I have been thinking about my own frequent assertion to people that banked
milk has never been found contaminated with HIV or whatever other nasties,
whereas formula is regularly recalled.

My question is:  what are the comparative numbers here?  In the US it is
sadly the case that many, many, many more bottles of formula are fed to
babies than meals of banked donor milk.

Obviously there is still a strong ANECDOTAL significance to the difference,
and I am confident on the intuitive level (aside from the Code etc etc) that
banked milk is a better bargain for the baby and the world.   But my question
is whether the quantities that have gone out are big enough for the
comparison to formula to be STATISTICALLY significant.

Anybody know?  Kathy, our resident statistics cop?  (That is a compliment,
btw!) HMBANA folks?  If the answer is that the numbers aren't available I am
not going to stop making the comparison, but I may feel obligated to make it
a little differently.

Thanks.    Elisheva Urbas, NYC

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