Well, that's not to bad Ruth, as many physicians around here say after 6
months.  It is completely idiotic and your coworker does not need to provide
proof that breastmilk still has nutritional value.  I think that such an
absurd contention should be documented by the person stating it.  Why do we
keep running around like little mice trying to find documentation for
perfectly unreasonable ideas?  It's like saying "I don't believe that some
people have blue eyes and some have brown. Find me the studies and I will
believe you". Let him provide the studies.

What does this person think happens to breastmilk after a year?  That it
turns to air?  Why 1 year?  Why not 9 months?  How does the mother's
breastmilk know to turn to water at the baby's first birthday?

What most people who say this really mean is that breastmilk is not
*nutritionally* necessary after 6 months, or a year or whatever they are
saying.  And that is true, just like meat is not nutrtionally *necessary*
ever, or plums or celery.  Nothing is nutritionally necessary if you are
getting a wide variety of other foods in sufficient amounts.

Anyhow, breastmilk still contains protein, fat and carbohydrate at a year or
6 years postpartum. It also contains a lot of immune factors, some of them,
like lysozyme, present in greater amounts than in the first year.

And breastfeeding is more than breastmilk. But someone who says what this
pediatrician says wouldn't understand that. He'd want studies to prove it.

I would advise your coworker to ignore the pediatrician's statement.  If you
want show her this.

Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC