Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:04:21 EDT |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In einer eMail vom 27-10-2004 4:29:26 West-Europa (zomertijd) schreibt
[log in to unmask]:
The reference concerning formula as fourth choice after breast, expressed
hm, or hm from another mother, is pretty old...{WHO/UNICEF, 1980}, Position
Paper? I think...maybe someone has more info or more recent date.
***********************************************
Does old nessecairily mean outdated?
Is there any research done that undermines this WHO recommendation? Is there
any research that I missed that makes it reasonable to presume that AIM is a
better choice than human milk from a safe source?
Warmly,
Gonneke van Veldhuizen, Dutch IBCLC in Germany
***********************************************
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
|
|
|