Well folks, I've been off the air for a while now, but for good reasons.
Grandmotherhood is to be recommended. Brigit is gorgeous, and everyone is
spending lots of time with her. She's doing brilliantly as you might expect
on a diet of breastmilk. And her proud parents dote on her, and Catie loves
breastfeeding...Then there's the little matter of trying to complete a
fairly thorough revision of Breastfeeding Matters, now in the hands of the
editor. Lots of other excitements and heaps of work later organising ALCA
and BFHI seminars (Kathy D. was brilliant, as was her colleague, Patricia
Stuart-Macadam) I've decided to drop back in again for a while and catch
up, before dropping out again to edit the next amazing edition of ALCA
Galaxy.(As a result of the last couple of issues, there are complaints
lodged with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, alleging
that Mead Johnson's EnfalacAR advertising has breached the Trades Practices
Act which prohibits false and misleading advertising, under penalty of
fines of up to $10million. And the question of the safety of some infant
bottles and teats, and the need for minimum standards for same, has been
raised in the right government circles.) But enough explanations for my
erratic participation. Take my apologies as read. But I had to comment on
Melissa's post.

"Food allergens eaten by lactating mothers have been found in minute
quantities in their breast milk."
To which I would say, babies are all exposed to food allergens because all
milk contains them, just as all milk contains manageable doses of bacteria
and viruses and other environmental agents that babies have to develop
immunity to. It has been known since the 1970's that all breastmilk
contains antigens, including dietary antigens, and that some babies will
react to that antigen with symptoms from colic to colitis, eczema to
irritability, wheezing to ear infections, while others remain symptom-free,
and either do or do not have symptoms on weaning. Dietary antigen is a Good
Thing. If it causes problems it's because the immune system can't handle it
properly.

What makes the difference? Lots of variables, the greatest of which is
probably pregnancy. Babies are around for nine months before they get a sip
of milk. If they are being gestated by a mother who was herself
artificially-fed, they are very likely to be sensitised in utero,
expecially if that mother takes notice of dietary advice to increase her
milk/cheese/etc intake. Breastmilk's fantastic anti-inflammatory and
immunomodulatory properties may keep them symptom free while breastfed, but
expose them to the food and off they go.

So when you read, "It is believed that many infants who have allergic
reactions on their first known ingestion of food were actually sensitized
by previous exposure to small amounts of food allergen in their mother's
breast milk" ask them to prove that sensitisation did not occur in utero.
Get a history of the mother and her diet and health from childhood. ILCA
should have Dr.Doris Rapp come to a conference as a speaker: she talks
about symptoms of intra-uterine sensitisation such as excessive hiccupping,
activity, etc etc. And emesis in the pregnant mother is very often
allergy-linked. And exposure to nipple creams and medications and the rest
can also sensitise. And formula can sensitise to all its components,
including the oil sources...

I still regret that breastfeeding support groups have not been brave enough
to publish the experience of their own members, experience such as that
found in Food for Thought, first published in 1982. Sometimes the desire of
breastfeeding groups for the approval of their eminent (which sometimes
means conventional) medical advisers seems to lead to the suppression of
useful knowledge which contradicts the-then accepted medical maxims. I
personally have yet to meet a woman who was artificially-fed or
badly-breastfed as a child, who has not had problems with some degree of
food intolerance in herself or her children. It takes generations to
incubate allergy in to the degree we now see in the west. Genetic
disposition is contributory but not a determining factors in the severity
or fact of allergy.

As for these cases being quoted as having to be due to breastmilk, am I to
assume that American hospitals no longer comp-feed babies???? That
exclusive breastfeeding has become the American norm?? If any baby starts
having symptoms about 12-20 days after birth, suspect that the baby was
comped, whether or not the records say so. If the baby was  miserable from
birth, suspect serious in utero sensitisation. And if the baby was fine
while breastfed and developed all sorts of problems on weaning, it could be
either. Breastmilk sensitisation is the least of any mother's problems:
breastmilk has so much else that helps. Children who are allergic but
seemingly healthy, no problems, can sometimes insist on continued
breastfeeding and then develop allergy symptoms about 2-4 weeks after the
final breastfeed at age 5 years or so.

I'll post on Lactnews how to obtain a copy of Food for Thought, as I know I
can't keep going into allergy or referring to it on Lactnet, and it
frustrates me no end to see how few people seem to to understand this
problem or help these mothers when it is possible, albeit time-consuming.
(And I certainly can't act as adviser to individuals from all around the
globe, whether by e-mail or letter.) Enough already.
Maureen M.

Maureen Minchin, IBCLC
5 St, George's Rd., Armadale Vic 3143 Australia
tel/fax after March 1: 61.3.95094929 or 95000648