Sandra wrote, "Nonetheless, school-aged children who were breastfed as
infants--even
as short as six weeks--have significantly higher body burdens of
toxic chemicals than their formula-fed counterparts.  For example,
Dutch studies show that children breastfed as infants have 4-5 times
more PCBs in their blood than children who were formula-fed."

It is critical that we define "breastfeeding" in any and all studies that we
look at.  Studies that are used that suggest that "breastfeeding" is a risk
or a benefit have got to prove that it is the breastmilk  alone which is the
risk.  I believe the Dutch do not have wonderful breastfeeding rates, thus I
would suspect that unless the researchers were careful in their definitions
(using exclusive, mixed or formula fed) then what we are looking at is a
bunch of infants who not only were breastfed but also given formula.  This
kind of research is seriously flawed!!  How can you say that breastmilk is a
risk when an infants are getting both infant formula and breastmilk?

We should not be saying "our breastfed children" are paying a terrible price
when we do not know that as a fact.  And even if that fact were a true
statement the reality is that it is "our children" that are paying a terrible
price because of contaminated environments.  I am struck by the irony of our
concern about contaminated breastmilk weeks after many formula fed infants
were exposed to contamination of their infant formula by enterobacter
sakazakii--1.5 million cans recalled. (4 preterm infants have died and one
full term infant suffered neurological impairment in previous outbreaks)  I
don't see anywhere any media effort to create hysteria about that
contamination--which is far more deadly and effecting more infants than
breastfeeding.  Instead the media spreads hysteria about breastmilk
contamination.

I believe that instead of testing human milk, we should be testing semen for
contamination.  It's easily available (the so-called reasoning for testing
human milk) and would help parents decide if they really want to have
children or not.  Breastmilk should not be the vehicle in which we create
fears about environmental issues.    Parents need to know that the issue
isn't about breastfeeding, its about a severely contaminated world.   Valerie
W. McClain, IBCLC

PS:  a worthwhile read in regard to the bioengineering of the mammary gland
and its usefullness in regard to maternal exposure to environmental
xenobiotics is
http://ehpnett.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1994/102-8/innovations.html

I think a great deal of the need to use human milk as a guide to
environmental contamination is that human milk has a real market worth to
alot of researchers and heck if moms get their milk tested, researchers will
have a ready supply of human milk. (human milk-lactoferrin stimulates cell
growth, activates the DNA, and is clonic)

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

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

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