or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › VERY UPSETING PROPAGANDA?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

VERY UPSETING PROPAGANDA?

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 

I was in the lobby of my eldest daughter's gymnastics class when I starting reading the local summer parent's guide. And i saw a rather big ad stating "Breastfeeding PRos and CONS , what you should know etc... with this link:


http://www.babyfeeding.info/toxins-in-breastmilk-and-formula.htm

IT IS POINT AFTER POINT stating how harmful breastfeeding is. research and data apparently indicating that everything from SID to Asthma to allergies, diabetes and even Autism are linked to breastfeeding and toxins and that pro breastfeeding groups are misinforming the public and misconstruing research. What REALLY UPSET ME most about this is that they are claiming that there is NO rebuttal to what they are presenting since they first came out with this  in 2012. This is more than a year without anyone who is a proponent of breastfeeding countering or exposing any possible fraudulence in this propaganda. If any of these research studies or authors of the studies are being paid by Nestle or other big formula companies this NEEDS to be exposed! It is not right that they play on the fears of parents considering nursing and then causing them to second guess. On the other hand if there is any legitimacy to these claims then we should address them as well.
I am breastfeeding my fourth baby (now 11 months old) and breastfed all of my other 3 to 24 months. I just feel like we should not allow this kind of anti breastfeeding propaganda out there. I cannot expose this on my own but if there are any moms that are willing and able to help me to break down this paper piece by piece and investigate the background of each of these authors and studies it would be a great vindication. Please message me if you are up to the task.

Concerned breastfeeding warrior mamma!

 

Eva

post #2 of 19

Wow, the website is, like, crazytown. It's all by this one guy Don Meulenberg who is not a doctor or a scientist but seems to have a creepy one-man vendetta against breastfeeding. And you say he's taking ads out in parenting magaines?!? You should complain to the magazine. He has no business publishing his made-up research.

post #3 of 19

I am sorry that this upset you, but this research is out there and this is the not the first time I have read these studies. For every study that shows the benefits of breastmilk, there are other less published and less well-known studies that show no difference or even the opposite. The fact is that our food, air and water supply are contaminated. The human body has toxins in it from all these contaminants, as well as all the crap we put on our bodies from lotions, shampoos, deodorants, etc. Have you ever looked at Skin Deep by the Environmental Working Group? Makes me scared of my soap, lol!  

 

We know that newborns are born with a toxic body burden. They have found the same contaminants sited in that article in umbilical cord blood. A newborns only source of anything at that point has been his mother. Breastmilk is made from the contents of a woman's blood. If there are contaminants in a woman's body there will be contaminants in breastmilk. Its not a stretch in my mind that this could have potential health effects.  

 

Articles like this are a wake up call to me that it is crucial we detoxify our bodies, homes, and environment! I am much more angry at big oil and agribusiness that I am at this man for posting what may or may not be good science (though the article does look to be well sited). Doesn't mean that we stop breastfeeding, but perhaps that we look long and hard at what we are doing to ourselves as a species that would make these concerns even a possibility. 

 

I exclusively breastfed 4 children, weaning them between 13-24 months. All four of these children have problems ranging from ADHD to SPD to Autism, conditions that biomedical resources say are likely genetic triggered by environmental toxins. When I look back over their lives to try to piece the puzzle together, you better believe I am willing to look at their infant feeding with a critical eye, of which my breastmilk was a significant part. I am not saying that I am convinced that toxins in my breastmilk impacted them or caused their issues, but I am willing to swallow my AP pride and look at it as objectively as I can. My 5th child was formula fed due to low supply and food intolerance. I notice as he approaches 2 that he is different from his siblings in noticeable ways. He has better eye contact, he's been less sick, he sleeps better, and he seems much more even tempered. He is the only child I have without sensory issues. 

