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:
"Jennifer Tow, IBCLC" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:01:19 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
From Pat's post :
"Exclusively breastfed infants are at increased risk of vitamin D deficiency
and rickets. This is because human milk typically contains only small amounts
of vitamin D, insufficient to prevent rickets."

What struck me about this is that we see precious little in the media or the medical literature about the risks of AIM feeding; rather we see the "benefits of breastfeeding". How interesting then, that this comes out with the "increased risks to breastfed babies". I, too am seeing mothers told to give their babies tri-vi-sol (in the US, this includes iron , A and C) or tri-vi-fluor (includes fluoride!!!.) The AAP clearly states that babies should have absolutely no fluoride before 6mos and that they do not need other vitamins routinely (this would certainly include A and C) yet docs ignore this, but rush to "treat" the supposed potential for rickets. I wonder if the AAP considered the way that peds would act on their recommendation? We now have the formula that contains "DHA from breastmilk" and we have formula that "prevents rickets" and breastmilk that causes rickets. I think we are definately losing the PR battle, here. 
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA

ATOM RSS1 RSS2