Hi, all:  I have a comment on the repeated theme of the ABM companies as
the enemy.  When the possibility of adding DHA to ABM comes up, I am
actually glad, because until the ideal comes about of the 96%
breastfeeding rate we are all hoping for, I would rather see babies who
get ABM have DHA than not.  And let's remember the 4%, who may be lucky
to get banked human milk, but some of whom may still require ABM.
Shouldn't the product they receive be the best it can possibly be?  I'm
sure that we are most of us glad that taurine was finally added in the
mid '80's.
What I am angry about is not the effort to improve the product and make
it "closer to breast milk".  It's the marketing tactics which suggest
that ABM is actually very close and not just a very inferior substitute
which can NEVER be close enough to be the easy choice it currently is for
parents.  We know that no addition of a few extra components can even
approximate the complexity and ideal composition of human milk, and we
also know that whenever a baby is predominantly getting ABM, the mother
is not breastfeeding and is missing out on the benefits of breastfeeding,
both physical and emotional.
Instead of attacking ABM, which realistically some babies will need,
let's keep attacking the advertising tactics of the ABM companies.
Alicia.  [log in to unmask]