Marian writes that , "The HMF in 2002 is far better than a few years ago and
will continue to improve in the future to better meet the needs of preterm
babies."

Formulas/HMFs are always "in the process" of improvement.  What that means is
that last year's formulas/HMFs had problems but maybe next year's
formulas/HMFs won't have those problems.  Thus, the infant who received
formula or HMF last year was not receiving an optimal product but a
substandard product.  The infant formula companies learn to improve their
products by previous mistakes.   The sad thing for the consumer is when the
mistake happens to your infant.

Marian writes, "The bottom line is that doctors and neonatolgists in SCNs and
NICUs prescribe HMF because they believe the benefits outweigh the risks and
that they have research data to back up their decisions."

Yet, one must pause and wonder about this research particularly when portions
of it are funded by the very industry that will profit from this research.
Dr. Richard Schanler from Baylor College of Medicine who helped develop human
milk fortifiers received funding from Bristol Myers/Mead Johnson,  and Ross
(speakers bureau).  see conflict of interest
http://www.utdol.com/application/help/conflict.asp

Lucas, whose name is  often brought up in regard to preterms needing
fortification has a patent with Farleys.  Thus, the research that backs up
the need for fortification of preterm infants is often research backed by the
infant formula industry. I find that information troubling and cause for
concern about how much influence this industry has on the feeding of premies.

Most, if not all, current improvements to infant formulas and HMFs are due to
genetic engineering of components to imitate human milk.  This is new
technology and no one knows the ramifications that may occur now or into the
future.  Frankly I am disturbed by the absolute lack of candor about this
development by our government and the industry that will profit from this
grand experiment.

When I read the various patents that are imitating human milk components, I
find it hard to accept the research that denies infants full use of human
milk.  This denial of full use of human milk carries a heavy price because
women began to doubt the worth of the milk they provide.  This would not be
too heavy a price to pay, if human milk was not that beneficial.  But the
reality is that the drug and infant formula industries are profitting from
the imitation of the amazing properties of human milk.

Patent # 6066469
from "Cloning, expression & uses of human lactoferrin"

"Lactoferrin can be useful in the treatment and prevention of opportunistic
bacterial, viral, and fungal infections.  Opportunistic infections are caused
by normally non-pathogenic organisms in patients whose host defense
mechanisms have been compromised.  By sequestering iron, lactoferrin inhibits
the growth of these organisms, making them more susceptible to antibiotic
therapy.  Depending on the type of infection involved, treatment can involve
one or more types of systemic(oral, nasal, intravenous, etc.) or topical
administration.  Examples of such infections include pnemonia, acquired
immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), candidiasis, diarrhea, and neonatal
sepsis."

I find it ironic that what we will do is deny infants/premies exclusive
breastfeeding and because of that denial increase the liklihood of infections
and problems that will have to be resolved by use of meds that are based on
the properties of human milk components.  It's a great money-making system
but it is a poor health care system.  Valerie W. McClain, IBCLC



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