At 01:16 AM 4/1/97 EST, you wrote: >I have an extremely close friend who both breast & bottle-fed her six >babies. She saw absolutely nothing wrong with using abm and still >doesn't (she is very intelligent, just not regarding abm). She made it >very clear that she is highly offended with abm because of the word >artificial. She wants to know what is artificial in the formula or the >feeding method. There are not plastic ingredients as she says, I Um, how about the plastic bottle it comes from? I always call it 'artificial feeding methods' actually, and abm is my term of choice for writing and speaking in polite circles (it is called 'swill' among friends...) >countered what about "artificial" ingredients found in mass produced >foods, flavorings, etc. Needless to say, this is a taboo subject between >us, because we just don't agree on the long-term effects of abm in the >diet of an infant. Ask her why she feels 'formula' is an appropriate term? I mean, geez, I can make a cake and it is a set amount of ingredients all mixed together, but I call it a 'recipe' not a 'formula.' "Formula" implies a specific chemical mixture, not a food recipe that isn't even standardized between types (cow, soy, hydrolysate) or brands (MJ, AR). >As a LLL Leader, I do believe the public at large (including myself prior >to my first pregnancy) believes that formula is equal to or better than >breastmilk. The word "formula" conjures up the idea of "scientific" >meaning modern or "truly miraculous" meaning "look what man has >created". The public, in general, believes that abm is actually better ::haha:: I should read all of the message before responding eh? "Great minds think alike" and all of that? ;) >HIV & AIDS, I think it is too complicated to have thriving milk banks as >in years past. People are too scared, as I believe I would be, to use >this as an option before resorting to abm. Phew!! Not me!! I'd use banked human milk any day before using ABM for any of my children (barring galactosemia.) Just as I wouldn't opt for artificial blood because of the small risk (it is not zero risk folks) of HIV from a blood transfusion. Along with this, someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it pasteurized? Doesn't that kill the HIV virus? Heck, there isn't even enough research to know if the *milk itself* can destroy that virus. Human milk (my term of choice) can destroy cancer cells, so you never know. >I don't like the term Human Milk Substitute. I believe it makes it sound >equal still to mother's milk. The Substitute Infant Nourishment is too I totally agree with you on this one! I probably will stick with 'artificial baby milk.' I also like Synthetic Infant Nutrition Substitute coined by Jonathan Kramer. ;) Heidi Murphy Peer Counselor, BSN Student