Another experiment with our human infants as test subjects. We don't know what long-range effect synthetic vitamin D has on our infants. If humans are meant to manufacture Vit D from adequate exposure to sunlight, what happens if this process is short circuited by artificially elevating all infants to some arbitrary level of the vitamin? Will these infants lose their capacity to manufacture this vitamin? We don't know, do we? Will the effect of this supplementing be similar to infants who are *not* fed human milk with the "normal" levels of cholesterol. Those infants are not prepared for a life-time of cholesterol-laden foods, and their blood cholesterol levels are dangerously elevated throughout their lives. One of the findings in the long-term Framingham (Mass.) studies is that men who were breastfed for even 3 months were able to ingest high cholesterol foods without arterial deposits. Who would have thought it? Oops! We made a mistake. If the Pediatricians would mount an educational campaign about the necessity of sun exposure for the health of all infants and their mothers, then the infants who are breastfed and who are dark skinned (or not) will go on to develop in a normally healthy manner. And they will do this on their mothers milk. Giving a breastfed infant artificial vitamins is not a recommendation without risk. If the risk of rickets is greater than the risk of a compromised GI tract, then the infants at risk for rickets need to be supplemented (with vit D). We know that anything that an infant ingests that is not breastmilk affects nutritional absorption and immune protection in that infant's gut. We don't know what other aspects of health we are toying with, do we? Dr. Lawrence Gartner tells us that even one teaspoon of pear puree will compromise an infant's formerly healthy GI tract. It takes up to two weeks of exclusive breastmilk to restore the gut to health. And if the babies at risk need vitamin D, then give them vitamin D--not A,C, and D. Those babies don't need supplemental vit A and they don't need supplemental vit C. An infant needs natural, human vitamins in proper ratio, not artificial, synthetic ones of some randomly selected potency. There is a vast difference--as much difference as breastmilk and breastmilk substitutes. And if the pharm companies don't now make an infant D alone, they could certainly do so. It's easy to say, "Oh, just give them all three. What difference does it make." We don't know, do we? We do know that there is an eagerness to find breastmilk deficient, but it isn't. A breastfeeding mother who doesn't know that she and her baby should get exposure to sunlight, should be told to do so, not that human milk is deficient. If she cannot manage to get this healthy exposure, then *her* infant needs to be supplemented. You can be sure that mothers *will* interpret, or will be told, that the quality of their milk is not adequate for their babies. What is the medium in which those vitamins are delivered? What effect does that oil (petroleum based?) have on the infant's gut? What of her capacity to assimilate all of the nutrients in her mother's milk? Will her risk for allergy and infection be increased? We don't know, do we? This "news flash" is a major set-back in our goal of offering every baby her mother's milk. Once again breastfeeding is seen as a risk to "some" infants--read "perhaps *your* infant." Pat Gima, IBCLC Milwaukee, Wisconsin Mailto:[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