 

Now is this due to the fact that he had formula instead of breastmilk? I have no idea, but again, I am willing to look at it, and at least consider that as part of the puzzle. I think we do a disservice to our kids and ourselves if we hold so tightly to certain ideals that we are unwilling to consider contrary evidence. I would much rather hear what both sides have to say before making my decisions. 

post #4 of 19

now there is a guy with crazy written on his forehead.

post #5 of 19
Sooo, if the mother is exposed to all these toxins in day to day life...baby is too!
So whether he or she gets the same toxins in breastmilk does not change anything.
What breastfeeding does change, is that is ALSO provides the growing child with all the good things and strengthens the immune system.
So a formula fed baby is exposed to toxins without the protection breastmilk provides.

If this man concludes that because of the toxins in bm, formula is better. He clearly is not a scientist, just someone who jumped to conlusions.

The toxins are not a myth, and modern society is to blame. The above momma was right about cosmetics. There is also a bunch of shit in foods.
Medications and vaccines are contaminated. It is not a surprise we are getting sicker and sicker.
To top it off our diets are not balanced, heavy in grain products and dairy, which causes us to be insufficient in nutrients from natural foods like veggies, meat and fruits.

What we do, also because I used to have a lot of diseases, is we detox, changed our diet, buy food beyond organic or grow our own.
We avoid as many harmful chemicals as possible. My beauty products are pretty much limited to homemade remedies and a few organic make up kits.
post #6 of 19

Formula is made of cow's milk.

cows don't live on another planet.

they are in the same polluted environment than ours.

and if we take this polluted cow's milk intended for calves, and dry it to remove all living cells in it and add stuff, it becomes less toxic? more appropriate for the human baby?

it was processed, it stayed in plastic containers for months. it gets mixed with our polluted water. (the same one breastfeeding mothers drink.) 

compared to the mother's milk made for the human baby, taken directly at the source with millions of living cells per ounce and antibodies and exactly the concentration of nutrients that are needed and the active enzymes to digest the milk in baby's stomach, and the healthy bacterial flora to colonise the bowels, then it is bad? it is worse than the packaged old formula can?

post #7 of 19

His citations are only that of chemical websites. There is no mention of "maternal milk" or breast milk or milk or feeding in the article I clicked on. he is just using it to make it look legit and knowing most people will not read the articles.
 

The ddt article says that babies may be exposed to it through breast milk but then goes onto explain that a symptom of ddt exposure is supressed lactation. Which it also explains people are exposed to it in enviornment and a lot of these chemicals are pesticides that cows definitely come into contact with.

post #8 of 19

Lets look at his citations more clearly

 

(28) ATSDR  web page "Public Health Statement for DDT, DDE, and DDD,"September 2002, Section 3.2.2.6  at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf

The exact wording that was paraphrased here was, "The proper development of many systems and functions depends on the timely action of hormones, particularly sex steroids; therefore, interfering with such actions can lead to a wide array of effects that may include altered metabolic, sexual, immune, and neurobehavioral functions. Effects of this type, that occur following exposure during fetal life via the placenta or early in life caused by either direct exposure to chemicals or exposure via maternal milk, are discussed in this section." 

 

"DDT from the mother can enter her unborn baby through the placenta. DDT has been found in
amniotic fluid, human placentas, fetuses, and umbilical cord blood. DDT has been measured in
human milk; therefore, nursing infants are also exposed to DDT. In most cases, however, the
benefits of breast-feeding outweigh any risks from exposure to DDT in mother’s milk.
Nevertheless, women with unusually high amounts of DDT or metabolites in their bodies
(compared to background amounts measured in the general population) should be informed of
the potential exposure of the fetus if they become pregnant and the potential risks of breast-
feeding."

 

(28a) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=13&po=11

 

Does not say anything about breast milk just a chemical fact sheet.

 

(29) http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/oscpendo/

 

Does not mention the words breast, milk, maternal at all

 

(30) From http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/endocrine-disruptors-2010.pdf

 

page not found

 

(31) Committee on Developmental Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, in  Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment (2000) , Commission on Life Sciences,  The National Academies Press, p. 56

 

Found this, the only chapter that mentions breast milk is labled  "Using model animals to assess and understand developmental  toxicity."

