Sorry for being so behind in reading LACTNET but I did want to dialogue
regarding my comment about ABM killing infants and some related comments by
others.  The comments were all worthy of consideration, especially in light
of not offending moms who do not breastfeed because it is not possible.  I
will refer to each comment and give my thoughts on it, and I welcome any
feedback, especially from the individuals who wrote the comments.  All of
the LACTNETTERS involved are respected for their knowledge in our profession
as I have gotten to know them through this listserv.

 

 

On Thu, 18 May 2006 14:11:42 -0700, Phyllis Adamson, IBCLC
[log in to unmask] wrote a reply to the post on feeding risks.

>My guess: the potential risk of being made to "prove it" in court related
to the death of an individual infant.

>The Risks of Not Breastfeeding means the same thing without attacking the
specific product, and it's the thought process that actually motivated moms
in about 3 >dozen focus groups to actually change their practices.  The US
is a suit-happy country. In spirit, I'm sure we agree with you, but Prudence
dictates..... 

Thanks Phyllis for the concern.  You are absolutely right about having to
prove it in an individual case and about the US situation!  However, I was
not thinking that we would use the information with an individual infant.
If we speak in general terms, then we have the evidence-based data to back
up the claims, specifically what the DHHS and the CDC were/are quoting.

Many women decide not to breastfeed even though they know the infants will
have higher risks of negative health outcomes.  They are surprised that ABM
is the CAUSE of some of the illnesses and deaths in infants.  They don't see
the opposite side of the coin when we talk about the risks of not
breastfeeding; they can't seem to think it through to the logical
conclusion.  However, when I talk about how ABM increases the mortality and
morbidity rates, they become angry.  They want to know why the pediatricians
would recommend ABM if it hurts the babies.  They want to know why I can't
get the government to take the ABM off the shelves in the supermarkets.  The
thought that they expect ME to be so powerful is really funny except that it
is such a serious issue.

Why can't we call a spade a spade?  I repeat what I said previously:  The
ABM companies are publicizing every adverse incident that breastfeeding is
implicated in, legitimate or not.  They do not attempt to prove it and the
public, including the media, does not expect them to.

 

 

 

On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:29:07 -0700, gonneke van veldhuizen
[log in to unmask]  wrote a reply to the post on feeding risks but it was
part of several items.

>Is not-breastfeeding the risk or is it the ABM

>* I think it is the not-breastfeeding that makes the risk. It is the
not-getting the nutrients in the milk, not-getting the antibacterial,
antiviral and anti-yeast (can't get the >right word here) components in it.
ABM is not poison, it just is not the stuff that a baby needs. Not getting
what they need is what makes some babies ill or that may >even kill some.

>* Only in cases of polluted ABM and bottle-feeds that are prepared wrongly
the ABM is the real cause of illness or death

Gonneke, you are right about the following:  Most often it is the lack of
breastmilk that causes the adverse reactions; ABM is not poison.  Yet, to
the baby who dies or becomes ill because of the ABM, it is like poison.
(I'm thinking specifically of ADVERSE REACTIONS such as allergic reactions,
especially anaphylactic shock.)  Only once in my 30 years as a lactation
consultant have I seen an infant who was dying and it was caused by the ABM;
I hope never to see another such incident.  The baby had been exclusively
breastfed and healthy for two months.  When the mom complained to the
pediatrician that breastfeeding was too demanding, she was told she could
switch to ABM in the bottle.  After a few weeks of more and more ABM, the
baby became ill with respiratory problems.  Eventually, she was exclusively
ABM fed.  After two months of getting worse, she was hospitalized, went into
an oxygen tent, and was put on five medications.  The medications were
continued when she went home, along with a nebulizer.  When the baby wasn't
getting better, another doctor referred mom to me for relactation.  Despite
two months of little to no breastfeeding, mom was still producing a decent
amount of breastmilk and increased her supply easily by pumping.  Within a
few hours, the mom was able to stop the ABM and was giving breastmilk
exclusively.  The baby lost her ashen color and was pink again, and her
wheezing and gasping for air almost stopped.  Eventually, she was back to
perfect health.  After that case, I was vehement about how hazardous ABM is
and I will never accept it as a breastfeeding substitute unless it is
absolutely unavoidable.  IMO, ABM belongs in the pharmacy as a potentially
very dangerous substance and one that should not be endorsed by healthcare
providers.  It can be prescribed under dire circumstances.

 

On Sat, 27 May 2006 03:39:42 -0700, Evi Adams [log in to unmask] wrote a
reply to an opinion piece on lactation.  Part of Evi's post stated:   

>The formula makers have succeeded in convincing the public that giving
artificial means of feeding is the norm and okay- when in truth, it is not
okay, not the norm and >can even kill. The public needs to be aware of these
risks - but there is no legislation for truth in labeling of foods that are
unsterile and given to millions every day. >Hospitals are bribed to do so
and women are led to believe it is a freedom of choice. Someone is making
money off of this and it ain't the consumer for sure.

Thank you Evi for reminding us about unsterile ABM.  It brought back
memories of those horrible reports of the babies who died and suffered brain
damage when fed powdered ABM that was later found to be contaminated.

 

On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:01:47 -0700, gonneke van veldhuizen
[log in to unmask] wrote a reply to a post on mother to prison for passing
meth to baby by bfing

>This is so ridiculous.  How crowded would prisons be if all moms who
''forcibly'' make their children ingest possibly harmfull substances , say,
like ABM .....

Gonneke, that is my point exactly.  ABM is harmful to children; it is not
just the lack of breastmilk.  Shouldn't we healthcare providers say that
loud and clear, over and over and over?

LACTNETTERS, I send a big THANK YOU to all of you who took the time to read
through all of the above!

Lee Galasso, MS, IBCLC, RLC

Lactation Specialist

Westchester County in NY State

 


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

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