitored surgery.

Want to learn more about baby circumcision? This article lists everything from medical literature to educational videos.

Sanfis Daly, father to three and owner 
works to provide a different perspective 
about genital mutilation in America, 
drawing on his background in biology and 
experience as a circumcised male and father. 

Some of his other writings include:

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Sh!t People Shout About Breastfeeding

After fielding several questions on tandem nursing and then being tagged in another tandem nursing status, I posted photos on the page to celebrate this method of breastfeeding. As the pictures spread out over Facebook, they attracted people who had never seen or heard of this method before. And, surprisingly, a lot of ignorance.

Where do people come up with these outlandish statements? How do they type them out without thinking about what they are saying?

1. "If the kid has teeth, he shouldn't be on a breast!" So what about newborns born with teeth? Yes, it happens. Besides which, many babies get teeth early, and lots. Is the weaning age now based on when the first tooth arrives? My kids had teeth by 2 months, 3 months and 5 months each. And then got two teeth every month or so after that. My 1 year old has 16 teeth. No milk for him? So much for calling them milk teeth.

2. "If the kid can ask for it, he's too old for it!" So what about babies who talk early? I mean REALLY early. Don't believe me? Go search youtube for all the home videos showing infants saying words, names, even asking questions at super young ages. Besides, which, many infants DO learn basic words or talk well before a year. My daughter began talking in 2 word sentences by 9 months. And what is meant by "asking" for milk? Doesn't every baby, even right after birth, ask for milk? Don't they cry, squirm, root and try to communicate quite clearly what they want?

That's not the real issue with this claim, though, is it? The real issue is that for some reason, we're expected to deprive our children right when they request it. Right when a child is asking for something, that's the time to take it away! BAD CHILD! No milk for you! I suppose that's what we do when our children ask for bedtime, potty and broccoli, too?

3. "Just pump and feed it to her in a cup!" Yes, let's completely abolish the excellent and efficient transfer system already in place and working thanks to evolution/design. I know! In addition to all the rest of what parents do, we should take a working breast and add more work to it! Besides which, this claim is insinuating that breastfeeding is purely functional and philosophically ascetic. That'd be like telling someone to only have sex when ovulating and the rest of the time, better use a sex toy instead of the real thing.

4. "How evil of you to force your toddler/child to breastfeed!" This one causes even more shock not because it attempts to deride the parents, but because it often comes from people claiming to be parents themselves. Surely anyone who has EVER parented, nay, even babysat a toddler understands that you can't take a toddler with a mouth full of sharp teeth and force that toddler onto a sensitive breast. You're kidding me. Women would rather sky dive into an empty pool.

5. "That's perverted!" Actually, what's perverted is that you think it's perverted. And by saying that you think it's perverted, you've alerted me to how perverted you are to even think about it in that way. Get it? Stop and think about it, you pervert.

6. "You're destroying them psychologically!" Well, since we've dealt with the funny claim of forcing children to breastfeed, this one gets harder to understand. A child and mama, mutually desiring to continue breastfeeding...that conjures up all kinds of images about psychological destruction? Why, yes, every time a child chooses to latch onto the breast and drink milk while cuddling with his mama, he is being destroyed! Meanwhile, let's not all get up in arms over the children being beaten, raped, starved, tied up in closets and killed. Theirs is a less horrifying plight.

7. "That's weird!" I could use this one to talk about how culture shapes our opinions or how we need to get out and explore. But, I'd rather just say: What rock did you climb out from again? The one where you point and stare, and say rude things to display your cultural ignorance publicly?

8. "You're going to hell." This one is perhaps the best of all, seeing as how the entire Bible appears to be one, big lactating obsession. Seriously, consider reading it some time if you don't believe me. God is compared to a breastfeeding woman and people who follow him will be comforted "as a mother comforts her child at her bosom." Even characters in the Bible are referenced as breastfeeding long beyond age 1. Also, re-read #7.

9. "I can't believe you'd keep doing THAT when we have substitutes. We're not in a third world country you know." (I'll ignore the elitism). Yeah, I've always wanted to stop something that is working and choose a random substitute instead. (Especially a substitute that costs money!) Instead of feeding my child milk from ME, I'll just pay money to feed him milk from another animal. The nonsense is mind boggling. Even if the nutrition were comparable, and it's absolutely not lol, this also ignores everything else about breastfeeding.

