>To say that there is a correlation between formula feeding and infant
>illness is accurate.  To say that formula fed babies lack certain nutrients
>and substances that work to help develop their bodies in a way that resists
>illness is accurate.   To say that formula feeding causes illness is not.

Boy, this one's tough.  I had just typed "I agree," when I thought - for the
first time ever - about the case of an exclusively breastfed baby whose diet
suddenly has formula *added to it*.  And suddenly his risk of health
problems increases.  Did the formula *cause* that increase?  Or is it simply
*linked* to it?

The cigarette pack, approved by the Surgeon General, says, "Smoking Causes
Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy."  Does
it say "causes" because we know the mechanism?  Is that the key piece?  I
kind of think it must be.

What would we say if it were clean air to which CO were added?  Would we say
CO causes problems?  But the CO doesn't really do anything besides replace
O2 in our blood, depriving the person of adequate useable oxygen, am I
right?  All it really does is sit there and *not* be O2.  So just because it
replaces "normal" air, does it *cause* health problems?  I think that's the
way we'd say it.  My encyclopedia refers to it as "a colorless, odorless,
tasteless, and extremely poisonous gas."  Yet all it really does is
interfere with our normal complement of oxygen.  Poisonous?

I'm just playing here.  I've played with this for a lot of years and never
really gotten anywhere.  But I always compared exclusive breastmilk with
exclusive formula, and was always vaguely bothered by the fact that babies
have to eat *something* - there was no way to look at babies who ate nothing
(or at least, you can't look at those babies for very long before you lose
your cohort ;-) ).  Now that I look at breastmilk vs breastmilk *plus*
formula, and I see the increase of problems when formula is simply *added*
to a normal diet, not completely substituted for it...  well, suddenly I'm
inclined to think we're safe saying "causes," even if we're not entirely
sure of the mechanism.  What do others think?  Can you think of other issues
where we're not sure of the mechanism but we're totally confident
considering it to be causative?

Certainly we're absolutely safe saying formula *is linked to* problems.  But
I'd love to sort out whether or not anything added to an exclusive
breastmilk diet can be said to *cause* problems.  Suddenly, for the first
time ever, I think I may have a handle on it...

Though we do need to make sure people understand that babies need to eat,
and that the *least* damaging alternative to human milk, so far as we know
at this point, is commercial formula.

--
Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC  Ithaca, NY
www.wiessinger.baka.com

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

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