Apologies for the lag in this, I've been away in Scotland for the past 
week.  I throw that in for those who will consider a week in Scotland in 
December an exotic experience... ;-)  Everywhere is exotic to someone!

I'm a little concerned about this statement, and I'd like to understand 
it more thoroughly?  The rate of bacterial contanimation from powdered 
infant formula is quoted as approx 14% of all batches, by the WHO.  Is 
this the figure that has been 'greatly overblown' or is the implication 
that fortifier has less of a bacterial contamination rate? 

Given the death of the newborn in the recent Belgium case, and the 
subsequent ruling that such bacterial contamination was both known, and 
therefore, expected in some babies (and thus no one could be sued for 
the death) I fail to see how the bacterial infection rates could be 
described as 'overblown'?  So I'm quite keen to get a better 
understanding of this.  :-)

Morgan Gallagher


[log in to unmask] wrote:
> The risk of 
> bacterial infection from the powder has been greatly overblown - the real risk is 
> incredibly small for a premie grower.  
>   

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome