LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Alicia Dermer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 26 Aug 1995 23:58:36 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Julie:  Dr. Hale already made some comments on this subject, but I have a
few things to add.  Although it is true that environmental pollutants are
stored in fat tissues and can be mobilized during breastfeeding, the only
cases of adverse effects reported in the literature are from massive
exposures.  There have been other studies (and I promise to get my hands
on them and post the references) that have shown no increased incidence
of developmental problems or cancers among breastfed babies living in the
same communities, exposed to the same pollutants as their bottle-fed
counterparts.  In fact, one study by Davis actually demonstrated lower
rates of lymphoma and other cancers among breastfed babies.  There are
many reasons why this may be true.  Firstly, there may be other factors
in breastfeeding which negate the harmful effects of any pollutants
transmitted.  Secondly, the period of time of greatest transfer of
pollutants is in the first few months, a relatively short period in an
individual's lifetime.  Thirdly, since breastfed babies have been
demonstrated to be leaner than bottle-fed ones, they have a relatively
lower amount of fat tissue in which to store pollutants.
As for Dr. Hale's concern about this issue becoming public knowledge, I
recall reports in the media as long ago as the '70's and early '80's.
When women are asked why they chose not to breastfeed, they don't usually
give environmental pollutants in breast milk as one of the reasons.  The
media reports went away, without making any impact, because there was no
evidence of adverse effects in the general population.  The same would
likely occur today, especially in light of studies showing improved
development and decreased cancers.
One final comment has to do with Dr. Hale's appeal for cleaning up the
environment.  In my talks to prospective parents, I never fail to point
out the environmental destruction and increased pollution associated with
ABM production and packaging.  It's ironic that some of the dioxin that
ends up in mothers' milk comes from the disposal of plastic baby bottles.
So what do we advise mothers?  I believe that any mother with high
exposure (e.g. at the workplace) should have her milk tested.  Other
mothers with routine low-grade exposures need only follow a few
guidelines:  avoid rapid weight loss during lactation (more than 1
lb/week); avoid seafood from known contaminated waters (health
departments usually have that local info).  Hope this helps.  Alicia.
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2