10. "Those dogs aren't 4 years old!" Dog years, human years, ever heard these terms before?


What common breastfeeding ignorance have you heard? Feel free to share what you've heard in the comments and try to keep your wits about you when dealing with this stuff!

Thursday, April 11, 2013

The State of Jewish Intactivism in the USA and Israel



The State of Jewish Intactivism in the USA and Israel


Today's Judaism is ready to reject traditional circumcision and to move to non-violent symbolic rituals. The interpretation of Jewish law is constantly in a state of development, flux, and evolution, expanding as the realm of human rights expands. As Jews, we are regularly evolving our lives and practices to adjust to the constantly evolving moral arc of human rights. This is not to say that all Jews, including the Orthodox will suddenly abolish circumcision surgery, and move to a symbolic interpretation without a period of reflection and forethought. However, progress is being made.

As Jews, we always behave in the best interest of humanity, and the greater good of the world in general. Jewish laws prevent us from hurting or causing pain to ourselves, others, and even animals. Each of us expresses our Judaism in our own ways, and based on our own beliefs, and today many young Jewish couples are coming to recognize that surgical circumcision is wrong. As Orthodox intactivist Eli Ungar Sargonhas invaluably explained, for most of today's Jews, moral and humanitarian behavior towards others is at the forefront of Judaism. These moral principles of Judaism are in direct conflict with the tradition of surgical circumcision.

At this time in history, aren't we ready to let go of traditions that no longer serve a constructive purpose in our lives, communities, and the lives of others? Aren't we ready to reform our rules to serve our highest ambitions, rights, morals and values instead? In most other areas Judaism has found the correct moral distinction between action and symbolism. Why not in this area as well?

Intactivism is a new form of human rights activism. Respectful intactivists criticize religious and historical excuses for circumcision without denigrating any group of people. We respect the peaceful elements of religion while criticizing violent traditions and their history. Throughout the religious history of circumcision ethical issues have been widely acknowledged to some degree, including by Rabbis. Intelligent intactivistsare respectful and effective when criticizing the religious history of circumcision surgery. Writings among Rabbis working to abolish circumcision in favor of a gentle welcoming have roots that are over 200 years old within the Reform Jewish movement.Almost 100 Rabbis in America, Israel, the UK, and elsewhere perform Jewish covenant ceremonies that respect the babies full physical integrity.

The body is an delicate biological eco-system, and damaging or removing any part has an effect on the whole. The integrity of the body is a moral value in Judaism. Jewish law already opposes damage to the body such as tattooing, cutting or piercing, and circumcision surgery should be perceived by 'today's Judaism in the same way. Surgery that is not necessary to avoid health problems is prohibited by Jewish law.

More Jewish voices in the USA and Israel are speaking up for a respectful and inclusive form of intactivism. 
"Shalom. I’m Israeli, I’m Jewish and I’m an Intactivist, which means I strive to end male circumcision performed on infants and children in Israel and around the world. My journey to Intactivism began seven years ago when my son was born.... I learned about the foreskin anatomy and its functions. I read testimonies by intact Israeli boys about their experiences growing up in Israel, who said it was no big deal. I read the statements by medical associations regarding circumcision, saying there was no medical indication for routine infant male circumcision... The next day I told my wife that I had doubts. She told me: “You don’t want to cut? We will not cut.” And that was it for her... Thanks to Kahal—a group of Israeli parents who did not circumcise their sons—I had the chance to meet face to face with other parents who have made the same decision I did."
Eran Sadeh, Israeli Intactivist, and founder of Gonnen Al Ha-Yeled (Protect the Child), one of Israel's largest Intactivist groups, Eight Reasons Why an Intact Penis Is Better Than a Cut Penis, Beyondthebris.com, August 9, 2012.




