Heather,
>My heart just sinks at these stories.
>>
>>Cow's milk, the only alternative, could be equally contaminated, they add.
>"Could be' and 'equally'...why not 'most probably' and 'more'?

Besides, isn't this old news? I remember this story being on the news
about a year ago, when I had Sam. My midwife asked if I was concerned,
having prepared a speech (unbeknownst to me at the time) about all the
contaminents in formula ;-)

>But I do find it depressing. What on earth do we say to women who ask us
>about it?

What about listing a few of the formula contamination scares of the last
few years: aluminium, phthalates, organo-phosphates...? Not to mention
E.coli and crypto-spiridium in the water.

I'd say "The world is not a safe place. We know breastfeeding reduces a
great many risks that are inherent in formula feeding and no one is free
of dioxins - the contamination is everywhere. A baby with a strong,
healthy immune system is likely to be able to cope with our poisoned
enviroment far better than one with a weak immune system from artificial
feeding".

Is there any evidence that the increase in dioxins in breastmilk are
causing breastfed babies to be less healthy than formula-fed babies? I
think I am correct in saying that the figures continue to show that
breastfed babies are healthier (?)
--
Anna H. Breastfeeding advocate and would-be writer.
http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/anna/

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