Dear Valerie,

Well, I have read the study.  And although I do not think that you can ever be swayed from your point of view, I think that others on the list have a right to hear the other side of the story.

You stated:  The conclusion of this study is that "lactation is a major source for the child's PCB body burden at 42 months."  I found this a rather shocking conclusion for a number of reasons.  Mostly shocking because they state, "Among the infants of mothers who decided to breast-feed, the median PCB level in cord plasma was significantly higher than that among children whose mothers preferred formula-feeding."  Hm...sounds like "loaded dice syndrome."

While I am no expert in statistics (in fact they rather baffle me at times) I do see that the level of the cord blood was used as one of the variables when they did their regression analysis.  So I believe that this was taken into account by the researchers.

You state: The breastfed infants in this study were the infants who were more chemically exposed in utero than the infant formula infants.  They explain this by saying that in the Netherlands, formula-feeding mothers consume less dairy products and beef (which they explain is high in PCBs).

Another poster was wondering about the differences between these groups.  They also state in the study that the breastfeeding moms as a group were older than the formula-feeding moms (no big surprise there) which they theorized would also account for the higher PCB load which they were carrying to begin with.

You state: Now the interesting thing is that they state under methods that they measured for levels of PCB congeners in cord plasma, breast milk and plasma from 42-month old children.  No mention of measuring of infant formula.  So who gave them the data on infant formula?  Nutricia?  Hm...

From the study:  "The PCB congeners nr. 118 (2,4,5-3'4' pentachlorobiphenyl (CB)), 138 (2,3,4-2'4'5' hexaCB), 153 (2,4,5-2'4'5' hexaCB), and 180 (2,3,4,5-2'4'5' heptaCB) were determined in plasma and breast milk by means of gas chromatography with electron capture detection (6,7).  The same measurements were done in samples of the formula milk.  All PCB measurements were performed at the TNO-nutrition laboratories in Zeist, The Netherlands."  I looked up TNO labs on the internet and they are apparently a large company with multiple labs doing testing and research in a lot of areas for governments and industries, especially in the area of food and drugs.

You state: This study does not define breastfeeding, yet uses the terms "fully" breastfed and "partially" breastfed.  I don't know what they mean by these terms.  PCB contamination in breastmilk was determined by examining frozen "pooled" breastmilk.

In the study, the groups were initially broken down into those who were planning on totally formula feeding or exclusively breastfeeding for at least 6 weeks.  The breastmilk samples were taken at 2 weeks postpartum.  Each women double-pumped at each feeding for a twenty-four hour period.  An 10% aliquot from each pumping was saved and frozen and the rest was fed to the baby by bottle.  In this way they hoped to get a representative sample from each mother.  All of the mothers in the breastfeeding group did exclusively breastfeed for at least six weeks, but after that, they do not know how much breastfeeding was done.  I would assume they would follow the usual patten of some continuing to exclusively breastfeed for some time while others began introducing other foods along the line. Those in the formula group did no breastfeeding.

You state: Yet they state that infant formula milks have no detectable amounts of PCBs because cow's milks lipids are replaced by fats of vegetable origin. [infant formulas vary and some formulas have cow's milk fat and some even use beef fat--but they don't seem to realize this].

While there may be small amounts of bovine fat in formula, the fact is that when formula is tested for the presence of PCBs and similar compounds, it consistently comes up negative or almost negative, not just in this study, but in many others.  Wishing that this were not so does not make it happen.  This is not to say that formula does not get contaminated by other dangerous substances, just not the ones that were being tested for in this and other similar studies.

You state: The use of the food chain to describe the passing of contaminants to the breastfed infant seems to me to be an erroneous concept to present in regard
to the passing of toxins within a species.

In actuality, this is a concept well-known and documented by scientists world-wide who deal with contamination of animal species of all types.  Again, just wishing that it were not so does not make it go away.  Our babies are at the top of the food chain and eat food that has been contaminated directly and indirectly through the chain.  It is a fact, just like the world is round and we orbit the sun.  Our breasts do seem to filter out some contaminants, most notably nitrates, but not too many others.

Towards the end of the study, they state: "Contrary to prenatal exposure (8-12), adverse effects of postnatal PCB exposure have seldomly been found."  They then go on to site a couple of studies that may show subtle effects, but say that the impact of exposure remains unclear. Just mentioning this, because the damage from prenatal exposure is documented and can be brought up as one of many comebacks to those who say not to worry about contamination, just use formula

My biggest problem with the study is that it was done so far out from infancy so that subsequent diet choices could have had a big influence on body loads of PCB - babies who were weaned to a diet high in whole milk and meats would have a lot more exposure.  However, again there are many other studies out there that come to the same conclusion that this one does.  Breastfeeding-supporting people of science more knowledgable than I seem to feel that the majority of these studies are credible and their conclusions correct.  Please see the archives for posts from Sandra Steingraber and Judy Schreiber.  Many of the leading breastfeeding organizations have come out with statements acknowledging breastmilk contamination while emphasizing the fact that formula risks still outweigh those of breastmilk, by far.

I guess what I am saying is that one can support breastfeeding while still acknowledging that our milk has become contaminated.  In order to effectively deal with the public, we need a message that is clear and fact-based.  We need to emphasize the fact that all babies are being contaminated right in the womb, regardless of subsequent feeding choices.  We need to get the facts about formula out there in a way that is logical and persuasive.  If we are going to bash a study, we had better get our facts straight and challenge the study on the correct grounds.  We need to consistently support environmental goals.  I am saddened to report that the USA this week showed that it will not be forging ahead in this area and I fear that this may continue for some time considering our political climate at the moment.

I have been doing some research this past week into seeing what all of the environmental and breastfeeding groups are doing in this area.  I hope to have time to do a lot more this coming weekend when I have some time off.  Valerie, you are spending a lot of time unearthing valuable information for us relating to what is going on in the patent industry and behind the scenes.  Obviously, we do not agree on the present topic and that is fine - I have spent a lifetime disagreeing with a lot of people and lost a couple jobs because of it.  So, this reply is not personal, but one that I thought should be made. I hope that we will all continue to research this topic and become knowledgeable in this area, which I feel will be twisted by the formula companies to their advantage at every opportunity.

As for us, we have ordered our organic turkey for dinner on Thursday.  I hope that all of you who are celebrating this week will do so in peace and with those you love.

Warmly,
Sharon Knorr, BSMT, ASCP, IBCLC
Newark, NY (near Rochester on Lake Ontario)
mailto:[log in to unmask]

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html