Hello,
I am responding to two comments that came up on this thread.

Babies allergic to food passing through Mother's Milk.
Babies can be allergic to the proteins in the food the mother is eating.
There is clear evidence that the proteins pass through the mother's milk. I
wonder why the mother's who are donating their milk do not just
change their diet? My son is 9 1/2 months old and due to allergies I have
removed cow's milk dairy, eggs and peanuts from my diet.Meanwhile I get to
continue to nurse my son. This change in my diet took some adjustment sure,
but it is worth it! His allergic reactions are practically nil and as a side
note I lost all the baby wight by the end of his 7 month of like.

Growth Hormones in Cow's Milk...
According to most research, the genetically engineered cow's milk growth
hormone rGBH, rBST does not have any ill effects on humans. However, many
public safety groups believe the research has been slanted, and funded by
those (Monsanto, who has the monopoly on the drug and who has billions of
dollars to fund research for them) who want to keep manufacturing this
drug.

Many think that there are health problems yet to be discovered by this (GMO)
genetically engineered growth hormones  (I am one of those many). The back
lash against GMO milk has been evidenced by the consumer refusing to
purchase it, and milk manufacturers and buyers have stopped the farming of,
rGBH, rBST treated cow's. Major US sellers such as Safeway, Publix,
Starbuck's, Walmart and Sam's Club sell hormone free cow's milk or
exclusively use/sell hormone free cow's milk.

 Interestingly, I found the following info online "Monsanto has responded to
this trend by lobbying state governments to ban the practice of
distinguishing between milk from farms pledged not to use rBST and those
that do. According to the New York
Times<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times>
 [1] <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09feed.html>, a pro-rBST
advocacy group called Afact has been most active in these lobbying efforts.
Afact is made up of both dairy farmers and allied industries, and is closely
affiliated with Monsanto <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto> itself; the
group's acronym stands for American Farmers for the Advancement and
Conservation of Technology. Though rBST is one of Afact's main concerns,
their mission is to prevent "marketers from convincing some consumers to
doubt the credibility and safety assurances from of even the most respected
food safety agencies and scientific oversight organizations."

Thus far, a large-scale negative consumer response to Afact's legislative
and regulatory efforts has kept state regulators from pushing through
strictures that would ban hormone-free milk labels, though several
politicians have tried, including
Pennsylvania<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania>'s
(see the Pennsylvania section above) agriculture secretary Dick
Wolff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dick_Wolff&action=edit&redlink=1>,
who tried to ban rBST-free milk on the grounds that it would alleviate
consumer confusion. Proposed labeling changes have been floated by Afact
lobbyists in New Jersey <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey>,
Ohio<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio>
, Indiana <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana>,Kansas<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas>
, Utah <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah>,
Missouri<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri>
 and Vermont <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont>. So far, however, this
effort has been unsuccessful"...."Canada's health board, Health
Canada<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Canada>,
refused to approve rBST for use on Canadian dairies, citing concerns over
animal health. [9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#cite_note-autogenerated1-8>
The
study they had commissioned, however, found "no biologically plausible
reason for concern about human safety if rbST were to be approved for sale
in Canada. The only exception to this statement is the occurrence of an
antibody reaction (possible hypersensitivity) in a subchronic (90-day) study
of rbST oral toxicity in rats that resulted in one test animal's developing
an antibody response at low dose (0.1 mg/kg/day) after 14
weeks."[33]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#cite_note-32>

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, United Nations body that sets
international food standards, has to date refused to approve rBST as safe.
The Codex Alimentarius does not have authority to ban or approve the hormone
but its decisions are regarded as a standard and approval by the Codex would
have allowed exporting countries to challenge countries with a ban on rBGH
before the WTO".


Anyway, food for thought...and further non-Monsanto or FDA funded research.


Be Well,
Juliette Aiyana, Author of a nutrition related book and articles, L.Ac.,
Herbalist

"There is a muscular energy in sunlight corresponding to the spiritual
energy of wind." -Annie Dillard

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome