Anaphylactic shock due to antigen in breastmilk is well-documented in the allergy literature and has proved fatal on occasion. Intra-uterine sensitisation can explain it; so can neonatal exposure; too can the peanut oil in some infant formulas. A recent study pointed out the latter, to my great delight: delight because mothers had been saying oils could contain enough antigen to trigger reactions, and allergists had been pooh-poohing the idea, for years now. Finally someone did the study. Am away from the office and can't retrieve it just at present. While on the job, it is one of my pet theories that the US population have so much corn allergy because of the use of corn oil in formulas over this century, and the additional insult of inhaled cornstarch used as talcum powder. Australia is just seeing the launch of cornstarch powders: we are expected to believe it safe to expose infants to fine dusts of foodstuffs without provoking immunological reactions. I'm amazed J&J have got away with it to date. Australia, like Europe, used milk fat in formulas for many decades this century: but US companies have used the "vegetable oils are better" nonsense to undermine this, and butterfat is economically more valuable in many contexts. The fats used in infant formula will always reflect commercial realities: why else would a nation so paranoid about "tropical oils" and heart disease that airplane peanuts swear to be free of these nasties, allow the use of palm and coconut oil in infant formula? Enough. Apologies to those of you wanting individual e-mail answers: I can't keep up with work as it is. MM.