Nikki wrote, "Perhaps that is another reason, besides the formula industry,
that there is resistance to any mention of the link between cow's milk and
diabetes? "

There is certainly links made by various researchers.  There is also growing
concern about r-bgh that is used in the dairy industry to increase milk
production.  The research in this area seems to suggest that this recombinant may
increase the risk of diabetes.  It certainly increases a cow's risk of mastitis
and early death.

I believe there is a link, if we consider environmental toxins.  According to
environmental research the most contaminated foods are dairy and meat.  The
dairy industry provides how much of the ingredients for the infant formula
industry?  If all women breastfed, how much of the market would the dairy industry
lose?  I believe that providing ingredients for the infant formula industry
is at least one tenth of this industry.  So a reduction in this market, might
be economically devastating to an industry that is already hurting.

How are environmentalists trained?  Where do they go for their education?
They often go to the agricultural schools.  The perspective offered by these
universities will often mean that some assumptions are made in regard to the
dairy industry.  Thus the concern about the amount of environmental toxins
ingested by infants through cow's milk infant formula is readily dismissed.  This
assumption is not tested but presumed.

I recently was looking at the studies (5) by Schecter et al. on dioxins in
breastmilk in Chemosphere in the late 80's.  One of their studies did a
comparison of dioxins in human milk samples to dioxins in cow's milk.  They had over
200 human milk samples from various locations (Germany, Canada, USA, Vietnam).
The samples from Vietnam were taken in 1970 and 1973.  Thus they obtained
these samples during the middle of a war--talk about difficult.  I can't imagine
it is very easy for a white American male to obtain those samples from
Vietnamese women and get informed consent.  Now what did they compare it to--two
samples of cow's milk!  And surprise, surprise, the cow's milk was not
contaminated.  We have many charts showing the contamination of the human milk samples.
And one small chart of our two cows who have milk that contains no dioxins.
Now doesn't that seem a little odd? This is a comparison?  I call it a stacked
deck.  Of course this stacked deck will be used in current studies as a
reference.

The emphasis on testing human milk and calling it the most toxic food on
earth helps who?  Gee, I would think the dairy industry may win that round because
the focus of toxins is associated with human milk and not the dairy industry.
Dioxins are created by the products made by Monsanto ( PBDE's are also )  and
guess who sells r-bgh (Posilac) to dairy farmers--Monsanto.  Thus there are
big monied interests involved in this issue.  Before we, breastfeeding
advocates, whole-heartedly accept that human milk is the most contaminated food on
earth, maybe we should question why infant formula is presumed "innocent."
Valerie W. McClain, 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(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html