This weekend, as bumps and buggies meandered across London for 2012's first Baby Show (billed as 'baby and maternity shopping at its best') I wondered how many expected this to be an uncomplicated chance to choose high-quality essentials surrounded by support and well-researched advice?
In reality each £20-poorer attendee at this heavily marketed mecca found themselves unwittingly linked to the arms trade and exposed to some highly contentious advice from unregulated self-styled baby gurus.
Taking the apparent links with arms trade first, while the vast majority of ticket-holders will have come away none-the-wiser, the Royal College of Midwives joins a growing list of organisations speaking out against the event's links to the UK's trade in weapons; branding the show's current conduct as 'abhorrent' and 'unscrupulous'. Whilst event-organisers are keen to keep the smiling pregnant women side of business away from the precision weaponry side, Clarion Events, the company behind the show, have a seemingly insatiable appetite for owning and running arms fairs alongside their family-friendly roadshows.
Despite an initial public outcry upon taking over the Defence & Security Equipment International (DSEi) fair (which led in 2008 to UNICEF rejecting promised Baby Show-related donations) Clarion Events has not only continued its dual relationship with birth and death, but expanded the latter purchasing six more arms fairs in the past five years.
Consumers are largely unaware that their ticket-price goes straight to a company whose DSEi fair's guest-list sported, according to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), "an all-star cast of tyrants, despots, and human rights abusers." For those in doubt about whether the Clarion Events portfolio matters to the every day Baby Show attendee Ian Pollock of CAAT reminds us what the direct results of the arms fairs are:
"The fact that Clarion Events run the Baby Show while also organising the DSEi arms fair is unconscionable. Bahrain's presence at the last DSEi is particularly horrifying in light of the violence taking place right now, violence that is being carried out with British-made weapons."
RCM spokesperson Sue Jacob is also clear on their position. "As a caring organisation that believes in providing universal care to women and babies (some of whom have themselves been victims of war) we object strongly to links between the Baby Show and the arms trade. It is abhorrent that Clarion Events is putting money before people and the RCM calls on them to break their links with the arms trade now."
While many remain entirely in the dark on the ethical mismatch of Clarion's portfolio, their seeming lack of regard for the parents and babies at the heart of the event radiates out from its shady roots and into the on-the-day experience.
Moving to the second point about the promotion of apparently self-styled baby gurus, the Baby Show's Facebook wall gives some indications of the many concerns raised as visitors question the credentials and query the advice of speakers like Alison Scott-Wright, Jo Tantum. On Facebook Corrine Rooney asks Jo Tantum to provide evidence for her claims during the show that: "All babies can sleep 11pm-7am at three months, or about 12-13 pounds" asking Jo to look at this leaflet produced by UNICEF and endorsed by the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths (FSID) and the RCM which clearly states that "...the majority of infants continue to breastfeed between one and three times a night for the first six months of life." While advice on baby sleep can seem harmless to the initiated, FSID's involvement informs us that misinformation is often far from benign.
In responding to critiques of her advice, Jo Tantum, having completed three years of training with the Nursery Nursing Education Board (http://www.babysecretsltd.com/biography.html), alleged that fellow Baby Show speaker Alison Scott-Wright's discussion on reflux was unacceptable to the point of danger. Tantum's post on the BabyCalm website called in to question Scott-Wright's credentials and opinions stating that she "has no right to be called an expert, especially in reflux, she has no qualifications medically and non medically. She stood on stage and told a lady to stop the medication she was giving her daughter. No-one should be telling the mother that except her GP/paediatrician."
Breastfeeding was another area in which those with the relevant qualifications found occasion to be anxious about the choice of expert. Clare Byam-Cook is a former, experienced midwife but with no known additional training in the infant feeding area. She freely admits that to UNICEF and all the major breastfeeding organisations. On hearing reports of her Baby Show talk the RCM went on to state that Byam-Cook shows a "total ignorance of breastfeeding principles. Breastmilk is produced on demand and every mother and baby are a unique pair. In the vast majority of situations an exclusively breastfeeding mother will produce the exact amount her baby needs."
When a wealth of research, information, support and highly qualified experts abound, it is hard not to see The Baby Show's choice of speakers as another victory for cash at all costs. International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC) Charlie from Milk Matters felt that "one can only speculate why a baby event would be reluctant to present such [an appropriately qualified] person" and that at future events she "would like to see a specialist who was also IBCLC accredited as breastfeeding is a pretty sound science."
The RCM also suggests The Baby Show changes its outlook and approach as "these shows have an ethical responsibility to ensure they seek experts who give advice based on proper evidence, knowledge, experience and understanding. A lot of people believe they can give advice but it isn't regulated and unscrupulous people have the audacity to play on women's vulnerability at this time. This is at best thoughtless and at worst dangerous to mother and child."
But with the growing awareness of Clarion Event's expanding arms-related earnings it is hard to imagine the RCM's preferred breastfeeding organisation, Best Beginnings, leaping at the chance to appear at a future show. As the more ethically-minded speakers, companies and sponsors step away from the Baby Show its potential to confuse and even endanger the 80,000 annual attendees and their offspring can only continue to grow.
For moral and commercial reasons it must be a matter of time before the Baby Show has to part company with the rest of Clarion's portfolio or wait as the public and businesses vote with their feet.
