LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Sharon Knorr <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:41:49 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Valerie,

You know, I think that maybe we are both not exactly getting what the other is trying to say.  My thoughts:

1.  Yes, persistent organic pollutants are found in cow's milk - in fact, whole milk and butter can be a major source of ingestion for humans.  Young women who want to decrease their toxin loads before having children would do well to stay away from these products, as well as many kinds of fish.

2.  Because the animal fat in formula is replaced with vegetable fat, the toxin levels found in cow's milk are not also found in cow's milk formula.  While there is some degree of contamination from vegetable sources as well, it is quite small compared to that from high-fat animal sources.

3.  Formula does contain low levels of POPs - almost everything does, it's just that the levels are nowhere near what is sometimes found in breastmilk.  You are right that many of the studies do not include a comparable analysis of formula - many of the abstracts about toxins in babies and in breastmilk reference previous studies establishing low toxin levels in formula - I am trying to get the full-length articles that may have the actual numbers.  However, after reading through many abstracts, a few articles, as well as previous posts on Lactnet, there seems to be almost universal findings of greatly increased levels in breastfed babies compared to formula fed (perinatal and cord blood levels are similar) that seem to be only attributable to the ingestion of breastmilk - in some cases the babies were exclusively breastfed, some were spot checks, some were followed over time.  If there were comparable levels in formula, then at least some of these studies should show, on average, formula-fed babies with equally high levels - but they don't.

4.  The level of contamination varies - some milk levels are quite low, some very high.  It all depends on the mother's exposure.  It is very difficult to extrapolate results from one study and apply them to any particular mother.  All it means is that the environment in the countries where the studies take place remain highly contaminated and immediate steps should be taken to reverse that situation.

5.  Most of the abstracts show little evidence of long-term deficits due to breastmilk ingestion;  however, a few studies do show some neurological problems in cases where there is heavy contamination.  There does seem to be good evidence for the fact that most of the damage is done in the womb and that breastmilk seems to lessen the impact of that damage, unless the breastmilk itself contains extremely high levels of toxin.

6.  Formula has its own set of problems, deficiencies and contamination issues - it's just that they may be a little different that those of breastmilk;  the latest one that hit the news was the bacterial contamination issue;  we know that improperly made formula has caused infant death and we know that formula prepared with contaminated water has also caused illness and death, not only in third-world countries, but right here in the good old US of A.

7.  I think that we can make the point that formula is contaminated with various things, as well as not being very good food for babies to begin with.  I don't think that we can make the case that infant formula is more likely than breastmilk to be contaminated with substantial levels of POPs.

8.  Somehow we need to find a way to get this focused on the environment, rather on breastfeeding, as they did in Europe.  I'm not sure how we can do that.  But these reports will continue.

We are all exasperated with the media's inability to accurately interpret many of these studies.  We do need to become more familiar with these studies so that we can argue our own points more effectively.  I do not purport to be any kind of expert on this subject, but I do respect the posts by informed folks such as Sandra Steingraber and Judith Schreiber who have written eloquently on this topic in the past and included quite a few references as well.  When I get some of these articles tracked down and read, I'll let you know what they say.  Maybe I am misinterpreting as well.  Right now, I don't think so.  But we'll see.
Warmly,
Sharon Knorr, BSMT, ASCP, IBCLC
Newark, NY (near Rochester on Lake Ontario)
mailto:[log in to unmask]

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

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2