Barbara you wrote, "It is possible for stored milk to be
contaminated with pathogens that are problematic if fed to fragile infants.
It also is possible, though rare for human milk to have deficiencies, and
there is variability of caloric values that has to be factored into the
feeding of preemies, among other issues.  All milk banks, for instance, use
careful screening and post-processing bacteriologic testing in order to
protect babies because contamination does occasionally occur."

What you are stating is a vastly different from what was stated by Dr. Nancy
Wight.  I would question anyone who states that contaminated breastmilk kills
premies.  Where is the evidence of this?

The contamination of breastmilk is predicated on seeing a contaminant in the
milk under a microscope and assuming that seeing it means that the milk is
infected/contaminated.  This is "in vitro" evidence, and is not necessarily
"in vivo" evidence of what milk actually does.  This does not mean that I
believe that human milk is never contaminated or infected.

I think the issue that you seem to be stating is that the giving of
breastmilk is very different from "breastfeeding."  (babies actually at the
breast)  I wholeheartly agree that there has to be some level of concern
about contamination when babies are not actually at the breast.  But there is
cause to believe that human milk because of its very distinct and coveted
properties/components (items that are being patented by a variety of
institutions and industries) has the ability to inactivate certain pathogens.
 This is why we can let human milk stand for 24 hours at room temperature and
bacteria counts go down unlike the competition which after a few hours
becomes very contaminated and needs to be thrown out.

There are grounds to question the belief that human milk is deficient for
premies.  Particularly when those who present this idea have patents with the
infant food industry. (Lucas) It is interesting that the vitamin
supplementation industry is accused of being a monopoly.  Hoffman-LaRoche and
several other companies (BASF AG, among others) were part of  a US Federal
anti-trust case in which they stand accused of setting prices.  Nestle has
ownership in calcium supplements. It would seem logical that the infant
formula industry would invest in the supplement industry in order to cut the
cost of producing their products.  Vitamin supplementation is big
business--$1.1 billion. Is research on the need for supplementation based on
evidence or research paid for by an industry seeking greater profits?

The ability to question is a basic tenet of science.  If we cannot do that,
then we are in deep trouble.    Valerie W. McClain, IBCLC




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

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