Selected highlights (lowlights?) from an article in Scotland on Sunday entitled
'Mother's Milk may not be best', 19th May 1996.

'Scandinavian scientists claim new research shows that 1 in 10 women have such a
high level (of dioxins) that they should breastfeed for only a few weeks at
most.  At a conference next month they will try to put pressure on the WHO to
find a cheap test to establish dioxin levels in women.'

'....research ....Glasgow showing dioxin levels in breast milk (sic) HAVE
APPARENTLY FALLEN BY A THIRD IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS'. (sorry about caps)

'...still showed babies getting a level more than 10 times the safe daily dose
for adults in Britain.' (apparently 10 times higher than US, Holland and Germany
limits)

'...one of the world's leading authorities...Dutch scientist Jan Koppe...work
shows dioxins in the mother subtly affect a baby's thyroid gland and liver
function.  It can even make babies less responsive to stimuli.  They have
'diminished potential', she says.'

'Koppe says that for the vast majority of women the advantage of breastfeeding
for their own health and their babies health outweigh the risks.

Koppe goes on to call for a test so that women can decide for themselves.

Women's Environmental Network in UK says women should keep breastfeeding,  and
call for a huge effort by soiciety to reduce dioxin levels.  'We believe that
dioxins do most damage to babies in the womb.  They cause subtle effects on the
development of the thyroid gland and the brain - it may be that disorders like
hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder are more common now as a result of
dioxin damage.  But the added effect of breastfeeding is very slight...Bottle
feeding itself produces more dioxins as a by-product of disposing of the
plastic.'

 ----And my response, which they printed I am pleased to say---

'I read with interest the article entitled  Mother s milk may not be best  in
SoS of 12th May.  It took quite a lot of reading to find that according to Jan
Koppe, quoted as one of the leading authorities on dioxins,  for the vast
majority of women the advantage of breastfeeding for their own health and for
the baby s health outweigh the risks .

Society as a whole tends to assume that there is a safe alternative to
breastfeeding.  We  do not know the full effects of denying babies their
mothers  breastmilk.  The only acceptable alternative to breastfeeding,
artificial baby milk has never been subjected to a rigorous trial to establish
the long term consequences of its use.  What research there is can compare only
the variety of artificial baby milk in popular use at the time, and as knowledge
of the constituents of breastmilk grows the formula is tweaked.  We can be sure
of 2 things - that there are no adults today who were fed any of the artificial
baby milks now commonly on sale, and that no artificial mass produced product
can mimic the biological miracle of designer breastmilk, as it changes
constantly to meet an individual baby s needs.

I fear that this article may have done more harm than good.  It would have been
more helpful to start from the basis that breastfeeding is best for the vast
majority, and then go on to explore the concerns about environmental pollution.
If babies are being damaged in the womb and through their mothers  breastmilk by
dioxins, then the answer is to fight for a massive environmental clean-up, not
to suggest that mothers should not breastfeed'

Sorry this is such a long one, there seems so much concern about this

mary broadfoot, Scotland