Dear Lactnet Friends:

A post from today includes this statement:

"What we're disagreeing about is whether cow's-milk-based substitutes
would invariably
have a higher risk of impact than donor milk substitutes. I
do not regard that as an evidence-based position at all. Yes, in some
circumstances
they clearly do - we have good evidence that use of pasteurised human milk
in the NICU, rather than formula, reduces the babies' risk of NEC. In many
- I would go so far as to say most - other
circumstances that might come up, I think it's pure conjecture that this is
the case."

The use (production, packaging, transport, storage, and consumption) of
non-human milks has a high level of impact on Earth's ecology. Our friends
from Malta made a lovely powerpoint presentation about this about 5 years
ago. (<
http://www.slideshare.net/tanyakaye/infant-feeding-affects-climate-change>).


Is the author of this statement saying that once the baby is term, it
doesn't matter what it is fed? Human or non-human milk makes little
difference?

Will the author of this statement please show us the evidence that feeding
non-human milk to an infant of any age has a lower risk than feeding human
milk?

warmly,


Nikki Lee RN, BSN, Mother of 2, MS, IBCLC, CCE, CIMI, ANLC, CKC
craniosacral therapy practitioner
www.breastfeedingalwaysbest.com

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome