Anaphylactic shock due to antigen in breastmilk is well-documented in the
allergy literature and has proved fatal on occasion. Intra-uterine
sensitisation can explain it; so can neonatal exposure; too can the peanut
oil in some infant formulas. A recent study pointed out the latter, to my
great delight: delight because mothers had been saying oils could contain
enough antigen to trigger reactions, and allergists had been pooh-poohing
the idea, for years now. Finally someone did the study. Am away from the
office and can't retrieve it just at present.

While on the job, it is one of my pet theories that the US population have
so much corn allergy because of the use of corn oil in formulas over this
century, and the additional insult of inhaled cornstarch used as talcum
powder. Australia is just seeing the launch of cornstarch powders: we are
expected to believe it safe to expose infants to fine dusts of foodstuffs
without provoking immunological reactions. I'm amazed J&J have got away
with it to date. Australia, like Europe, used milk fat in formulas for many
decades this century: but US companies have used the "vegetable oils are
better" nonsense to undermine this, and butterfat is economically more
valuable in many contexts. The fats used in infant formula will always
reflect commercial realities: why else would a nation so paranoid about
"tropical oils" and heart disease that airplane peanuts swear to be free of
these nasties, allow the use of palm and coconut oil in infant formula?

Enough. Apologies to those of you wanting individual e-mail answers: I
can't keep up with work as it is. MM.