I realize I sound emotional when I write this:

>  The action groups like Greenpeace do use these images, resulting in women wean
> their baby, or not even start breastfeeding. We had such a campaign about POP's
> lately from Greenpeace, shortly before the conference in Scandinavia. The public
> conclusion was it is better to stop breastfeeding. Greeanpeace knows better but
> willingly doesn't speak up when someone concludes this from their message.
>
> I held Greenpeace responsible for the weaning of a lot of babies and so for
their
> less change  of a healthy life.

 and:
>
> Indeed, political action helps, but these actions should not focus in
> breastfeeding, but on uterine exposure. The action that are performed now are
> resulting in weaning, and that's not good!!!

But this is what we see here. The fear for contaminants is high, and contaminated
breastmilk has been one of the biggest causes of the low bf rates in the seventies
and it still is an issue. Wellknown researchers played a big role in it, docters
did forbid women to breastfeed. And I still hear it (rarely) that docters say to
pregnant women they should not breastfeed.

Now the researchers have researched the issue, they draw another conclusion. But
some of them play a double role. Most -maybe all-, of the Dutch nutrition and
pediatrics professors are afficiliated with Numico, the hugh Dutch formula
producer. Some of these reseachers (not all!) do not hesitate to use their big
name to bring breastfeeding into discredit, by mentioning the contamination. Eg,
there was a big pediatrici conference, sponsored by Numico. There was no mention
at all of breastfeeding on the program. After soke bf advocates wrote a  letter
this was changed . The lecturers were informed they should say something about
breastfeeding. In the midst of a lecture of a woman fo the bf organization, one of
these profs,  (his name is on the list of the dioxins articles) stood up of his
chair and said: "if breastmilk was for sale on the shelves, it should have been
rejected and be drawn back, because of the high dioxin levels. " And he sat back
again. People knew he is an important dioxin researcher, so his message was
terrible.

The problem is: the statement is right, the hidden message is not.

THIS is why I find it so important that we, bf experts and advocates, inform
ourselves on the issue. By ignoring the issue or by saying "but formula is
contaminated too", you''ll loose the debate, and the mothers make their
conclusion... We need to know the facts.

regards, Annelies Bon
Lay counsellor of the Dutch bf organization "Borstvoeding Natuurlijk"

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