A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 11th 03, 12:24 PM
Elana Kehoe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...language=print
er

Federal Warning On Tuna Planned
Mercury a Danger To Fetuses, Children

By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 11, 2003; Page A01

The federal government plans to warn pregnant women, nursing mothers and
even those thinking of getting pregnant to limit their consumption of
tuna as part of a broad advisory concerning the dangers of eating fish
and shellfish with elevated levels of harmful mercury.

A draft advisory from the Food and Drug Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency cautions women of childbearing age as
well as young children to limit their intake of tuna and other fish and
shellfish to 12 ounces a week, the equivalent of two to three modest
meals. Among seafood, tuna ranks second only to shrimp in popularity in
the United States.

The government is also advising consumers to mix the types of fish they
eat and not to eat any one kind of fish or shellfish more than once a
week. The FDA had previously warned pregnant women against eating shark,
swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish because they contain unusually
high levels of mercury, but until now the agency has not directly
addressed concerns about tuna or issued warnings for so large a segment
of the population.

The advisory notes that mercury levels in tuna vary, and that tuna
steaks and canned albacore tuna generally contain higher levels of
mercury than canned light tuna. The document advises pregnant and
nursing women: "You can safely include tuna as part of your weekly fish
consumption."

But David Acheson, the FDA's medical officer in charge of the issue,
said in an interview that it is implicit in the draft document that
women at risk should eat no more than four to six ounces of tuna once a
week.

David Burney, executive director of the San Diego-based U.S. Tuna
Foundation, said that the industry agrees there is a need to expand the
government advisory to include tuna, but that manufacturers fear that
environmental and consumer groups will exploit fears to unnecessarily
harm the industry.

"Every time there's a hearing or a meeting, you get all these incredible
accusations flying everywhere, where you have people saying they know
people who ate fish who glow in the dark," Burney said. "That's the kind
of thing you don't like to see, and you wonder whether people are taking
this to heart."

StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea, the three principal U.S.
tuna manufacturers, sold about 2.3 billion six-ounce cans of tuna last
year. But retail sales have dropped by about 10 percent in the United
States in the past decade, to about $1.1 billion a year, in part because
of public concern about the effects of mercury, according to industry
figures and media reports. Last year, shrimp for the first time overtook
tuna in overall sales.

Women between 18 and 54 typically make 85 percent of tuna purchases at
supermarkets, according to industry figures. More than 80 percent of all
tuna sold is used at lunch in various salads.

The proposed new guidelines began circulating yesterday at a meeting in
Washington of the FDA's Food Advisory Committee and likely will be
formally promulgated early next year, according to FDA officials. The
advisory is the government's response to mounting public concern about
the dangers of mercury pollution in tuna and other popular fish and
shellfish.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that, like lead, can damage the brains
and nervous systems of fetuses and young children. Exposure to it from
eating contaminated fish can lead to a number of neurological problems,
including learning and attention disabilities and mental retardation.

Consumer and environmental groups have long complained that the FDA has
been slow to respond to the problem of mercury in tuna. Last year, the
advisory committee recommended that the FDA warn pregnant women and
young children to limit tuna in their diet and offer educational
material about which fish are high or low in mercury.

Goulda Downer, a Washington nutritionist and a member of the FDA
advisory committee, said many of her patients are greatly confused about
the risks of eating tuna and other fish caught in the ocean or in inland
waters.

"People are just so scared," she said. The EPA and the FDA last fall
launched a joint effort to draft a new fish-consumption advisory, based
on the most recent research on mercury contamination of fish. Officials
also conducted focus groups in major cities throughout the country in an
effort to come up with the clearest and most helpful wording for the
advisory.

Sanford Miller, chairman of the advisory panel, said: "The mere fact
that the FDA and the EPA have seriously come together to try to resolve
the issue is a good sign in itself."

Miller, a senior fellow at Virginia Tech's Center for Food and Nutrition
Policy, said it is "not an easy thing" for the government to caution
women about the potential dangers of mercury-laden fish without totally
discouraging them from eating a nutritious food.

But some environmentalists charged that the draft advisory is still far
too weak and fails to adequately warn women of the high risks of eating
even small amounts of tuna and other fish during their pregnancies.

"In fact, FDA encourages women to continue to eat types of seafood high
in mercury and that would put a woman's baby at risk for neurological
damage," said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the
Environmental Working Group.

Recent FDA testing indicated that canned albacore, known as white tuna,
contains almost three times as much mercury as canned light tuna.

This means that a single six-ounce can of albacore a week could put many
women, depending on their size, over the government's safe mercury
limit, according to Houlihan's group.

2003 The Washington Post Company

--
It's Tis Herself
  #2  
Old December 12th 03, 03:11 AM
Jon von Leipzig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

(Elana Kehoe) wrote

Federal Warning On Tuna Planned
Mercury a Danger To Fetuses, Children

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that, like lead, can damage the brains
and nervous systems of fetuses and young children. Exposure to it from
eating contaminated fish can lead to a number of neurological problems,
including learning and attention disabilities and mental retardation.


Maybe there's a "workaround" ??

Eating Fish: A Slippery Slope
by Rebecca Ephraim, RD, CCN
Conscious Choice, July 2001

snipped

You can fortify yourself with nutritional supplementation to guard
against the ravages of toxic metals present in our food supply. Mary
James, M.D., an expert in nutritional supplementation in her position
as medical science physician at Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratory in
Asheville, North Carolina, suggests 100 to 200 micrograms (not
milligrams!) of selenium per day. This mineral essentially holds onto
the mercury, thereby preventing it from attaching to cells in the body
and causing damage. It's then excreted primarily via the bile and the
stool. Dr. James says selenomethionine is a particularly effective
form of selenium.

Additionally, she says, buffered vitamin C -- about 1,000 to 3,000
milligrams (one to three grams) daily -- will help move mercury and
other toxic metals out through the bile. Also, foods rich in sulfur --
such as garlic and onions -- would be helpful in that mercury
gravitates to the sulfur-bearing compounds and then is excreted. Dr.
James also recommends vitamin E (400-800 IUs per day) in the form of
mixed tocopherols, which will function as an antioxidant and be
helpful in reducing the effects of mercury toxicity in the body.


Full Article:

Eating Fish: A Slippery Slope
by Rebecca Ephraim, RD, CCN
Conscious Choice, July 2001

As a nutritionist and consumer reporter specializing in natural health
matters, I find myself in a slippery situation with regard to
recommending the consumption of fish. There is absolutely no doubt
that eating "clean" fish -- particularly those species that are high
in the health promoting omega-3 essential fats -- gives us a huge
nutritional boost. By "clean" I mean fish that are free of mercury and
other contaminants as well as drugs such as antibiotics, all of which
can make eating fish more of a health detriment than benefit. This is
particularly true for small children and pregnant or nursing women who
can endanger their fetuses and infants by eating contaminated fish.
Regrettably, from my investigation, it appears that consistently
obtaining "clean" fish is a feat that even the most health-conscious
consumers will find a challenge.

In interviewing scientists and researchers who have special knowledge
of fish and their environs, it's clear that there is very little in
the way of assurances for getting fish that are free of drugs and
contaminants whether they are farm-raised or wild-caught, that is,
procured by commercial fishermen. The National Organic Program, which
was put into place by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), does
not include standards for finfish or shellfish. The USDA has begun a
preliminary inquiry into setting standards for what it calls "aquatic
animals," but one agency researcher assigned to this task suggests it
could be a matter of years (if ever!) before such a nationwide organic
standard is implemented. There are at least a couple of small
independent U.S. groups that offer organic certification for
wild-caught seafood, but very few fish companies have received such
certification. Some other countries also offer organic certification.

