Genetic engineering may seem like an off-topic discussion.  Since scientists
have cloned the human lactoferrin gene and placed it in various animals and
plants (sheep, mice, cows, pigs, goats, and tobacco, etc), I believe that we,
breastfeeding advocates, will have to gain an understanding of this science
and it is truly not an off-topic discussion when it involves the feeding of
infants.

Susan Burger has presented well a view of genetic engineering that is
embraced by the biotech researchers and industries.  But it is a one-sided
view.  There are many issues not necessarily fears that are not addressed by
the biotech industry.

First, Susan states a common rational for genetic engineering.  We have been
doing it for thousands of years through modification of crop plants and
domesticated animals through breeding.  In those thousands of years prior to
genetic engineering would we have seen such an animal that has human genes in
it?  Would that have been possible?  Would we have seen plants producing
human lactoferrin?  Would that have been physically possible?  And if we
hadn't started this crossing of genes between species, would it have ever
happened naturally in a thousand years? a million years?  No. This is not a
natural process.  And when you mess with natural processes there is always a
reaction. Sometimes it may be of benefit but sometimes it won't be.  Do we
know enough to control or avoid trouble?

What about religious and ethical concerns?  Human lactoferrin produced in
pigs will have some religious groups upset.  Of course, this might be
balanced out by more women breastfeeding exclusively and for longer periods
of time.  What about the suffering and treatment of these animals?  Cloning
has made many mistakes--those mistakes had to suffer and die.  In regard to
the making of infant formula, the question might be why is a society
investing in making infant formula with one of the many ramifications being
that these animals suffer and die?

In the fifties when nuclear power was the new technology there was much hope
of its benefits.  There was little understanding of the risks.  Many people
were exposed to radiation levels that caused either death or severe health
problems.  Scientists have yet come to grips with nuclear waste.  We had
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and that has changed forever people's view on
the safety of nuclear energy.

Genetic engineering, like nuclear energy, holds alot of promise. Genetic
engineering has some of the same problems that nuclear energy has and that is
containment.  Once it's out there, how do you control it from spreading
throughout the environment.  Researchers know it is not physically possible.
This means that even if you want a gm-free environment and gm-free food, you
will not get it.  It means that the organic movement will not be able to
offer people gm-free foods.  So in essence you have wiped out some people's
choices. I for one, resent this.

Genetic engineering carries potential risks.  Even scientists admit with the
production of human proteins in cows that the possibility exists of prion
formation.  It supposedly has not happened yet (transgenic research has been
going on for at least 15 years).  There is also the possibility of
introducing lethal organisms when you mix species genes using vectors
(infectious viruses).  Normally nature doesn't allow the mixing of these
genes and certain diseases have stayed within one species.  But now you have
the possibility of introducing a disease from another species that the target
species has no immunity to.

Susan mentions that some of the harmful marketing practices of formula
companies might be repeated in the approach to genetic engineering.  Might
be?? Already happened and continues to happen.  When infant formula companies
and drug companies hold the patents to human milk components, should we
really believe that out of the kindness of their hearts that they will allow
alot of breastfeeding to go on in the world?  HIV/AIDS has been their golden
opportunity.  We have at least 10 patents from various researchers with
assigned rights to various companies (including the US Department of Health)
on using human lactoferrin to treat and prevent hiv/aids. But hiv positive
mothers are discouraged from breastfeeding their own babies? Seems to me like
we have already encountered harmful marketing practices--big time!!

We have an FDA that currently holds the view that organisms that are
genetically engineered are equivalent to the native organism.  So what this
says to me is that it might be quite easy for the infant formula industry to
say in all "honesty" that the human lactoferrin genetically engineered in
formula is equivalent to the human lactoferrin in breastmilk.  It is my
personal belief that as long as everyone continues to think that infant
formula has a place in our society, we will always be fighting an uphill
battle.  I feel no kindness, no need to be polite about infant formula.  That
does not mean that I castigate mothers for using it.  They have been duped,
just like everyone else.  Everyone thinks the Tobacco companies were bad, the
infant formula companies makes the Tobacco Industry look like angels!!
Valerie W. McClain, IBCLC

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