 

 

(32) United States Office of Research May 25, 2001 Update, Environmental Protection and Development Agency, Dioxin: Scientific Highlights from Draft Reassessment (2000)

 

My pdf viewer wont let me look at this can someone else try?

 

(33) Male Reproductive Health and Environmental Xenoestrogens Jorma Toppari,et al. Environmental Health Perspectives - Vol 104, Supplement 4 - August 1996

 

A number of organochlorine pesticides
or pesticidal metabolites are found in
breast milk and human adipose tissue
(
21,22
). Several recent cross-sectional stud-
ies suggest a possible relationship between
levels of some organohalide residues in
human tissues and breast cancer risk,
although the observations are not entirely
consistent across studies, and no clear rela-
tionship has been established (23–30). Then also goes on to repeat the ddt article

 

(33a)  Lower Serum Testosterone Associated with Elevated Polychlorinated Biphenyl Concentrations in Native American Men

Alexey Goncharov, et al., Environ Health Perspect. 2009 September; 117(9): 1454–1460. Published online 2009 May 20. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0800134 PMCID: PMC2737025  at  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737025/

 

Akwesasne is a Native American (Mohawk) population of about 12,000 people residing along the St. Lawrence River in the Mohawk Territory at Akwesasne, near the junction of New York, Ontario, and Quebec. The territory is immediately downstream from three aluminum foundries, all of which used PCBs (Aroclor 1248) as hydraulic fluids, which leaked into the St. Lawrence River and its tributaries and have contaminated the local fish (Lacetti 1993). The Mohawk population is particularly vulnerable to PCB exposure because of their cultural and historical dependence on local fish, mammals, and waterfowl for food. Although their serum levels of PCBs are only moderately elevated [average, 5.29 ppb in males and 3.97 ppb in females (DeCaprio et al. 2005)], these values exceed the levels in persons without unusual exposure, which range from 0.9 ppb to 1.5 ppb (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2000). PCB levels in Mohawk breast milk (Hwang et al. 2001) and in serum (Fitzgerald et al. 2004) have been positively correlated with rates of consumption of local fish, although fish consumption has declined in recent years after consumption advisories were issued in the 1980s (Fitzgerald et al. 2004). Is the only mention of breast milk.

 

(34) ATDSR document on dioxins, section on environmental sources

 

The only example of this citation is on his websites. These words in this order do not appear anywhere else on the web.

 

 

(34a)  National Academies of Science report on dioxins in the food supply.  http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10763

(34b)  http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/dioxinv1sup.pdf  in section 4.3.5, at end of that section, "...the resulting RfD in standard units is 7 × 10−10 mg/kg-day."   In the EPA’s “Glossary of Health Effects”, RfD is defined:  “RfD (oral reference dose): An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure of a chemical to the human population (including sensitive subpopulations) that is likely to be without risk of deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime.”

(34c)  U.S. EPA. Estimating Exposure To Dioxin-Like Compounds - Volume I: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/8-88/005Ca., 2002, revised 2005 – http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryID=43870,  Section II.6, "Highly Exposed Populations" (nursing infants are considered to be one of the highly-exposed populations), 4/94 (p. 39)  "Using these procedures and assuming that an infant breast feeds for one year, has an average weight during this period of 10 kg, ingests 0.8 kg/d of breast milk and that the dioxin concentration in milk fat is 20 ppt of TEQ, the average daily dose to the infant over this period is predicted to be about 60 pg of TEQ/kg-d."

(34d) Schecter, A., et al. Chlorinated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Human Tissue from General Populations: A Selective Review, Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements 1994; 102(Supple 1): p. 159-171  and  Schecter, A., et al. Congener-specific Levels of Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in U.S. Food and Estimated Daily Toxic Eequivalent Intake, Environmental Health Perspectives Journal 1994; 102(11): p. 962-966.

(34e)  Chemosphere. 2007 Jan;66(2):311-9. Epub 2006 Jun 14.  A comparison of PCDD/PCDFs exposure in infants via formula milk or breast milk feeding.   Hsu JF, et al.