Meanwhile, we are seeing a seafood craze in the United States. I'd
expect a lot of that has to do with the hype over the nutritional
benefits of fish. The omega-3 fats, abundant in cold-water fish such
as salmon and halibut and other northern marine animals, confer a
number of health benefits, including supporting heart health,
protecting against cancer, and boosting the intelligence and vision of
young developing brains whether in utero or in childhood. Moreover,
fish, in general, is of superior nutritional value constituting an
excellent source of protein.

While the emphasis on eating fish has been heightened, so has the
production...particularly farm fishing or aquaculture. Measured by
weight and value, global production of aquaculture more than doubled
during the 1990s. But very little of it, according to veterinarian
Michael W. Fox, who's the senior scholar for bioethics at the Humane
Society of the United States, could be considered a healthy choice. He
points out that the pools in which farm fish are contained are so
crowded that various antibiotics and other drugs are used in high
concentrations to control bacterial, fungal, and other diseases that
afflict the stocks. "They're going to have more and more health
problems so [the fish farmers are] going to have to be using more and
more drugs in order to produce the kind of volume that will turn a
profit. It's at the state now, where I believe -- because of the high
amount of drugs used -- it's essentially a chemical cocktail. If [the
fish] are not organically certified you are consuming these animals at
your own risk."

The concern with antibiotics has been publicized but many may not
relate it to the fish they eat. David Wallinga, M.D., senior scientist
at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a specialist in
environment health policies, blames a weak regulatory structure and
inspection program for unchecked use of antibiotics on fish farms. "By
using antibiotics pretty indiscriminately as some fish farms may,
we're creating conditions where we foster increased numbers of
bacteria that are resistant to treatment with antibiotics. [This is]
contributing to increasing numbers of people getting resistant
infections that are hard to treat with antibiotics."

Dr. Wallinga is also studying the impact of contaminants such as
mercury that are "bio-accumulative," meaning these toxins become more
concentrated as they are moved up the food chain. For instance,
contaminants on the water's bottom are eaten by small fish that are,
in turn, eaten by larger fish and so on until the final product --
with its accumulated contaminants -- lands on our plate. Farmed fish
can ingest the same levels of mercury, PCBs, dioxin, and other
contaminants as wild-caught fish. "The reason that one might think
that fish farms would...get you away from that is because they're
raising the fish on some kind of feed. But...some of these feeds...may
be made up of other fish. So essentially you're creating an artificial
food chain where you're feeding fish ground up parts of other fish
that are bio-accumulating these contaminants even in a fish farm
environment."

In fact, Dr. Fox estimates that about 60 percent of the catch of wild
fish is now being used for feed by the aquaculture industry worldwide.
He says it takes three pounds of wild fish to produce one pound of
farm salmon and hence this growth in fish farms is contributing to the
depletion of ocean fisheries.

Eating wild-caught fish can also present the same problem with toxic
metals. Dr. Wallinga cites coal-burning as a major culprit in
producing mercury and other contaminant by-products that drift into
our water sources and mingle with the food fish eat. And in a cruel
twist, mercury tends to accumulate in the muscle of the fish so that
you can't trim it off the way you could if it were in the fat. This is
why it is so imperative that pregnant and nursing women be
discriminating about the fish they eat so as not to risk harming the
brain development of their children (for specifics read "Brain Food,"
the Environmental Working Group's paper on this subject at
www.ewg.org/pub/home/reports/brainfood/pr.html.

With regard to wild-caught fish, it's important to note that northern
Alaska with its clean, deep waters, offers excellent quality
wild-caught fish -- particularly salmon, which is arguably the finest
in the world. There are at least two organically certified processors
of wild-caught salmon that accept orders: Prime Select Seafoods
(888-870-7292) and Capilano Pacific (360-398-9453). Although more
expensive than farm- raised, organic products make it possible for
consumers to support, with their dollars, smaller, ecologically sound
companies. If nature-friendly producers cannot survive financially,
then we are left to the economic whims of industrial fish farms and
large multinational corporations.