"I say this as a Jewish parent from a proud rabbinic lineage, with relatives killed in the Holocaust; I say this as the maker of "It's a Boy!" - the 1995 British TV documentary that first broke the taboo on showing the hidden toll of circumcision. It demonstrated how a rite ingrained in Jewish and Muslim culture, and said to be divinely commanded, regularly results in acute suffering, injuries, mutilation and deaths.... Religious Jews manage without animal sacrifices, without polygamy, without a range of practices that enlightened rabbis found reasons to dispense with over the centuries.
Ironically, there was a time in Germany, long before the Nazi era, when some rabbinic leaders advocated abandoning circumcision; they termed it barbarism. Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, refused to have his son circumcised.... I think about this positively: For my daughter's generation and those following, shouldn't Jewish and Muslim identities embrace children's rights? Nonviolent welcoming ceremonies would be equally meaningful for baby girls and boys. A handful of rabbis in America and Germanyhave been pioneering "brit shalom" ceremonies. These celebrate the perfection present at the birth of all children. That's the true praise for a Creator, after all, rather than "corrective surgery" for every newborn boy... Jewish and Muslim children deserve protection from a hurtful, dangerous custom overdue for replacement."
- Victor Schonfeld, An end to the agony, Haaretz (Israel), October 12, 2012.

"I’m opposed to circumcision. To me, it echoes one too many abusive procedures, on top of the whole consent problem. An eight-day-old child cannot consent to any kind of procedure."
Amy Soule, Cantor and Bris Shalom Celebrant, Parshat Lech L'cha: Why Infant Circumcision in Judaism Isn't KosherBeyondthebris.com, August 16, 2012.


"The Sadehs describe themselves as secular people with a deep bond to the country. “We feel that we are part of the community in which we live. Our son speaks Hebrew, is familiar with Hebrew literature and knows all the Jewish festivals. There is no way that children who grow up in Israel and attend the school system miss out on the country’s Jewish and Zionist character and on the ethos of Jewish life here.”

Galit, from the parenting forum, says her decision not to have her children circumcised actually helped her crystallize her Jewish identity. “I did not arrive at that decision from an anti-religious posture: I am against the act itself. After the decision was made I started to think more deeply about what Jewishness means to me. I discovered to my happiness that the ability to stand fully behind my traditional choices, in terms of my relations with Judaism, had deepened.”

Ido recalls that when the rabbi came to teach him the weekly Torah portion ahead of his bar mitzvah, “he explained to me about who a Jew is. One of the things he mentioned was that a Jew is someone who has undergone circumcision. I was 12 and a half at the time, and I remember smiling to myself and thinking that he didn’t have a clue. Already then I understood that being a Jew goes far deeper than what the rabbi thought regarding me − that a slice of the body is not a guarantee that I will feel true identity with Jewish culture.

“Rabbis can say whatever they want,” he continues. “I know that my Judaism cannot be taken from me, because I am part of a particular cultural history. I am a Jew who believes in precepts such as ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’; ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’; and ‘Remember the stranger, because you too were a stranger in Egypt.’”

"I hereby call Jews in Israel and anywhere in the world: learn about the advantages of an intact penis, learn about the disadvantages of a cut penis, and join the unstoppable movement of tens of thousands of Jews all over the world who welcome their sons to the world without violating their bodily integrity, without hurting them, and without putting them at risk. Here ends a year and its maledictions and a new one begins with its blessings. Happy New Year / Rosh Hashana.
Eran Sadeh, Founder, founder of 
Gonnen Al Ha-Yeled (Protect the Child), one of Israel's largest Intactivist groupsPress Conference in Germany in support of Germany's potential genital integrity law, September 12, 2012 (English translation from Hebrew.)





"The Jewish opposition to circumcision was just beginning 24 years ago when my wife Yehudit and I decided to leave our newborn son intact. We were not the only Jewish parents of our generation to reject circumcision, but we were among the first.
I performed my son’s birth ceremony and it was beautiful. We called it a brit b’lee milah or “covenant without circumcision.” The gift of life came unencumbered by any cutting and joy permeated the room...
Samuel was accepted and welcomed everywhere he went, in and out of the Jewish community, and within all of the relationships we had among the different Jewish denominations, including our Orthodox Jewish friends. To my knowledge, no one ever teased Samuel while he was growing up about his being in a distinct minority as a Jew with an intact penis....
Samuel’s birth ceremony was the first that I conducted, but would not be the last. Over the past several decades, I have officiated at more than a hundred birth ceremonies for intact Jewish boys in New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut. The ceremony I have developed includes blessings associated with it being a joyous event (candle lighting and Shehechiyanu); honoring the parents and grandparents; and creating, along with the parents, a meaningful alternate ritual. Non-cutting ceremonies for Jewish boys are called by different names, including “brit b’lee milah” (covenant without cutting), “brit shalom” or “bris shalom” (covenant of peace), “brit ben” (covenant for a boy)...
Judaism has evolved through centuries. It is inevitable and right that parts of Judaism have changed. We who oppose infant circumcision believe further change is needed. Circumcision, despite its historic centrality, has to go. It is nothing short of child abuse. No parent or religious leader would ever choose to carry out or endorse such a heinous act if they held this point of view."
- Moshe Rothenberg, Bringing a Jewish Circumcision Alternative (Brit Shalom) to New York Metro Families, Beyondthebris.com, March 17, 2012.



