Valerie,

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for enlightening all of us to topics that are
so important but often get buried.  I knew that the NY Times article made me feel
unsettled.  You put into words all the reasons why for me.  I am sure there are other body
fluids that can be tested that would cause equal or greater alarm, but there's not a
business waiting in the wings to "come to the rescue,"  i.e. an artificial blood company or
an artificial sperm company.  I would *love* to see a report on our water sources -
something that affects every one of us - given as  much notoriety as breastmilk gets.  We
all drink water in some form and most of the bad stuff is not helped by a Brita filter, no
matter what the ads say.

Cindy Garrison BS, IBCLC


> NY Times Mag article, propaganda or not?
> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:16:01 EDT
> From: "Valerie W. McClain" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Jennifer,
> You wrote, "But I think it did a good job, overall, of drawing attention to a
> significant concern about our world."
>
> Exclusive breastfeeding (defined as no foods, no water, no dietary
> supplements) is very uncommon practice in the world today.  Most infants are "mixed fed"
>  (breastmilk and infant formula) and the rest formula fed.  Thus the
> significant concern in the world today should be toxins in infant formula not toxins
> in breast milk.  But the premise seems to be that infant formula is free of
> environmental toxins without testing or minimal testing of that assumption!  Thus
> infant formula is presumed to be safe.  Infant formula has to mixed with
> water at the factory or by the consumer.  This seems to be an unrecognized risk of
> additional contamination. The food that most infants ingest around the world
> (due to the heavy marketing tactics of the industry) is never part of the
> media blitz on environmental toxins, only breast milk.  I would think this should
> be a warning sign for breastfeeding advocates that something is amiss.
>
> The prevalence of mixed feeding of infants means that studies done without
> defining breastfeeding will give an untrue picture of reality.  Exclusive
> breastfeeding (no foods, no water, no dietary supplements--I would even suggest no
> pacifiers due to plastic ingestion) must be the standard in which we discuss
> the risks of breastfeeding and toxins.
>
> I question the use of human milk fat to predict toxin levels in the infant.
> Human milk fat is the most variable component in milk.  It varies from woman
> to woman, from hour to hour, changing constantly due to the mode of
> breastfeeding, time of day, and diet.  How will testing help the individual woman
> determine her real risk?
>
> Seeing a toxin in human milk means what?  I would suggest that because human
> milk is a live substance, it means very little.  Particularly when the US and
> Canadian military along with a US company are investing in a human milk
> component (bile salt-activated lipase) that inactivates toxins.  Thus it is possible
> that mothers who have toxins in their milk also have the human milk component
> that deactivates those toxins.
>
> You wrote, "Propaganda technique or not, fear can motivate people into
> concern and action."
>
> If that fear is based on fallacy, then what you have is the big lie.  If
> infant formula is the real risk (and I believe that is the case), then the focus
> on toxins in human milk is a smokescreen used by the infant formula industry to
> avoid the truth.
>
> Evidence based science should mean that we divorce ourselves from propaganda
> and its techniques.  I support the need for all of us to recognize the need to
> do something regarding the toxins in our environment.  I do not think that
> human milk is a pure substance and never have believed that.  But until we have
> vigorous testing of infant formula by independent companies and scientists
> with no ties to the food industry, I stand by my belief that these articles on
> toxins in human milk are detrimental to the promotion and support of
> breastfeeding.
> Valerie W. McClain

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

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(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html