"...straight cow's milk might contain more potential allergy-causing milk
proteins, but one of the points about advocating its use "after six months"
is that by that time, we would
know plainly if a baby were sensitive to dairy. if the baby was, we wouldn't
want to use dairy anything until closer to a year. if the baby has not shown
any signs of sensitivity to dairy in his mother's milk, then it isn't a
problem by six months."

I get what you're saying. Carol, but I think the whole allergy issue isn't
as simple as that (unfortunately). And I also think that the above concept
is more clearly the case with infants that have been formula-fed since an
early age, but significantly less so with normally-fed - i.e., BF - infants.

In my experience, and to my knowledge, a child can do fine on breastmilk,
showing no sx. of allergy to dairy products in mom's diet, yet still be
allergic to cow milk protein when he encounters it "straight up" (i.e. in
dairy products given directly to the child). Also, it's my impression that
the whole allergy thing is more opf a continuum than an absolute, and can
vary according to age, exposure to the allergen, and other factors affecting
overall health at any given time.

I might be wrong - I'm sure there are others out there who know more about
this than I, and I hope we'll hear from them, but I thought that if, for
example, a person were exposed to a potential allergen, which could be
almost anything, at a point when their general resistance was low, or when
their protective factors weren't operating at top efficiency, they could
develop an allergy to a substance that previously hadn't bothered them. For
example, a child recovering from a bout of diarrhea/vomiting, if introduced
to cow's milk, would have an intestinal mucosa that was less intact, more
permeable, to the allergen, and could respond by making the antigen to the
protein - ie, develop an allergy to it.

Also that an "allergy" is not necessarily a fixed, life-long status - the
baby in the above example might be allergic to cow's milk for a period of
time, but if it were not reintroduced for a while, might not be "allergic"
to that same substance some months or years later. All of which says to me
quite plainly that a breastfed baby's little gut is perfect as it is when
exposed only to breastmilk for many months (how many? depends who you ask -
at least 6 mo., and considerably longer if there's a reason to suspect
sensitivity - family hx., small signs in the baby, a previous allergic
reaction to most anything). No wonder so many babies have such trouble
adjusting to formula X or y, and the problems tend to get worse as we "try"
this and that on them.

Or maybe "allergy" is not as flexible a condition as it looks like - maybe
the baby who shows no clear signs of allergy to dairy products in its
mother's diet is doing perfectly well as far as we can tell, but might
thrive EVEN BETTER without mom's dairy intake. There's an awful lot we don't
know, all of which weighs in on the side of a good conservative approach -
exclusive BFing for several months so as not to mess up what's already
perfect, and good close observation in giving babies "the usual suspects"
(bovine protein, soy, wheat, etc.)

Cathy Bargar, RN, IBCLC Ithaca NY (not used to thinking of herself as a
"conservative").

(I was BF for several months, was very allergic to cow's milk as a baby,
"got used to it" as a kid but was allergic to all kinds of things my whole
life, and didn't *seem* to be allergic to it again until the last couple of
years, when it's been a real problem. Gives me a lot of sypathy for the poor
babies, I'll tell you!)

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