"The issue of circumcision, in my view, is whether we want submission and wounding, as a symbolic act, to mark a man's relationship to God and to the community in general. I no longer believe such a wounding is defensible."
"There is more emotion about eliminating circumcision than perhaps any other traditional practice. But it is time to find a different symbol of a boy's entrance into the community. Instead of cutting our sons, we might celebrate their masculinity. A more appropriate symbol would be a nurturing act, one that would affirm a boy's relationship to a loving father, both his own and that of his God. We might, for example, feed our sons, since a meal is also a traditional symbol of covenant. Indeed, in one text, Moses and Aaron and the elders go up to the top of the mountain, and when they see God, they eat and drink. Feeding our sons, rather than wounding them, would be a symbol of our nurturing relationship to them."
- Rabbi and Professor Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, A Masculine Critique of a Father God, Tikkun, September/October 1995

"I am a Jew and I question circumcision. I have been questioning circumcision ever since I learned of the rite as a girl. At that time I questioned circumcision because it seemed wrong to cause pain to infants and because it seemed strange to surgically alter a healthy God-given part of the body. As I grew into adulthood I added questions. I continue to add them. I question circumcision because of its risks. I question it because it is seen by many as a perfunctory act rather than a spiritual one. I question it because it seems to require parents to take advantage of their infant's dependence and weakness. I also question it because of the paradox that those who support infant circumcision often cringe at the idea of circumcision of an older child as a puberty rite. I am sure all of these concerns are familiar to health professionals, who also question circumcision."
Lisa Braver Moss, The Jewish Roots of Anti-Circumcision ArgumentsPresentation at The Second International Symposium on Circumcision, San Francisco, California, April 30-May 3, 1991.

"In fact, Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, one of the most vociferous objectors in Israel to circumcision and the founder of Ben Shalem – an organization which fights circumcision – says that in his many years of anti-circumcision activism he has encountered only one harsh response...
... Eran and Maya Sadeh, who live in the north of the country. They say that the most shocking piece of information they came across about circumcision, and the one that influenced them most deeply was the view of Maimonides on the subject (see Circumcision in Judaism below). The great 13th century physician and philosopher “accorded emasculating justification to circumcision,” Eran Sadeh says. “He maintained explicitly that it is done in order to affect male sexuality and reduce the pleasure of the sex act. For me, that connected with female circumcision and shocked me. I immediately read up on the physiological aspects and understood that what Maimonides said is correct: Circumcision affects the functioning of the genital organ in sexual relations.
“I connected that with my legal knowledge about human rights and understood that it’s wrong from that point of view as well. You take a person in the most vulnerable and helpless condition and amputate part of his body. Maimonides talks about that, too. Circumcision is performed when the infant is eight days old, because the bond between the parent and the child is not yet very strong and the parent is capable of inflicting this on his son. It is a gross violation of human rights, perpetrated by none other than the child’s parents, those who are responsible for protecting him.”
"Of course, my brother, Naphtali, is part of the film. You see in the film [that his first reaction] was: "Oh no. Not another one of Eliyahu's controversial subjects!" and then I started telling him some things and he was very receptive; in the film, you see him sort of struggling a little bit with some of the information. Now, he's very strongly against circumcision; he said he would never do that to a child—[but] not so much for the same reasons that I have, and this is something that I've found is very interesting: People who are opposed to circumcision often have different emphases: What is more important to them, what is less important to them, what they think is a bigger problem or not such a big problem, etc. [In any case], my brother definitely agrees with me that [circumcising a completely healthy child] should not be done, and he would never do it to a child of his... The only ritual religious consequence of being an intact Jewish male is that you're not allowed to eat from the Paschal Lamb, which was a sacrifice that was brought when the temple was around, and hasn't been brought since the temple was destroyed—and we don't know when the temple is going to be rebuilt. That's it!
So, I think [that] as more people become aware of this information and leave their boys intact, we're going to have a situation where there are lots of intact Jewish [men], some of [whom] are going to be religious and are going to be participating in everything [in which] circumcised Jewish men are participating."
Circumcision of boys amounts to bodily harm, German court rules (June 27)

