>I agree that it is very frustrating never to hear anything about the
published studies showing both that breastfeeding protects a mother against
breast cancer and that having been breastfed protects children against
cancer in general and breast cancer (in daughters) specifically.  If anyone
needs those references, I can provide them easily.  There is a chapter on bf
and cancer in my new book (sorry I always seem to be hyping my book) by Marc
Micozzi of the National Museum of Medicine.  He started out very skeptical
about the issue and became a "convert" as he did his research and writing of
the chapter.  He has an MD as well as a Ph.D. in Anthropology, so maybe his
credentials will lend credibility to his chapter as far as doctors are
concerned.  I gave my local ob/gyn a copy of the recent studies on bf and
cancer and his response was "Well, the medical community doesn't accept
these data."  He wouldn't or couldn't explain what the heck that meant!
        I have a talk I give to classes and community groups on bf and
breast cancer.  Maybe each of you who are lactation consultants can schedule
public talks during breast cancer awareness month (October I think) and try
to get the word out.  One of my overheads shows a time-line of decades from
1900 to 2000, and suggests that the rising breast cancer incidence rates can
be traced to the fact that there were three sloppily overlapping cohorts of
women: (1) those like my mother, born in the early decades of the century,
who were both breastfed as children and breastfed their own children born in
the 1930s and 1940s [actually my mother was born in 1920 and breastfed her
children born in 1948 and 1955 (me) but bottlefed the middle one born in
1953 (which explains a LOT, we also joke).  After bottle-feeding one in
1953, she switched back to breastfeeding with me in 1955 even though it
wasn't the cool thing to do at the time.], (2) those born in the 1920s,
1930s, and 1940s, who were breastfed as children but did NOT breasfeed their
own children born in the 1950s and 1960s (thereby losing the second source
of protection), and (3) those born in the 1950s and 1960s who both were NOT
breastfed and did NOT breastfeed their own children (thereby losing both the
first and second sources of protection).  The relationship can't be expected
to be exact, because all along their were some women who breastfed even when
it wasn't cool, and because women breastfeed for different lengths of time
and for different numbers of children.  Thus, I'm sure there is no way to
prove that the recent rapid rise in breast cancer is due to the aging of the
cohort that was neither breastfed nor did breastfeed their own children, but
it is an interesting thought, and gets people talking.
        I'd love to hear what the rest of you think.  When I showed my
overhead explaining this to the above-mentioned ob/gyn he said "Hmmmmm.
Interesting."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Katherine A. Dettwyler                                email:
[log in to unmask]
Anthropology Department                               phone: (409) 845-5256
Texas A&M University                                    fax: (409) 845-4070
College Station, TX  77843-4352