>If HIV+ mothers do not have donor milk available, formula is necessary
>for their babies; at least in the USA.

I hate to disagree, but formula is not "necessary" -- formula may be chosen
IF the mother has decided that the risks of formula for her baby are less
than the risks of HIV infection.  Remember, HIV is transmitted at very low
levels in breast milk (that is to say, it is not 100%, I believe it is about
30%), and that risk of transfer is even lower in cases where the baby is
exclusively breastfed.  And the baby may already be HIV+ at birth, so it
doesn't matter if he breastfeeds, because he already has HIV.  And if the
baby is HIV- at birth, the mother may express and treat her milk to destroy
the HIV virus, thus allowing her baby to still get her own milk, just via a
bottle.  It simply isn't true to say that formula is "necessary" for all
babies of HIV+ mothers, either in the US or elsewhere.

>If a mother has adopted, and
>donor milk is not available, formula is necessary.

Why?  Many women who have brought in a full milk supply for adoptive babies.
They may need a little formula in the beginning (if donor milk is not
available), but many women are able to fully supply their adoptive child's
needs for breast milk.

Not to mention that the question was not "under what rare and unusual
circumstances is formula a good thing?" -- as we could list many situations,
but rather "What are the benefits to a normal, healthy newborn with a
normal, healthy mother of being bottle-fed with formula instead of being
breastfed?"

The answer to that is "There are NO benefits to the child."  There are only
convenience benefits to the mother.

Kathy Dettwyler

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