"As a liberal Jewish woman, I agree 100 per cent with the German court’s decision [to ban circumcision].
Maimonides knew, centuries ago, that circumcision impacted men’s sex drive, making sex and masturbation more difficult and less pleasurable, in addition to leaving penises weaker. According to him, circumcision’s job is to cause pain to boys’ members in order to accomplish the objectives stated above; it’s not about any covenantal accord referred to in scripture at all.
It’s also interesting to note that the first people to be circumcised in the Torah are teens and adults capable of making the decision on their own terms, something that makes sense given a comment in the Talmud that somebody ready for circumcision is akin to a groom.
On first glance, they’re not similar at all, since eight-day-old infants are vulnerable and deserve to be protected from anything unnecessary that can hurt them and grooms are older, capable of independent decision-making.
However, if we return to the Scripture and think about everything in a marriage context, perhaps the similarity is this: if someone ready for circumcision is akin to a groom, he has to be capable of rational decision-making and ready to live with the consequences of his actions."
- Amy Soule, Hamilton, The Spec.

"As a proud Jew and an opponent of infant male circumcision, I wanted to join this protest in a meaningful way. It is my belief that a deep concern for ethics lies at the core of the Jewish tradition and it is this concern, along with the ability to adapt to new information, that gives meaning and relevance to my heritage in the 21st century... Although we are a marginal voice within the Jewish community, there have always been Jewish opponents to Brit Milah. It makes me proud that some of us are leading the current movement against this cruel and unusual practice both within the Jewish community and in the world at large."
Eliyahu Ungar-SargonFacebook Campaign Protests AAP Circumcision Policy, Beyondthebris.com, September 2, 2012
.

"…As a progressive Reform Jew I was raised to believe that any conflict between human rights and Jewish law and/or tradition, is always resolved in favor of human rights, and that this does not diminish Judaism, but in fact makes it stronger… So when does circumcision become a bad idea? If a single child suffers from it directly, or indirectly from complications, or ... a single child should die (which is not common but does happen) isn't that enough warrant a re-evaluation? ... I believe it is time for the Reform movement to consider how contemporary medical and ethical studies on circumcision put the practice at odds with its cherished values of human rights and social justice -- values which, in my opinion, are truly what defines and are central to Judaism."
- Thomas Wolfe, Why do we need an alternative Brit Milah (Bris) ceremony?

____________________________________

JEWISH INTACTIVIST LINK LIST
Jewish Intactivist Resources and Groups
Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective By Ron Goldman, Ph.D.
Beyond the Bris by Rebecca Wald.
Jews Against Circumcision
Cut: A Movie by A Orthodox Intactivist

Israeli Intactivist Groups (Mostly in Hebrew)
Protect the Child
The Israeli Association Against Circumcision / Intact Son
Kahal (Israeli Group for Parents of Intact Sons)

Peaceful Covenant Texts for Jewish Parents. 
100+ Rabbis who lead covenant without cutting ceremonies
Song for an Intact Jewish Boy’s Welcoming Ceremony
Brit B'lee Milah Ceremony
A Brit Shalom Ceremony

Judaism, the Foreskin and Human Rights.Rabbis on a Covenant without Circumcision
Jewish Law, the Foreskin, and Human Rights | Part 1.
Jewish Law, the Foreskin, and Human Rights | Part 2.
Jewish Law, the Foreskin, and Human Rights | Part 3.

