And did they even consider the fact that the factors that may lead to early puberty may also be the causes of high risk behaviour, rather than puberty being the cause?

Also, I find myself wondering if they track high-risk behaviour (particularly unprotected sex) into adulthood, or just during adolescence?

TONS of estrogenic hormones

Until the research has gone beyond "may contribute", her "prectical" suggestions are anything but. Breast Feed? Why? What's the risk of passing the chemicals and hormones that you injest into your kid through your breast milk? Is that a greater or lesser danger than anything formula may contain?

Eat Organic? Define "Organic" first. Then tell me specifically which chemicals in non-"organic" foods cause a problem.

Educating the public more about what endocrine-disrupting chemicals are (and where they're found). Sure, education is always good, but before it'll really help, there needs to be science behind the warnings or you're just miseducating.

Exercise and healthy eating habits. Sure, that makes sense without this specific issue though.

Breast Feed and Eat Organic sounds more like pushing a political agenda than actual sound advice about keeping puberty from happening early. It is like the whole innoculation nonsense you published earlier. People are still delaying or forgoing inoculations because of mercury concerns? Most vaccines aren't made with mercury any more. The preponderance of scientific evidence comes down against that as a cause anyway and even then the concern was receiving too many doeses in too small a time frame. At this point, it is mostly people being afraid and looking for something to blame. That's what this is sounding like. Get the evidence then act, don't just guess or you're as likely to cause harm as help.

I have to wonder about the recomendation to breasfeed. I know that many benefits are imparted through breastfeeding, but it seems that estrogen mimics might easily come from mom. If commercially available chicken and beef are full of hormones, and several studies have shown breastmilk to contain plasticizers and fire-retardents, are we doing children a disservice with the blanket recommendation that all moms breastfeed? She a new mom get tested to see if she is doing more harm than good? Maybe so, maybe not...maybe someone should ask these questions?

"SHOULD" a mother...not "She". I think it's time to head home this Friday afternoon, sigh...

The article didn't mention that research shows that girls with good relationships with their biological fathers delay their onset into puberty.

Amongst the other reasons girls are entering puberty earlier, is the numbers of fathers that have been split from their daughters' lives.

I would say such research is imperative for Feminists to discuss and understand.

But what do we see? Organizations like NOW oppose a rebuttable presumption of shared custody in divorce and support sole custody. In the meantime, fathers beg for shared custody.

WHY CATHERINE PRICE, DO FEMINISTS REFUSE TO DISCUSS THIS?

If you read the article linked to, you'll find that the explanation for recommending breastfeeding is that studies do show that breastfeeding is linked to lower incidence of childhood obesity. So, the logical chain is that being breastfed may reduce the chance of childhood obesity, and a lower rate of childhood obesity may reduce the incidence of early-onset puberty. It doesn't look like hormone consumption through breastmilk by infants is really part of the issue at all.

--Logoboros

the logical chain is that being breastfed may reduce the chance of childhood obesity, and a lower rate of childhood obesity may reduce the incidence of early-onset puberty.

There's too many "may"s in that chain. Better diet and exercise are likely better preventatives of childhood obesity than breastfeeding and should rank higher on the list if that's the goal.

It doesn't look like hormone consumption through breastmilk by infants is really part of the issue at all.

But if hormone consumption is supposed to be part of the problem, shouldn't that be part of the issue? There hasn't been enough science done to really start making recommendations like the ones made in these articles and that's my point. Do the science or you might as well be telling pregnant women to swing a dead dog over their heads three times in a graveyard on a full moon.

Don't remember where I read it but I was certainly under the impression a lot of it had to do with the hormones injected into meat and chicken. This was specifically seen in the economically lower strata of our society where a greater amount of diet is focused on cheap mass produced meat and chicken and the girls of this group were seen to have the earliest onset puberty.

This is horrifying.

Uh, what? This article is discussing biochemical reactions messing with the natural order of things in girls, specifically pollution, chemicals, and general lack of physical exercise. If you have any proof that somehow fathers are less involved with their children now, especially girls, than they were a century ago (highly doubtful) and that somehow that this not only correlates with but also causes the accelerated rate of puberty in girls then, by all means, call the writer out. Until then, stop spewing nonsense.

Fatherhood is indeed most important, but you only undermine the cause by including such random comments.

Just a quick word about political agendas and breastfeeding.

In matters of public health and dietary advice, it is logical to think about who would benefit from a particular claim before questioning the motives of those who make it.

For example, the correlation between doctors recommending drinking 8 glasses of water a day and the bottled water industry. This claim has been refuted many times over by physicians and nutritionists because excess water consumption is bad for digestion and proper kidney function. The idea that you should drink excessive amounts of water every day correlated with the bottled water industry's newfound prominence in the beverage market. Thinking of the potential benefactors should be what rouses suspicion about a public health claim.

As far as breast-feeding goes, there are no corporate beneficiaries. The only beneficiaries are mothers, children and everyone who would prefer to spend less money on health care. Claims against the advantages of breast-feeding clearly benefit the formula industry.

Advocating breast-feeding might cause a politician to gain popularity among mothers, but not formula sellers. This, however, is exactly the purpose of a democratic government, to represent the people, not corporate interests.

Therefore, it is wrong to label it as a "political agenda," which implies that it only benefits corrupt politicians and not the constituents who they were elected to represent.