Dear Dr. Bob,

I'm glad to read your explanations. Thank you very much!


> 1.  either we continue to make formula so bad (as aweful as it already is!),
> that eventually everyone will stop using it and will only use donated
> Breastmilk from milkbanks.  Wouldn't this be nice?  Our world would be such
> a much better place if all adopted babies and all other babies whose moms
> can't or won't breastfeed would use donated breastmilk instead of ABM.
> This, of course, would all be our ideal for the world, and the increased use
> of breastmilk banks should be a goal.
> BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE IN AN IDEAL WORLD,WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION -
> FOR THE BABIES WHO UNFORTUNATELY ARE FED ABM, DO WE DOOM THEM TO A LIFE OF
> LOWER IQ'S AND MORE DISEASE? Or do we try our best to give them some chance
> of getting nutrition that is even slightly close to adequate?

A day before you came on lactNet, I wrote about this. It is a common mistake from
many people, and willingly spread out by formula producers, that abiding with the
WHO-code means that you are against the use of formula. This argument is often
used to ridiculise people who want to follow the WHO-code. However, obvious, this
is NOT TRUE.

"Article 1. Aim of the Code

The aim of this Code is to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate
nutrition for infants, by the protection and promotion of breastfeeding, and by
ensuring the proper use of breastmilk substitutes, when these are necessary, on
the basis of adequate information and through appropriate marketing and
distribution."

So, attempts to improve formula are not agaisnt the WHO-code itself. However
involvement with the industry is a very difficult issue. It has many many
pittfalls, and i know of many goodwilling people who were fallen into these. You
will not be the first who is used by the industry to give their name more credit.

>
> 1.  No one else with his credibility was pushing DHA.  Dr. Bill took over
> this task from Dr. Oski.  Once Dr. Bill heard about the benefits of DHA, he
> was almost obligated to try to get it added to ABM.
> 2.  Only someone with his credibility could get the ABM companies to listen.

The problem is, the industry will use you and your credibility. It will be very
hard AND time-consuming to keep your eyes open, and keep track of what they will
do with your name. This energy and time could better be put in other things, eg
helping baby's, and promoting breastfeeding.

On another note, I like Unicef's statement that it will work together with ABM
producers, but only if they abide by the WHO-code. This also has many many
pittfalls, that most of you will be aware of. but still this will make the
pressure for the formula prodcuers to do so, much higher. Before this, they were
'wrong' on forehand. So, a possible motivation to change (= money) was absent.


> Now that DHA is probably going to be added to ABM in the US, like it is
> worldwide already, Dr. Bill, myself, and all of you should not breathe a
> sigh of relief that finally ABM is better.

Does it? As far as I know there is no convincing evidence that adding DHA to
formula will indeed improve iq of the children. We know, -think- that it is the
DHA in breastmilk that accounts for the higher IQ of children. But by isolating it
and adding it to formula is no garantee it will do the same in formulafed
children.

Personally, I do not think it is only the DHA that is responsible for the
difference in IQ. I think it's a composition of many things, one of these the
fatty acids, but also the lactose, the lower incidence in infections that makes
the children have more time for learning, and that breastfeed children are more
alert (maybe due to the protein-composition?), so more ready to learn.

As a last renark, i would like to point to the breastfeeding rates in Scandinavian
countries. Indeed, not 100% of the children are breastfeed. But at the start 99%
does. In Norway 80% of the children nurse 6 monhts. At 1 year 40%, at 16 months
17%.

Would the need to push the formula industry to add ingredient X to formula be felt
so strong in Norway?

Norwey learn us that higher bf rates do not only exist in a Utopia. Norway also
learns us that a strong statement against the producers and a strong governmental
statemnt for BFHI does work.


regards, Annelies Bon
Lay counsellor of the Dutch bf organization "Borstvoeding Natuurlijk"

Breastfeeding postcards: http://www.borstvoeding.com/shop/english.html
Ordering from US: http://www.attachmentscatalog.com/gifts/notecards.html

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