Follow Rebecca Schiller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hackneydoula
Kaye Stearman: A Farewell to Arms Export Secrecy
Hayley Meachin: Government Should 'Adopt' Policies That Support Children
The Baby Show | For shopping, for baby, for you
as for breastfeeding, and birth, i recommend sheila keitzinger's books. probably less than £ 20 of free at the library.
I'm well aware of what doulas are and the valuable work they do.
It just seems that validating one's own experience or opinion in matters of birth and baby often involves negating someone else's. Every single birth and baby is different and no amount of squabbling over whose methods are best is going to change that. The existence of all these "experts" is surely a testament to the wideness of the spectrum and the onus should be on all new mothers and mothers-to-be having access to as much support as possible.
I actually couldn't agree more with this statement. I have no judgement on what methods parents choose, though I do think the parenting industry has some responsibility to take for making mothers feel like failures if the guidance given on stress-inducing topics like sleep is unrealistic. It's one of the reasons why in the piece above a mother as Jo Tantum to back up her expectations of 3 month old's sleep with research, as the more established and trusted thinking is that most babies will still wake at this point.
Brilliant if you find something that works for you and your family. However just because something works for a few people doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea for that person's advice to be the only expert opinion given at an event that reaches 80,000 people annually. Especially if that advice is being branded as 'dangerous' or if the guidance goes against the basic laws of breastfeeding physiology.
But we aren't talking about that type of thing. We are talking about advice that is, in some cases, downright dangerous. According to this article, Allison Scott Wright is alleged to have stood on stage and told someone to cease administering prescribed medication. Cease medication prescribed by a doctor when she has no medical qualifications herself and had no full medical history of the child in question.
Likewise, many highly qualified individuals feel that many elements of CBC's advice on breastfeeding actually undermine the likelihood of breastfeeding succeeding (and, presumably, if they are seeking advice on breastfeeding, the parents feel that is the right choice for their family).
It really isn't about squabbling over parenting methods. I do agree that too often people want to validate their own parenting styles by criticising others, but I strongly believe that parents deserve to have proper, fully qualified and trained 'experts' on the style they might be considering, and that we should be alert to people who do not meet that standard.
apologies for typos!
I am of course, as are we all, very appropriately qualified to have an opinion and to back this up with facts and statements from expert bodies like the RCM. Particularly when it's connected with a subject I'm immersed in on a daily basis and concerns a series of choices I support my clients to navigate.
While our work is not as well known as it could be, it's becoming increasingly obvious the difference a doula can make with a recent cochrane review of studies demonstrating that continuous support in labour (particularly by an experienced person not on hospital staff or in the labouring woman's network of family/friends) results in lower caesarean rates and better APGAR scores for babies.
My work is very different from those mentioned in that I will never be in a situation where I am giving parents advice. I won't ever be an expert speaker talking about my methods or my theories - I have no methods or theories and am no expert. If a parent needs direct advice (and frequently what they need is someone to listen without judgement) I will signpost them to those who will be able to help.>>>
Just to be 100% clear doula is very deliberately a layperson. We can (and I have) undergone appropriate training and mentoring, but the role is about giving emotional and practical support, supporting choices, signposting parents to resources and never, ever, giving advice. In fact there's a desire amongst doulas for us not to become too obsessed with training and qualifications - we don't want to be a confusing layer of professionalism in the maternity services or speak outside of our remit in a situation with a client.
That being said our work is proving increasingly important and a recent Cochrane review of continuous support during labour found numerous benefits from a decreased Caesarean rate to improved neonatal APGAR scores.
In the context of this piece my thoughts about the Baby Show speakers follow those of the (very appropriately qualified and experienced) Royal College of Midwives and an IBCLC. My points are very simply that some of chosen speakers are giving advice contrary to much accepted wisdom, which highly qualified bodies have branded 'at best thoughtless and at worst dangerous'. All were offered a chance to respond and none did. >
For example, CBC trained as a midwife (as far as I am aware, a few decades ago, and of course midwifery training doesn't cover much at all in the way of breastfeeding training). She doesn't have any qualifications in breastfeeding from any of the number of recognised organisations operating in that area - NCT, LLL, IBCLC. I don't profess to have specialist knowledge in breastfeeding or related medical areas, but I can understand that this is a women without relevant qualifications.
So when the advice she gives jars badly with what those organisations say, I think people (whether this author or anyone else) have the right to stand up and ask her why she thinks she knows better.
Furthermore, I think people have the right to stand up and ask why such a major exhibition is presenting as an 'expert' someone with such dubious credentials, and whose advice contradicts some pretty fundamental biology.
For example; the "advice" that Clare Byam-Cook dishes out shows a distinct lack of understanding of how breastfeeding actually works and is actually damaging to breastfeeding relationships. She retired from midwifery over a decade ago, and she holds no breastfeeding related qualifications at even a basic peer supporter level, so how exactly is she an expert? She also charges a great deal of money for what is essentially her own opinions, but I imagine the vast majority of parents who see her promoted at the Baby Show as an "expert" think she is suitably qualified and giving them correct information. All of the guest speakers are making money out of their "advice", they all have a product to sell, so they have their own interests at heart, not those of the parents.
too ... much ... irony ...