(35) "Technical Information for California Health Officials,"  May 2003, California Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Investigations Branch, p. 6

(36) Executive Summary:  Assessment of the health risk of dioxins: re-evaluation of the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI)   WHO Consultation  May 25-29 1998, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 27

(37) PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs concentrations in breast milk from two areas in Korea: body burden of mothers and implications for feeding infants, Jiyeon Yang et al. Chemosphere 46 (2002) 419–428

(37a)  Infant Exposure to Dioxin-like Compounds in Breast Milk  Lorber1 and Phillips2  VOLUME 110 | NUMBER 6 | June 2002 • Environmental Health Perspectives  http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54708#Download

(37b)  Transfer of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Fetuses and Breast Milk of Rats Exposed to Diesel Exhaust, Tozuka, Watanabe et al., Kanazawa University and Tokyo Metropolitan Public Health Research Institute; Journal of Health Science 50(5) 2004 pp. 497-502

(37c)  http://www.city.kanazawa.ishikawa.jp/guide_e/index.html

(38) ToxTown of National Library of Medicine, at http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=69

(38a) Effects of developmental exposure to bisphenol A on brain and behavior in mice. Palanza P, et al., Environ Res. 2008 Oct;108(2):150-7. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18949834

(39) EPA/600/8-90/057F  May 2002, Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, Table 2-22.  National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, EPA

(40) Industrial Health 2000, 38, 259–268 Review Article:  The Effects of Dioxin on Reproduction and Development  Junzo YONEMOTO  National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan  p. 262;  Glorieux et al., 1988; Rovet et al., 1987; Haddow et al., 1999)." (Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants  -- Children's Environmental Health Protection Act (State of California), October, 2001

(40a)  C.A. Laroo et al., Emissions of PCDD/Fs, PCBs and PAHs from a Modern Diesel Engine Equipped with Catalyzed Emission Control Systerms, Environmental Science and technology, ACS Publications, June 30, 2011

(41) EPA/600/P-03/002F, November 2006: p. 11-28

(42) Reijnders, P.J. (1986) Reproductive failure in common seals feeding on fish from polluted coastal waters. Nature, 324, 456–457.

(43) from the  ATSDR website page on Aroclors

(44) http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/nwr/PortlandHarbor/docs/SourcePCBs.pdf

(45) Ahlborg UG, Hanberg A, Kenne K. Risk Assessment of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Environmental Report in the Nord Series. Nord 26. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 1992.

(46) Environ Health. 2008; 7: 2. Published online 2008 January 17. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-7-2  Rudel et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.  PCB-containing wood floor finish is a likely source of elevated PCBs in residents' blood, household air and dust: a case study of exposure

(81) http://www.cqs.com/epa/exposure/part1_v1.htm

(81b)  Concentration of Persistent Organochlorine Compounds in the Placenta and Milk of the Same Women, Katarzyna Czaja et al., Ch. 21 of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals I, Robert L. Lipnick et al. editors, ACS Symposium Series, American Chemical Society, 2001; citing Jensen, A.A. et al, Chemical Contaminants in Human Milk, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, Boston, 1991.  Findings of above confirmed in animal tests, with even greater contrasts, in Ahlborg et al., Risk Assessment of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.  Report NORD 1992; 26

(81c) U.S. EPA  (2010) An exposure assessment of polybrominated diphenyl ethers. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/086F. online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea

(81d) Table 5-4 of above source

(81e)  Section 5.6.2 of above source

(81f)  Section 4.7 of above

(81g)  Section 5.6.2 of above.  The EPA states the figure as "44.1 ng/g lwt"  (44.1 ng = 44,100 pg).  For comparison purposes, the lipid (fat) weight indicated here needs to be converted to whole weight, which can be done as follows:  The EPA here assumes a fat content of 4%.  Using that figure, 44,100 pg/g lwt becomes 1760 pg/g wwt.

(82) National Academies Press: Health Risks from Dioxin and Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment (2006), Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Academy of Sciences; the original source is not quoted directly because it is part of a draft, not for quoting

(82a) ATSDR    Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),  November 2000, Balfanz et al. 1993; MacLeod 1981; Wallace et al. 1996,  p. 569

(82b)  Pediatric Research (2001) 50, 331–336; doi:10.1203/00006450-200109000-00007  Early Childhood Determinants of Organochlorine Concentrations in School-Aged Children, Wilfried Karmaus et al.

(82c)  Kommission “Human-Biomonitoring” des Umweltbundesamtes:  Stoffmonographie PCB - Referenzwerte für Blut   (Commission on Human Bio-Monitoring of the (German) Federal Environmental Office:  Substance Monograph on PCB - - Reference Values for Blood)  At http://www.umweltdaten.de/gesundheit/monitor/pcbblut.pdf , Section 8.3. found within http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/gesundheit/publikationen/index.htm , website of Umwelt Bundes Amt (German Federal Environmental Office).  This article cited for this breastfed infant exposure data the source:  Institut für Wasser-,Boden und Lufthygiene des Umweltbundesamtes, Kommission „Human-Biomonitoring“ des Umweltbundesamtes • Berlin:   Referenzwerte für HCB,b-HCH, DDT und PCB in Frauenmilch   (Institute for Water-, Soil and Air Hygiene of the Federal Environmental Office, Commission on Human Bio-Monitoring:  "Reference Values for HCB,b-HCH, DDT und PCB in Human Milk."  The text drawn on says, " "Die derzeit durchschnittlich vom Erwachsenen täglich aufgenommene Menge an PCB (ca. 0,02 μg PCB/kg KG [13]) liegt deutlich unter der ATD von 1 μg PCB/kg KG. Der gestillte Säugling erhält dagegen eine deutlich höhere PCB-Zufuhr (3 μg PCB/kg KG.", which Bing Translator translates as " "The amount taken daily average currently by the adults of PCB (approx. 0.02 μg PCB/kg bw [13]) is well below the ATD of 1 μg PCB/kg. The breastfed infant, however, receives a significantly higher PCB intake (3 μg PCB/kg bw."

 

(83) Infant Exposure to Dioxin-like Compounds in Breast Milk,  Lorber and Phillips  Volume 110 | Number 6 | June 2002 • Environmental Health Perspectives  http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54708#Download   Also EPA Home/Research/Environmental Assessment: An Evaluation of Infant Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds in Breast Milk, Matthew Lorber (National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) et al.

 

(84) In Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants - Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act, October, 2001:  Dioxins

(85) Intake, fecal excretion, and body burden of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in breast-fed and formula-fed infants. Abraham K, Knoll A, Ende M, Päpke O, Helge H.  Children's Hospital, Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Germany

(86) Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 37 (2003) 202 217 Dioxin risks in perspective: past, present, and future  Hays and  Aylward  at  http://acdrupal.evergreen.edu/envirohealth/system/files/Dioxin+risks+in+perspective.pdf

(87) Challenged Conceptions:  Environmental Chemicals And Fertility" 2005,  a publication of Stanford University School of Medicine, p. 4

(88) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=363&tid=63

(89) "Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat" in Personal Health, by Jane E Brody, New York Times: April 27, 2009

(89a) http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/ffhispanicslatinos20092011.pdf

(89b)  Brominated Flame Retardants, Third annual report to the Maine Legislature, Jan. 2007, Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Deborah Rice et al.

(90) Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2004 Aug;45(4):175-83. PubMed – NCBI   Polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants in foodstuffs and human milk. Akutsu K, Hori S.  Osaka Prefectural Institute of Public Health: 1-3-69, Nakamichi,Osaka 537-0025, Japan

(90a)  Zanieri L, Galvan P, Checchini L, Cincinelli A, Lepri L, Donzelli GP, et al. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in human milk from Italian women: influence of cigarette smoking and residential area. Chemosphere. 2007;67:1265–74., cited at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033466/

(90a1)  Quotation to be found at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-talks-breast-feeding

(90a2)  The wonder of breasts Florence Williams  The Guardian, Friday 15 June 2012 

