Hi, Maria, The link you provided is indeed Part I of my research, published in Breastfeeding Review in 2009. It is also *not* about wet nursing as the situation was reciprocal (or could potentially be reciprocal) in many cases. More appropriate terms would be "co-feeding", "cross-feeding" or "cross-nursing". Part I is from interviews of women in Australia who informally shared breastfeeding or breastmilk in the 30-year period, 1978-2008. Part II is international, mostly early-21st century, and the respondents came from many different cultures or sub-cultures. It has been accepted for the new online journal, Nursing Reports, with a pdf up. The formatted version will be posted soon and I shall post the link here then. The purposes of both studies wasn't to provide recommendations, but to provide a snapshot of what women were actually doing. I am currently finalising a study of how hospitals in Australia handled EBM in the period to 1985, and I can tell you that the respondents in in my studies of informal sharing were more rigorous than what sometimes happened on the postnatal wards. However, policy development on milk banking in the volunteer sector - ye, the volunteer sector - in the 1970s was very rigorous. See my history of that, e-published ahead of print in Midwifery in March. (The print version hasn't come out yet.) I am going off Lactnet at some time today. So - please - send any replies to me privately. Concern about health issues and women's milk has changed over time, depending on the infections of the day. That would make a study in itself! We must be very careful, in discussing providing safe human milk to babies, not to go overboard and create the public and professional perception that human milk is a risky fluid and something to excite suspicion, and that the stuff from the factory or the farm is utterly (or udderly?) safe and beneficent. The reason why women seek human milk is precisely because of their justifiable concerns about animal milk and other artificial mixtures. Virignia Dr Virginia Thorley, OAM, PhD, IBCLC, FILCA Private Practice IBCLC & Cultural Historian of the History of Medicine Brisbane, Queensland Maria Armstrong wrote; > > This must be Part I to the research? > http://www.waba.org.my/pdf/BFR_Mar_09_Thorley.pdf > > Also, I am wondering about something written in Part II. The Pretoria > method of pasteurization is mentioned. When a donor is screened, why > recommend/perform Pretoria when the research about this method has only > adressed HIV (and a few bact.)? Same as with Flash Heating. Seems to me > that if a mom wants to pasteurize for safety, then this method is not > conclusive and Holder should be performed (which can be done at home with > an electric jug). > > I have looked long and hard into pasteurization and until research has > clearly addressed other viruses directly with this method, we can only > make assumptions that milk pasteurized with FH or P is safe. And again, if > a donor is fully screened and properly handles the milk, there is no need > to do this at all. > > Maria. > > *********************************************** *********************************************** Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html To reach list owners: [log in to unmask] Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask] COMMANDS: 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome