>Kathy, > > Please do forward this to the list. My main point is that the detrimental effects of >insufficient iron have always been emphasized when the reverse, the >detrimental effects of too much iron (and many other vitamins/minerals) >are seldom mentioned. It is extremely important to be aware that too >much iron can cause problems (some have even linked it with an increased >susceptibility to cancer and ischemic heart disease - although yes it is >still controversial) and >the fact that iron is involved in one of the body's defense mechanisms. > For example the much larger quantities of available iron in the diet of >iron-fortified formula-fed infants has been associated with a higher >susceptibility to salmonellosis, botulism, and SIDS (Weinberg, 1994). > I certainly agree that the advantage breast fed babies have has to do >with a number of factors, of which lactoferrin is only one. However, I >think that it is very incorrect to say that >one of the top 5 causes of maternal mortality in childbirth worldwide is >anemia. Anemia is a SYMPTOM not a cause. The underlying causes for >anemia are many and varied and it is these issues that need to be >addressed (and considered to be causes) not the symptom of anemia. Why >doesn't a woman's iron absorption rate reach 40% or 90% during >pregnancy? Because it would be potentially very detrimental to both her >and the embryo/fetus in terms of giving an advantage to pathogens. This >brings up an interesting point that I have been wondering about lately. >Arthur and Isbister (1987 in Drugs 33:171-182) noted that "Other mammals >have approximately ten times the iron loss present in humans per kilogram >and iron absorption in humans is only one-fiftieth to one-hundreth of >that in other mammals". Why? I would be interested to hear Dr. Zimmer's >comments. > > Cheers, > > P.