Michelle wrote:

<<I actually began to have a "panicky" feeling about my exclusively
breastfed daughter, did I do her a disservice? for ME to be thinking
that is evidence that the general public could easily take this as an
all out damnation of breastmilk. >>

Sharon's message:
<<The point that we should be making is that although the levels in milk
are not high enough yet to cause anyone to reconsider their decision to
allow their baby to breastfeed, if we do not start cleaning up the
environment, fifty years from now, that may no longer be true.>>

Thanks for sharing your panic, Michelle. That's exactly the response we
need to be addressing. For somebody like me, decades past my lactating
years, it's possible to forget that feeling of being socked in the
stomach by a wave of fear that your child is at risk.

I found Sharon's careful review of the current fuss about PDBEs very
helpful. She pointed my attention to the real problem--the contaminated
environment--by interpreting the important message that the breast milk
studies are bringing to us.

I have drafted a letter to the editor for my local paper. I invite
others to do the same. You can't use my exact words, but you're welcome
to my ideas! Also, the EWG website was very helpful. It has their press
release from Tuesday plus the whole PBDE report.  Look on
http://www.ewg.org/reports/mothersmilk/release_20030923.php


Here is the letter:
<<Dear Editor:

<Don't Kill the Messenger!
<
<On September 23, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) announced
finding high levels of <a flame-retardant substance called PBDE in human
milk samples from 20 women across the <United States. Before panic sets
in, let's look at what this means.
<
<Milk is chosen for testing to find persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
because it is <easy and painless to obtain, and because it is high in
fat compared to the other body <substances that could be tested (blood,
urine, and hair). When POPs are found in milk, <this shows that they are
present in fat throughout the body. When they are found in <nursing
mothers, this indicates that they are present throughout the population.
Most <important, when POPs are found in milk, it is evidence that they
have been reaching <the baby since its conception via the mother's
blood, which nourishes every child <during fetal development. All of our
children-no matter how their mothers will decide <to feed them-are
already carrying a body burden of toxic chemicals when they are born.
<
<The EWG also said that breastfeeding remains the best way to feed
babies. "Even women <with very high levels of fire retardants in their
breast milk should continue to <breastfeed their babies. There are two
main reasons why. First, adverse effects on <learning and behavior are
strongly associated with fetal exposure to persistent <pollutants, not
with breast milk exposure. And second, breastfeeding appears to
<overcome some of the harmful effects of high fetal exposure to
persistent chemicals." <Nothing else that parents can feed their
children builds the immune system and aids <development in comparable
ways. The longer breastfeeding continues, the better are the <outcomes
for child health and development.
<
<The EWG's announcement is a call to action, a call for the EPA to phase
out PBDE in <U.S. products (as has been done in Europe), and to require
labeling so consumers can <choose not to buy products that contain PBDE;
a call to the CDCP (Centers for Disease <Control and Prevention) to
monitor body burdens of toxic chemicals; and a call to <Congress to
increase funding for research. It is not a call to abandon
breastfeeding. <On the contrary, until the day when POPs can be removed
from the environment, <breastfeeding is our only way to compensate
babies for inadvertently exposing them in <the womb.
<
<Human milk brings us the message that we live in a polluted world, but
that is no <reason to kill the messenger.>>

Chris

Chris Mulford, RN, IBCLC
LLL Leader Reserve
working for WIC in South Jersey (Eastern USA)
Co-coordinator, Women & Work Task Force, WABA

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

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(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html