(90b)Particle and Fibre Toxicology, Effects of prenatal exposure to diesel exhaust particles on postnatal development, behavior, genotoxicity and inflammation in mice. Karin S Hougaard et al., National Research Centre of the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.  Published: 11 March 2008  Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2008, 5:3 doi:10.1186/1743-8977-5-3  This article is available from: http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/5/1/3

(90c)  http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/dieselexhaust.pdf

(91) CAS No: 7726-95-6)  Health-based Reassessment of Administrative Occupational Exposure Limits Committee on Updating of Occupational Exposure Limits, a committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands

(92) http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/109p75-88lakind/abstract.html Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 109, No.1, Jan. 2001

(93) Challenged Conceptions: Environmental Chemicals And Fertility" 2005, a publication of Stanford University School of Medicine, p. 10

(96) An Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States for the Years 1987, 1995, and 2000", EPA/600/P-03/002F, November 2006: especially Table 1-17.  2000 appears to be the most recent year for which the EPA provides national dioxin release data

(194)   "Residential Proximity to Freeways and Autism in the CHARGE Study" , Environmental Health Perspectives, Published in 119(6) Jun 2011, Heather E. Volk, Irva Hertz-Picciotto et al., reported (with doubling comment) in ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2010), "Proximity to Freeway Associated With Autism"

(198) Figure 1-8 in EPA/600/P-03/002F November 2006 An Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States for the Years 1987, 1995, and 2000

(244) TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR LEAD, ATSDR  August 2007, Section 3.3.2

(245) ATSDR Section 3, p. 264

(245b)   U.S. EPA  (2010) An exposure assessment of polybrominated diphenyl ethers. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/086F. online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea  Executive Summary, p. xxiii

(254) EPA-452/R-97-006, December 1997, Table 2-3

 

Oh baby woke up.ill be back.


Edited by LLQ1011 - 7/21/13 at 5:04pm
post #9 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthmama4 View Post

 

Articles like this are a wake up call to me that it is crucial we detoxify our bodies, homes, and environment! I am much more angry at big oil and agribusiness that I am at this man for posting what may or may not be good science (though the article does look to be well sited)

 

No, it doesn't look to be well cited at all. I worry about this all the time. People read nonsense on a page, and think, "Gosh, it has footnotes! That looks pretty impressive!"

post #10 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post
 "Gosh, it has footnotes! That looks pretty impressive!"

 

Right??? Makes me nuts. I kind of miss the old "Go to the library" for facts it was  a lot harder to be misinformed.

post #11 of 19

I am not overly impressed by footnotes. The several I checked seemed authentic. I didn't obviously check them all since there are gobs of them.

 

I don't want to get into the position of defending the author. I have no idea if he's crazy...he certainly is passionate about what he believes (do we know its a "he" or are we just assuming?) I did notice that lots of his evidence has the same "correlation is not causation" flaws that he claims the benefit of breastmilk studies have and on which basis he discredits them. So that made his overall approach a little less credible from a scientific standpoint. You can't discredit another's evidence based on a statistical flaw that you then use yourself to try to prove the opposite point. 

 

He may draw some extreme conclusions, but the fact is that evidence exists that there are toxins in human breastmilk at many times higher than is considered safe, and that the blood levels of these toxins are higher in breastmilk fed children than formula fed children. What does that mean for human health - we don't know. I am worried about it. I agree cows have their own host of problems (watch any food documentaries lately? The farm animal industry is a toxin nightmare!) However, the toxins in question are fat soluble and formula only uses the milk protein not the milk fat. Fats in formula are vegetable based such as coconut, palm, and sunflower oil. Perhaps that is why certain toxins are less in FF infants.

 

It uncomfortable but personally I am willing to consider the idea that breastmilk that is highly polluted with environmental toxins might be potentially more dangerous to infant health than an organic based formula. I am willing to examine evidence on all sides, as well my own children's response to breastfeeding and my personal life/habits/diet/environment in the most open way I am able. I would rather allow myself to feel alarmed and angry and take action to clean up my life/habits/diet/environment so that the milk of future generations can be safe than curl up with the latest LLL book and pacify my fears. Yet even LLL has information on the subject if you are willing to look a little deeper. 

