Hi Valerie,

I for one absolutely believe that formula feeding is related to child
mortality and I think that the figures could be even higher than the 4 in
1000 mentioned BUT why aren't there the studies around? Why is this paper
the only one? Why is the only estimate we have based on figures from England
from the 1970s (gosh that's 30 years ago)? Why aren't there studies from the
US, Australia, France etc? Surely it could be done and my guess is that a
range of mortality rates would be the result. I am just not at all
comfortable with spouting a figure based on one paper, using old data, from
a particular region and extrapolating it to now, everywhere in the Western
world. It's not good science!

Karleen Gribble
Australia
  _ ---_|\
/             \
\_-----__/*
            o

> The reference is from Cunningham AS, Derrick B, Jelliffe DB,Jellife EFP.
> Breastfeeding and health in the 1980s:  A global epidemiologic review from
> the Journal of Pediatrics, volume 118, number 5, May 1991.
>
> Cunningham et al, states: "In Sheffield, England, breast-feeding was the
> single most important factor in a prevention program that reduced the
> postperinatal mortality rate from 5.2 to 1.9 per 1000;  the emphasis on
> breast-feeding accounted for an estimated 24% of the reduction in the
> mortality rate."[study reported in 1983]
>
> OK. I have a question. Will someone on this list tell me why we do not
> believe that infant mortality is related to the method of feeding an
infant
> in developed countries?

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