So what else can a conscientious consumer do (besides quit eating
fish)? Aside from searching out organically certified seafood
products, Drs. Wallinga and Fox both recommend eating "lower on the
food chain" which means eating fish that don't eat other fish so that
you aren't getting the bio-accumulation of toxic contaminants.

Largely herbivorous or "vegetarian" fish include tilapia, catfish,
trout, and some salmon such as red and sockeye. Wild-caught fish would
probably be preferable because many herbivorous farm fish are being
fed the food mentioned earlier that contain ground up wild fish.

You can fortify yourself with nutritional supplementation to guard
against the ravages of toxic metals present in our food supply. Mary
James, M.D., an expert in nutritional supplementation in her position
as medical science physician at Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratory in
Asheville, North Carolina, suggests 100 to 200 micrograms (not
milligrams!) of selenium per day. This mineral essentially holds onto
the mercury, thereby preventing it from attaching to cells in the body
and causing damage. It's then excreted primarily via the bile and the
stool. Dr. James says selenomethionine is a particularly effective
form of selenium.

Additionally, she says, buffered vitamin C -- about 1,000 to 3,000
milligrams (one to three grams) daily -- will help move mercury and
other toxic metals out through the bile. Also, foods rich in sulfur --
such as garlic and onions -- would be helpful in that mercury
gravitates to the sulfur-bearing compounds and then is excreted. Dr.
James also recommends vitamin E (400-800 IUs per day) in the form of
mixed tocopherols, which will function as an antioxidant and be
helpful in reducing the effects of mercury toxicity in the body.
==================================================
  #3  
Old December 12th 03, 07:43 AM
C&J
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

Not only did I see your post earlier and see it one the news but my dumb but
still bought 2 cans of Tuna today after the fact. I just realized that
right now when I read through this thread again. I am such an idiot.
LOL.....well I don't think a little will hurt, do you?

Crystal
37 weeks 6 days & counting!!!


"Elana Kehoe" wrote in message
...
From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...language=print
er

Federal Warning On Tuna Planned
Mercury a Danger To Fetuses, Children

By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 11, 2003; Page A01

The federal government plans to warn pregnant women, nursing mothers and
even those thinking of getting pregnant to limit their consumption of
tuna as part of a broad advisory concerning the dangers of eating fish
and shellfish with elevated levels of harmful mercury.

A draft advisory from the Food and Drug Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency cautions women of childbearing age as
well as young children to limit their intake of tuna and other fish and
shellfish to 12 ounces a week, the equivalent of two to three modest
meals. Among seafood, tuna ranks second only to shrimp in popularity in
the United States.

The government is also advising consumers to mix the types of fish they
eat and not to eat any one kind of fish or shellfish more than once a
week. The FDA had previously warned pregnant women against eating shark,
swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish because they contain unusually
high levels of mercury, but until now the agency has not directly
addressed concerns about tuna or issued warnings for so large a segment
of the population.

The advisory notes that mercury levels in tuna vary, and that tuna
steaks and canned albacore tuna generally contain higher levels of
mercury than canned light tuna. The document advises pregnant and
nursing women: "You can safely include tuna as part of your weekly fish
consumption."

But David Acheson, the FDA's medical officer in charge of the issue,
said in an interview that it is implicit in the draft document that
women at risk should eat no more than four to six ounces of tuna once a
week.

David Burney, executive director of the San Diego-based U.S. Tuna
Foundation, said that the industry agrees there is a need to expand the
government advisory to include tuna, but that manufacturers fear that
environmental and consumer groups will exploit fears to unnecessarily
harm the industry.

"Every time there's a hearing or a meeting, you get all these incredible
accusations flying everywhere, where you have people saying they know
people who ate fish who glow in the dark," Burney said. "That's the kind
of thing you don't like to see, and you wonder whether people are taking
this to heart."

StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea, the three principal U.S.
tuna manufacturers, sold about 2.3 billion six-ounce cans of tuna last
year. But retail sales have dropped by about 10 percent in the United
States in the past decade, to about $1.1 billion a year, in part because
of public concern about the effects of mercury, according to industry
figures and media reports. Last year, shrimp for the first time overtook
tuna in overall sales.

Women between 18 and 54 typically make 85 percent of tuna purchases at
supermarkets, according to industry figures. More than 80 percent of all
tuna sold is used at lunch in various salads.

The proposed new guidelines began circulating yesterday at a meeting in
Washington of the FDA's Food Advisory Committee and likely will be
formally promulgated early next year, according to FDA officials. The
advisory is the government's response to mounting public concern about
the dangers of mercury pollution in tuna and other popular fish and
shellfish.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that, like lead, can damage the brains
and nervous systems of fetuses and young children. Exposure to it from
eating contaminated fish can lead to a number of neurological problems,
including learning and attention disabilities and mental retardation.

Consumer and environmental groups have long complained that the FDA has
been slow to respond to the problem of mercury in tuna. Last year, the
advisory committee recommended that the FDA warn pregnant women and
young children to limit tuna in their diet and offer educational
material about which fish are high or low in mercury.

Goulda Downer, a Washington nutritionist and a member of the FDA
advisory committee, said many of her patients are greatly confused about
the risks of eating tuna and other fish caught in the ocean or in inland
waters.

"People are just so scared," she said. The EPA and the FDA last fall
launched a joint effort to draft a new fish-consumption advisory, based
on the most recent research on mercury contamination of fish. Officials
also conducted focus groups in major cities throughout the country in an
effort to come up with the clearest and most helpful wording for the
advisory.

Sanford Miller, chairman of the advisory panel, said: "The mere fact
that the FDA and the EPA have seriously come together to try to resolve
the issue is a good sign in itself."

Miller, a senior fellow at Virginia Tech's Center for Food and Nutrition
Policy, said it is "not an easy thing" for the government to caution
women about the potential dangers of mercury-laden fish without totally
discouraging them from eating a nutritious food.

But some environmentalists charged that the draft advisory is still far
too weak and fails to adequately warn women of the high risks of eating
even small amounts of tuna and other fish during their pregnancies.

"In fact, FDA encourages women to continue to eat types of seafood high
in mercury and that would put a woman's baby at risk for neurological
damage," said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the
Environmental Working Group.

Recent FDA testing indicated that canned albacore, known as white tuna,
contains almost three times as much mercury as canned light tuna.

This means that a single six-ounce can of albacore a week could put many
women, depending on their size, over the government's safe mercury
limit, according to Houlihan's group.

2003 The Washington Post Company

--
It's Tis Herself


  #4  
Old December 12th 03, 05:54 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

limit their intake of tuna and other fish and
shellfish to 12 ounces a week
==============================

Geez, that's two cans a week . . . here I've been eating two cans a day!

Yah, lots of that mercury is generated from burning coal in power plants for
electricity. We burn lots of it here in Texas . . .
There's been efforts in Texas to get coal power plants here to put more
efficient scrubbers on their smokestacks, but the industry managed to get
exemptions for any plant built before 1972, which is almost all of them, so
despite all the fancy laws they say they're passing to fix the problem, they
really haven't done anything, and I doubt they will anytime soon.
Ugh.
--Tock



  #5  
Old December 12th 03, 09:13 PM
Ned Flanders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

(Elana Kehoe) wrote in message ...
From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...language=print
er

Federal Warning On Tuna Planned
Mercury a Danger To Fetuses, Children



I think what is most troubling is that the FDA stopped testing fish
for mercury in 1998 and has since relied on the fish industry to
police itself. National Fisheries Institute president Dick Gutting
says that, overall, the industry's tests show that mercury is not a
problem.

Cheers,

Ned
  #6  
Old December 13th 03, 07:20 AM
A.L. Bell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

(Ned Flanders) wrote in message . com...
(Elana Kehoe) wrote in message ...
From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...language=print
er

I think what is most troubling is that the FDA stopped testing fish
for mercury in 1998 and has since relied on the fish industry to


Personally, I live in an urban neighborhood a couple miles from some
major interstate highways.

Does anyone know whether the amount of "bad" mercury I'd get from
eating tuna is actually significant compared with the mouth I get from
breathing city air?y
  #7  
Old December 14th 03, 12:10 AM
Anthony Matonak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

A.L. Bell wrote:
....
Personally, I live in an urban neighborhood a couple miles from some
major interstate highways.

Does anyone know whether the amount of "bad" mercury I'd get from
eating tuna is actually significant compared with the mouth I get from
breathing city air?y


I would worry more about lead. For many decades lead was a routine
additive to gasoline. As a result, all major highways and most other
roads have significantly high (even toxic) levels of lead spread
all around them. Take some soil samples around your property and
test them for lead.

Anthony

  #8  
Old December 14th 03, 01:37 AM
Ben
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

seyshell wrote:

Federal Warning On Tuna Planned
Mercury a Danger To Fetuses, Children


this should be qualified as being a north american report.

in australia various brands have been investigated for the levels of
mercury, and many generic brands actually are quiet safe, with
extremely low levels of mercury.

however as in all things, moderation is the key.


I've noticed that Aussie products in general are better quality than
American. I attribute this to the fact that most things in America seem
to be made in china, korea and other countries like that.

Ben

--
Cheap long distance calling using Onesuite (http://www.onesuite.com).
2.5 cents/min anywhere in the U.S., to Canada or the U.K.
Use promotional code 038664643 for 20 free minutes.

  #9  
Old December 18th 03, 11:40 AM
Chookie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

In article , Ben
wrote:

in australia various brands have been investigated for the levels of
mercury, and many generic brands actually are quiet safe, with
extremely low levels of mercury.

however as in all things, moderation is the key.


I've noticed that Aussie products in general are better quality than
American. I attribute this to the fact that most things in America seem
to be made in china, korea and other countries like that.


In this case it is simply that we have thrown less mercury into our fisheries,
and that would only be because of our smaller population. Don't worry, plenty
of our commodities are made in SE Asia, but our food is mostly our own. I
also found out recentlt that our transportation system is very good and
therefore our fresh food is closer to being fresh when we buy it than perhaps
it is in North America.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Jeez; if only those Ancient Greek storytellers had known about the astonishing
creature that is the *Usenet hydra*: you cut off one head, and *a stupider one*
grows back..." -- MJ, cam.misc
  #10  
Old December 18th 03, 02:17 PM
Ben
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pregnant, Nursing mothers should limit intake of tuna

Chookie wrote:
In article , Ben
wrote:


in australia various brands have been investigated for the levels of
mercury, and many generic brands actually are quiet safe, with
extremely low levels of mercury.

however as in all things, moderation is the key.


I've noticed that Aussie products in general are better quality than
American. I attribute this to the fact that most things in America seem
to be made in china, korea and other countries like that.



In this case it is simply that we have thrown less mercury into our fisheries,
and that would only be because of our smaller population. Don't worry, plenty
of our commodities are made in SE Asia, but our food is mostly our own. I
also found out recentlt that our transportation system is very good and
therefore our fresh food is closer to being fresh when we buy it than perhaps
it is in North America.


In MElbourne, the fruit was quite cheap and good quality in comparison
to Maryland, USA which is expensive and of lesser quality. Each place
has its positives and negatives though. Public transport here is far
superior to Melbourne (D.C. metro system) though Baltimore totally sucks.

regards,
Ben

--
Cheap long distance calling using Onesuite (http://www.onesuite.com).
2.5 cents/min anywhere in the U.S., to Canada or the U.K.
Use promotional code 038664643 for 20 free minutes.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.