 

La Leche League:

"Humans store environmental contaminants in their fat tissues over their lifetime, and at least 60 percent of the fat in milk-globules is drawn from reserves scattered throughout the mother's body. Hence, human milk carries with it the chemicals the mother has been exposed to and stored her whole life. It is also, therefore, one of the easiest tissue samples to use for monitoring the "body burden" of chemicals for an average adult. Particularly worrisome are the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) including DDT, PCBs, and dioxins, which remain in the environment for years." 

 

http://www.lalecheleague.org/nb/nbsepoct04p164.html

 

Here are some of the other articles I have read previously on the subject if anyone else is interested. Much more moderate in tone that the one in the OP and sources I consider credible. You can see what you think.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-talks-breast-feeding

 

http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/envpoll.asp

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4767403/Polluted-breast-milk-warning.html

 

http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/organic-parenting/polluted-breast-milk-55022101

 

http://www.ewg.org/research/mothers-milk

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566290/

 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/nas-review/pdfs/part1_vol2/dioxin_pt1_vol2_ch05_dec2003.pdf  

 

http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/2.htm

 

Please know that I don't mean to put anyone on the defensive and I am not anti-breastfeeding. I am just pro-information. Just like we research about safe births and vaccines hopefully we won't turn a blind eye to a real issue just because it seems to go against what we've known previously. How is that any better than what mainstream "go with the flow without thinking twice about it parents" do? I don't want to be one of those on this side of the fence. That is just my take on it. 

 

2cents.gif


Edited by earthmama4 - 7/22/13 at 1:54am
post #12 of 19

That is interesting but the study it is referencing is 20 years old from a  totally biased and different time.  Before formula commercials had to say breast is best. Is there more current studies on the matter?
 

even the articles you are posting like his references say things like

 

"Researchers from Ohio State and Johns Hopkins universities measured levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breast milk and in the air inside the homes of three lactating Baltimore mothers, finding that a nursing infant’s chemical exposure from airborne pollutants to be between 25 and 135 times higher than from drinking mother’s milk."

 

And though I see what you are saying children who are nursed by mothers who are exposed to toxic chemicals are also exposed to high doses of those chemicals in their environment and it is hard to say for sure. Also the articles are very biased themselves. When they post that they studied 171 women and then do not elaborate that "2%" or whatever had abnormally high levels the article is pretty anti breastfeeding to generalize a small population without giving the correct numbers.

 

In all the sources I read from that man it pretty much reiterated that heavy metal and toxin exposure is rare, usually found around chemical plants and breastfeeding benefits in almost all cases out weighs the heavy metal risk.

 

I am not trying to devalue your own experience (god knows I hold my own beliefs from my experiences very close to my heart) just I don't want a new mom coming on here and falling for this kind of tactic that for almost all women does not apply. Or giving fuel to someone trying to discourage breastfeeding.

 

I also agree that we expose ourselves to way too much chemicals and if that subject were up here alone I would agree that as a society we have way to much exposure to it. But in the realm of breastfeeding like the article said the pollutants in breast milk are over a hundred times less concentrated then the air we breath

post #13 of 19

 "I exclusively breastfed 4 children, weaning them between 13-24 months. All four of these children have problems ranging from ADHD to SPD to Autism, "   

 

@earthmama4 - The quality of breastmilk depends on the diet of the mother. Unfortunately, breastfeeding women today are constantly told by their healthcare providers that their diets do not have to be perfect to nourish their babies. As long they get enough calories their milk will be fine. This is a fallacy. The truth is that nursing mothers need specialized diets in order to meet the needs of a growing infant. Their diets need to be rich in vitamins A, D, B12, other fat soluble vitamins, and consist of real/whole foods with an emphasis on good quality fats. Without knowing a mother's diet while nursing, it is impossible to make comparisons between the effects of breastfeeding vs formula feeding on the development of an infant.

