On 19/04/2004, at 19:53, EDG wrote:

> Does anyone have any proof that Purelan-100 or Lansinoh are better and
> purer than anhydrous lanolin that is sold for other pharmaceutical
> purposes? I just had an (ahem) altercation with a pharmacist who is
> furious that the baby store sells Purelan for the equivalent of  5$ a
> tube when he is selling pure anhydrous lanolin for next to nothing.

"Pure" doesn't mean pure - most lanolins contain preservatives such as
BHT which have been banned in some parts of the world; others are
contaminated with pesticides. A lot of people choose not to have their
newborn ingesting these products, whether there is a proven risk or
not. According to Lansinoh (with whom I have no connection), some
products are also chemically bleached, and/or contain the more
allergenic wool alcohols as well as lanolin. And as you note, some have
an offensive taste.

>  I
> can't find any proof that it is better, and he is threatening to go
> public with a scandal if I can't prove that these products are better.

Why is it your role to do this?

>  He asked me to smell them, and I felt
> that the regular lanolin smelled like Vasoline,

Hmmm... could it possibly have contained paraffin or similar additives?

Lara Hopkins

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

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