LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Kathleen G. Auerbach" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 Nov 1995 22:44:38 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
I agree that terminology can be a problem. Human milk is easy. What to call
the adulterated versions of alternatives is something else again.

I hate "formula", for it implies scientific purity/safety/positive value,
etc., which I do not think it can claim.

Non-human milk is ok.

What really gripes me is human milk substitute. The problem with this is
that the first words read imply human milk: the standard. Then one's brain
(and thinking) is jarred into realizing that something else is the topic!
So I will not use it.  I just wish certain institutions/associations would
see the problem with that term.

Just as bad is human milk fortifier, which implies for many that the
fortifier (made of cow milk) is made from human milk!! What it is supposed
to mean is that it adds to human milk, but what it adds to it is not
necessarily optimal.

What does that leave us?  Am open to creative ideas.




Def. of LC service: "We are all faced with a series of great opportunities
brilliantly disguised as impossible situations."
Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Homewood, IL)- [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2