On 8/22/02 12:45 PM, "Automatic digest processor"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> Has anyone heard "4 oz." thrown around as the threshold at which many of the
> benefits of breastmilk kick in (or something like that)?  I've heard this
> from a couple of different sources and am wondering if there is research to
> support it.

Dear Heather,

I've never heard this: what countries report this?

Can I say, without intending any personal offence, that this is a classic
illustration of the language/conceptual problems that have become embedded
in the western psyche and culture, mostly because of the power of a
multi-billion dollar industry and its health-professional collaborators (not
limited to the AAP!!) over time, to make its products normal and relegate
the normal to the fringe? It is a major problem that we still face in infant
feeding advocacy, putting the burden of proof of "benefit" on those who
advocate normal feeding, rather than the impossible burden of proof of short
and long-tem safety on industry, which makes a product that harms immune
systems for generations after the index artificially-fed child. From my
perspective, there are no benefits to breastfeeding. (Unless we are to talk
of the benefits of gestation in an uterus rather than a laboratory, or the
benefits of uncontaminated drinking water, or non-toxic air.) There are only
risks to doing anything else, and very occasionally, risks even to
breastfeeding in the dangerous environment man has himself created, or in
the presence of genetic anomalies.

This question needs re-phrasing to what is the dose of anything but
breastmilk shown to cause harm to vulnerable infants. And the answer is: any
amount at all given to newborn infants. After all, normal term babies on day
1 average 37mls in 7ml feeds over the 24 hours, and that is enormously
important but much less than 4 ounces!


If you had been asking about what age of introduction of breastmilk
substitutes leads to an increased risk of various diseases in infancy and
adulthood, I would expect the answer to vary with the disease. But the
consensus is clearly that 6 months exclusive breastfeeding (ie none of the
risky substitutes for that time) allows an infant to develop as optimally as
its genetic inheritance and environment permits. And any amount in the very
vulnerable early period distorts normal immunological and mucosal
development, as the Lucas NEC studies illustrated.

If you had been asking about the use of breastmilk as a medicine,
traditional in many communities for the sick and elderly, at least a cup of
breastmilk daily was said to be usual. But no one ever noted the cup size so
far as I know! And of course much more was consumed where breastmilk was all
that the patient could tolerate.

I suspect that the 4 oz thing is a hangover from the time when studies were
done that classified breastfed babies as 2 or more breastfeeds a day and AF
babies as one or less breastfeeds a day.  In short, when AF was normal and
breastfeeding the exception that had to prove its worth. Despite the
resistance, it now has, but the mindset has not been eradicated. We all
internalise what is everywhere in the language. We must change the language
to alter the assumptions.

Maureen Minchin, IBCLC


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

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

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