Apropos of the subjects of donor milk, and cost to process, and also the matter of HIV transmission through breastmilk - it occurred to me to wonder about whether pasteurization kills _everything_ about which we would be concerned in breastmilk. If it does - then (aside from being understandably overly cautious) why do we screen so stridently? It would seem that there is costly duplication of precautions, which may be serving to keep the cost of banked milk so high (one of my peeves is that at >$2.00 per ounce, if one doesn't have just the right insurance, who the heck can afford banked milk?) If, on the otherhand, screening _and_ pasteurization are both absolute musts because pasteurization _doesn't_ kill everything bad - then just how safe is the screening? Asking alone isn't going to be failsafe, as some women may not know of their own compromised health - some may even lie. I guess what I'm asking is - does screening alone ensure a safe supply? If so, why pasteurize? Of course, I think that the answer is "no", and that is why we pasteurize. But then, does pasteurization alone ensure a safe supply? If so, then why the costly screening as well? Is there some place for a streamlined process which is just as safe, but less costly? For that matter, is home pasteurization _that_ difficult? I thought that it was being advocated in Africa, yet one of the big arguments for only using banks is that only the bank can ensure proper pasteurization. I realize that control is a problem - I'm not advocating that people start cooking their own milk..I'm just thinking outloud here, wondering about the process and frustrated by the costs. Anne *********************************************** The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM) mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html