As an adult with newly diagnosed Celiac disease or gluten
intolerance that damages absorption of the small intestine
villi, I found this artical interesting.
This website doesn't link directly to a URL for this article,
you have to follow some steps at the site to access it.
Judy Ritchie
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~kolina/
IN THIS STORY:
Main Story
Formula's
Composition
Monitoring
Formula
Health Risks
Health Risks
While American parents
of the '90s may find
information about
bottle-feeding in the Third
World interesting, most
consider it irrelevant to
their own infant-feeding choices, and
believe that differing health outcomes
between breastfed and artificially fed
infants are minimized, if not negated, when
the artificial breast milk substitute is a
modern, commercially available product,
regulated by the government and prepared
in a sanitary fashion. Although it is
estimated that the risk of death from
diarrhea in less-developed nations is
twenty-five times greater for bottle-fed
infants than for breastfed ones, artificial
feeding methods still carry significant
health risks in the United States. Naomi
Baumslag, M.D., MPH, and Dia Michels
note in their book, MILK, MONEY AND
MADNESS (Bergin and Garvey, 1995):
"Even where bacterial contamination can
be minimized, the risks of bottle-feeding
are not inconsequential. Bottle-fed infants
raised by educated women in clean
environments, to this day, have
significantly greater rates of illness and
even death... In a study that analyzed
hospitalization patterns for a
homogeneous, middle-class, white
American population, bottle-fed infants
were fourteen times more likely to be
hospitalized than breastfed infants."
According to Diane Weissinger,
International Board Certified Lactation
Consultant and nationally-known speaker
on the topic of infant nutrition, "The only
advantage that American women who
formula-feed tend to have over
Third-World women is better sanitation
and medical care—and that's far from a
culture-wide advantage. That in no way
alters the long list of ailments to which
their bottle-fed babies are prone."
The Texas Department of Health's Bureau
of Nutrition Services says that artificially
fed infants in the United States are three to
four times more likely to suffer from
diarrheal diseases (the number-one killer
of infants worldwide), four times more
likely to suffer from meningitis, and have
an eighty-percent increase in the risk of
lower respiratory infections. Marsha
Walker, in her article, "A Fresh Look at
The Risks of Artificial Feeding,"
published in the JOURNAL OF HUMAN
LACTATION in 1993, refers to research
demonstrating that artificially-fed babies
see their risk for moderate to severe
rotavirus gastroenteritis increase by
five-fold. "Formula feeding is consistently
associated with immune system
disorders," she states. "Formula feeding
accelerates the development of celiac
disease, is a risk factor for Crohn's
Disease and ulcerative colitis in
adulthood, accounts for two to twenty-six
percent of childhood-onset insulin
dependent diabetes mellitus [and] imposes
a five- eight-fold risk of developing
lymphomas in children under fifteen if they
were formula-fed or breastfed for less than
six months." One of the most startling
discoveries concerning artificial feeding is
that it appears to increase an infant's risk
for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The
U.S. Centers for Disease Control's
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review
reported in 1996 that lack of breastfeeding
(or artificial feeding), along with exposure
to tobacco smoke and a prone sleeping
position, is now recognized as one of the
only known modifiable risk factors for
SIDS.
Not surprisingly, in light of health risks
associated with formula, is the 1995 study
by Kaiser-Permanente Health Maintenance
Organization in North Carolina finding that
these babies' annual health costs averaged
over $1400 more per infant than their
breastfed counterparts. Unfortunately, even
with the excellent medical care available
to most American infants who become ill
with formula-related maladies, the infant
mortality rate has repeatedly been shown
to be higher for U.S. infants who are fed
infant formula. Research conducted by the
U.S. National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences estimated that for every
1,000 infants born in this country each
year, four will die because they were
artificially fed. In another study, Dr.
Miriam Labbock, a nutrition expert at
Georgetown University, says that universal
breastfeeding in the United States during
the first twelve weeks of life could lower
the overall U.S. infant-mortality rate by
almost five percent.
Many Americans respond to the recent
explosion of research into the hazards of
artificial feeding by pointing out that most
bottle-fed infants appear to be "just fine."
Infant-health advocates counter that the
vast majority of infants who ride without a
car seat or who are placed to sleep in a
face-down position will also be "just
fine," yet concerned caregivers take the
precaution of buckling children up and
placing them to sleep in the medically
recommended position in order to lessen
risks to their health. The same is true for
artificial feeding. While not every
bottle-fed infant will become ill, a large
and convincing body of information now
demonstrates that as a group, these infants'
risk for negative health outcomes is
increased by a statistically significant
margin.
Still, many parents simply cannot believe
that their own doctor or hospital would
take a neutral or even pro-formula stance
if it posed such a threat to their babies'
health. It would, indeed, be puzzling why
physicians have continued to ignore the
ever-growing mountain of evidence
warning against routine artificial feeding
for infants—if it were not for the close ties
between formula companies and the
medical establishment. The manufacture
and sale of artificial breast milk
substitutes is a hugely profitable venture.
The average bottle-feeding family in the
United States spends $1500 to $2000 per
year on infant formula. According to the
Attorney General of Florida, for each
dollar charged for infant formula, the
manufacturer spends only sixteen cents on
production and delivery. This renders an
astounding profit margin for the
manufacturers. With such a lucrative
product to promote, corporations have
wisely enlisted the assistance of new
parents' most trusted advisors—health
care providers—in order to retain and
increase their markets.
According to Baumslag and Michels in
Milk, Money and Madness, the
infant-formula industry contributes $1
million annually to the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP) and provided at least
$3 million toward the cost of building the
AAP's headquarters. Formula
manufacturers routinely host lavish parties
and receptions for pediatricians at AAP
functions. Other medical groups, such as
the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the American Medical
Association, the Association of Women's
Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses,
and the American Dietetic Association
receive cash grants and advertisements for
their publications totaling hundreds of
thousands of dollars annually.
Individual medical students and doctors
receive loans, grants, and "gifts" from the
pharmaceutical companies which produce
infant formula, and a 1991 study found that
the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends
$6,000 to $8,000 per doctor per year in
promotion. Increasing amounts of medical
research into infant health and nutrition is
being underwritten by the infant formula
industry. Physicians and nurses who
choose to formula-feed their own infants
frequently receive a year's free supply of
formula. With all of this financial support,
it's no wonder the U.S. medical community
accommodates infant-formula
manufacturers' distribution of advertising
and "free samples" to parents in doctors'
offices and hospitals, a practice which has
been proven to discourage breastfeeding
and which is in clear violation of the
WHO Code on the Marketing of Breast
Milk Substitutes. The infant-formula
industry needn't worry, however, since
health care providers are the group
ethically responsible for reporting Code
violations in the first place.
At present, concerned parents clearly
cannot rely upon the medical community,
the government, or the formula
manufacturers themselves to effect change
in favor of better quality commercial infant
nutrition. It will require a consumer
movement in the United States approaching
the scale and intensity of the Nestle
Boycott to bring about reforms. In the
meantime, breastfeeding—an option
available to an estimated ninety to
ninety-five percent of new
mothers—remains the safest, least
expensive, and most healthful choice in
infant feeding.
***********************************************
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
|