Jewish Parents' Experiences Keeping their Sons Intact.
Humanistic Judaism is Increasingly Intactivist
Dear Elijah: A Conservative Jewish Father's Letter to His Intact Son | Published on Peaceful Parenting.
Moshe Rothenberg: Ending Circumcision in the Jewish Community? | Envisioning an Intactivist Judaism..
Michael Kimmel: The Kindest Un-Cut: Feminism, Judaism, and My Son's Foreskin | Published in Tikkun. 
Sarah Rockwell: Lucking Into Bris Shalom | Published on Beyond the Bris.
Laura Shanley: A Jewish Woman Denounces Circumcision | A Jewish Childbirth Educator keeps her sons intact.
Stacey Greenberg: My Son: The Little Jew with a Foreskin | Published in Mothering Magazine.
Intact & Jewish | Published on the Natural Parents Network.
The Naming | Published on Very, Very Fine
Diane Targovnik: How "Cut" Saved My Son's Foreskin : A Movie Review | Published on Beyond the Bris.
Circumcision Questions (letter from an intact Jew). |  Published in the Northern California Jewish Bulletin.






Jewish Intactivism

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

When You're Less Than a Cow



I'm continuing to feel shock at the constant defense in my newsfeed for  The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF, also Nourishing Traditions/NT) on the tail of their recent transparency regarding breastfeeding and nutritional comparisons. (Quick summary: here and here. Longer summary with links and screenshots here.)

Regardless of the nutritional information presented by WAPF, inherently their individual comparison of human milk, donor human milk, vegan eating, formula, etc is incorrect. Period.

"But nutrition matters!"
I have not seen ANYONE in Facebookland claiming that nutrition is without value or meaning. In fact, the majority of people in the natural movement emphasize nutrition and spend a lot of time encouraging awareness and healthier living, often in line with WAPF principles. The problem is that regardless of the nutrition point, claiming raw human milk is lesser than store bought formula simply fails. Left, right, up, down...fail. Complete fail to the point of abject ignorance.

"But you can't deny that nutrition is important and changes genes/health/conditions!" 
First, yes, I can and have frequently. Using food medicinally is a cornerstone of the health movement but it is not a guarantee. Or else did someone find immortality? Hmm, guess not.

But those who claim nutrition is the key point about breast milk comparison lose me here. It's hypocritical to claim WAPF is talking about nutrition, b/c commercialized formula lists GMO corn syrup solids as the first/second ingredient. That's NOT nutrition, and certainly not "better" nutrition than the species specific, raw milk of a vegan mama.

But, wait, there's more! Formula also uses denatured, contaminated animal milk from an anonymous group of animals of another species that are not intended to grow a human infant. These cows are extremely nutritionally deficient, without argument, way beyond any perception of a vegan mother. Besides not making milk intended for HUMAN growth, with human stem cells and antibodies, their milk is additionally processed, overheated and contaminated in a facility, then synthetic crap vitamins are added to it and then it's placed into a contaminated container.

Anyone who is going to sit here and try to claim that WAPF is right on this topic has completely lost her marbles and is making the natural movement the laughing stock of communities. It doesn't even make sense.

Let's say we all accept that some women due to their diet are not making "healthy enough" milk for their babies. Even if that's true, the goal is to encourage a change in diet and to provide resources and ideas on how to optimize the diet, including in cases with limited resources. Not remove the minimal nutrition from the baby, replacing it with something that has less nutrition and is also devoid of all other species-specific health components.

Something stinks here! If a mama can't afford to eat well to change her milk, exactly how is she supposed to afford the many expensive, hard to get ingredients required for suitable home made formula. (Raw cow milk? It's going for $5-10 a gallon in my area.) And store bought formula is an expense as well. What makes sense? Encourage creative, inexpensive ways for the mama to improve her diet for both her and her baby. Don't promote the idea that her milk is inferior, or that milk substitutes are superior, or that she should wean to protect her baby.

Furthermore, simply because the original man that this organization uses was right in his own way based on his own observations, does NOT mean we have to sit around listening to the gobbledy gook put out by this group. Nor does it mean they get a free pass to spout this stuff. ESPECIALLY when they are breaking WHO code, promoting "home made formula kits" for sale.

If Enfamil or Similac came out saying their formulas were better than some human milk, and offered "formula kits" for sale, there'd be a butchering going on in our community right now. But it's WAPF so everyone is looking the other way or warning, "Don't get angry. Keep it private. Don't talk about them publicly. Don't smear them."

Forget that! This is pure ignorance and needs to STOP. We deserve an evidence-based, accurate community. Mothers deserve an accurate, complete picture not only about nutrition but about anatomy and physiology. And becoming a hypocrite to protect "one of our own" brings about nothing good for anyone involved.

Here is WAPF's list:
(Photo credit: Sarah at Debunked on Facebook)

Here is WHO's list: