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:
Janice Berry <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 22:20:01 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (95 lines)
See below. Any ideas about how or whether I should respond? This was in
response to a letter I sent, which I'm told they are printing.
Janice Berry
Columbus, OH
-----Original Message-----
From: Adbusters Media Foundation <[log in to unmask]>
To: Janice Berry <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: End Games


>Ms. Berry,
>
>The editorial staff passed along your concerns regarding my reference to
>xenoestrogen-contaminated breast milk in the End Games photo essay in
>Adbusters #24. Let me assure you that it was not my intention to suggest
>that infant formula was as safe or safer than breast milk - given the
>general xenoestrogen concerns surrounding plastics, food storage,
>commercial agriculture and dairy production, it is more than reasonable to
>be concerned about hormone disruptors in infant formula. The reference to
>breast feeding was instead intended to show that even the most intimate
>connections between mother and child (and even mother and foetus) are
>affected by chemical pollutants.
>
>However, there <is> particular concern regarding xenoestrogens and breast
>milk. To cite one of several studies, research by the British Ministry of
>Agriculture found that women pass along much of their body burden of
>dioxins during breast feeding, to the extent that mothers nursing a second
>child carry a body burden of dioxins that is 20-30% lower than during the
>nursing of their first child. The Ministry study also showed that a
>breast-fed infant at two months could be consuming 10 times more than the
>tolerable daily intake of dioxin established by the World Health
>Organization. Still, the British Ministry of Agriculture experts continue
>to recommend breast feeding due to its overwhelming "immunological
>protection, nutrition and mother-infant bonding" benefits, such as those
>you discussed at length in your letter.
>
>Another reference further underlines the complexity of concern regarding
>scientists' current understanding of breast milk vs. formula. Dr. Allan
>Jensen, writing as one of the editors of the 1991 review <Chemical
>Contaminants in Human Milk>, states that persistent, bioaccumulative
>compounds in human milk "are normally 10 -20 times higher than the levels
>in cow's milk or infant formula. This implies a much higher intake of such
>compounds by suckling infants compared to bottle-fed infants . . . Nursing
>the infants may result in daily intakes of chemical contaminants far above
>recommended acceptable daily intakes . . ." Again though, Jensen continues
>on to conclude that, "Mother's milk is the natural and superior foodstuff
>for newborns and small infants; furthermore, nursing is of great
>immunological and psychological importance . . . Virtually all national and
>international expert committees have hitherto concluded - on the basis of
>available information - that the benefits of breast feeding outweigh the
>possible risks . . ."
>
>The debate surrounding hormone-disrupting chemical contamination of breast
>milk is serious and ongoing. For a readable look at research in this
>decade, I suggest Deborah Cadbury's 1997 book <The Feminization of Nature>.
>If you are interested in the original study regarding the early onset of
>puberty (a study which makes no claim to identify the cause of the
>phenomenon), refer to the journal <Pediatrics> (Vol. 99, No. 4, April
>1997).
>
>Regards,
>James MacKinnon
>
>----------
>> From: Adbusters Media Foundation <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: comment on End Games
>> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 3:43 AM
>>
>> James,
>> I thought you'd like to see some comment of the End Games piece. Perhaps
>> you could write her back with your cited statistics/research. I've
>already
>> written her, saying that you wrote the piece. See you soon.
>> Hilary, Adbusters
>
>Reclaim the Airwaves!
>Sign the Two Minute Media Revolution Cyber-Petition on our home page.
>http://adbusters.org/campaigns/media-carta.html
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>        ADBUSTERS MAGAZINE
>                                 - Journal of the Mental Environment -
>               1243 West 7th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V6H 1B7 Canada
>                   Phone: (604) 736-9401   Fax: (604) 737-6021
>              To subscribe: 1-800-663-1243
>                       the Culture Jammer's HQ is humming at
>                                         http://www.adbusters.org
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2