Marsha Walker, as usual, makes some excellent points in her post....

<< 1. why is the safe provision of human milk to these babies being
 systematically ignored? Where are the feasibility studies and cost estimates
 of HIV positive mothers having their own milk heat treated for use with their
 own infant? If activities are being undertaken to provide powdered formula
 that must be mixed with local water, fed by bottle and artificial nipple,
 cleaned with more water and soap, and monitored for safety and proper mixing
 and feeding, and provided for a year--how is this more expensive than heat
 treating human milk? >>

My question is, naive, perhaps, but a concern nonetheless....what are these
babies going to drink after a year?  While it might be considered admirable to
provide powdered formula for a year, what happens after that?   Do children in
these third world countries dine on pasteurized cow's or goat's milk?  Given
that I suspect the normal weaning age (Kathy D can speak to this) from bf is
certainly LONGER than one year, what are the babies of HIV + moms going to do
then?  While keeping children on formula for one year and then transferring to
cow's milk at that point might make sense in the US/Canada/Australia/Great
Britain/Europe, I'm not sure the same logic applies in Uganda.  But my
ignorance is showing.  What fluids DO babies in third world countries that are
older than one year consume?   I too have difficulty understanding the
logistics of all this.  How many babies die from properly mixed but
contaminated formula?

Boggles the mind, it does.

Jan -- in rainy but beginning-to-green Wheaton.