post #14 of 19

the higher we are on the food chain, the more toxins we have.

being omnivores, we are pretty high in the food chain. so all the toxines in hundreds and hundreds of pounds of vegetables, grains and meat we eat, gets concentrated in our blood, fat, bone etc.

but then, there is someone who is even higher in the food chain then us. someone who eats onces and onces of us (and we are already full of toxines): our breastfed babies. they are on the very very top of the food chain.

does that mean that formula feeding is better than breastfeeding?

absolutely not.

doesn't even come close.

note even 1% close to breastmilk, and even less to breastfeeding.

formula is just a dead mix of stuff that humans put together based on what is available, cheap and brings profit. that's it.

breastmilk, at the breast, is living cells. active enzymes. it is totally, absolutely different. 

 

we are not comparing cloth diapers and disposable here. we are comparing a physiological process to a commercial product!

 

.

post #15 of 19

here is the photo under microscope of breastmilk and formula. see all the beautifull living cells in breastmilk. there is almost as much as in our blood. except, no red blood cells and no platelets. just immune white globules. they are specifically transported to mother's milk from bloodstream for the baby. and this is just one of thousands of things that formula doesn't have.

no one can convince me that a higher concentration of toxins in breastmilk compared to formula, makes formula better for the human baby.

 

7a3899cda4d5151f59aaa8d99648d52b.png

post #16 of 19

FYI his company is Comfy 1, and they make furniture, much of it upholstered. It's not special natural furniture so I assume it off-gasses horribly just like they all do. There he goes poisoning more generations, through breastmilk and otherwise.

post #17 of 19
I personally can't imagine formula to he so pure and free of toxins, seeing what type of life cows live.

1. They are given growth hormones
2. They are given antibiotics
3. The are treated badly (resulting in elevated stress hormone and undetected disease)
4. They are fed an unnatural diet (grains for example!) instead being able to grase freely.

That is why meat from certain cattle is pretty toxic compared naturally raised and fed animals.
I can't imagine their milk to be so much better...sadly organic cows are still not necessarily grasfed.

I think the mothers diet is very important for the quality of the breastmilk, She shares all the nutrients with her baby, so she needs even more.
Really there are so many factors that determine the quality of bm, and I wish these would be taken into consideration for studies.

----

My own experience is this:
I am breastfeeding a two year old. I went into pregnancy with a lot of diseases. Went off my meds to breastfeed, my health improved 100 % and my son is the picture of health. He never gets sick. Thankfully I am also healthy now ( and eat a great diet).
post #18 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennifL View Post

 "I exclusively breastfed 4 children, weaning them between 13-24 months. All four of these children have problems ranging from ADHD to SPD to Autism, "   

 

@earthmama4 - The quality of breastmilk depends on the diet of the mother. Unfortunately, breastfeeding women today are constantly told by their health care providers that their diets do not have to be perfect to nourish their babies. As long they get enough calories their milk will be fine. This is a fallacy. The truth is that nursing mothers need specialized diets in order to meet the needs of a growing infant. Their diets need to be rich in vitamins A, D, B12, other fat soluble vitamins, and consist of real/whole foods with an emphasis on good quality fats. Without knowing a mother's diet while nursing, it is impossible to make comparisons between the effects of breastfeeding vs formula feeding on the development of an infant.

 

Yes, I began following a WAP whole foods diet with baby #4 and transitioned to a plant based diet with #5. I agree that there needs to be more education about diet with young women. The studies I referenced I think more than anything make the case for avoiding factory farmed animal products! I also think that a child's genetics comes strongly into play, of course. Like a child with a decreased ability to handle toxins through his/her liver is going to be more susceptible to toxins from any source, even low levels. There are not many ways currently to access liver function in newborns, other than perhaps jaundice. I find it not a coincidence that autistic children have higher rates of jaundice in the neonatal period. To me that is just another indication that their liver detox pathways are impaired. I am very aware of air born contaminants being a primary source of toxins. It could very well be the mattress I co-slept on with my children that contributed to their neuro-behavioral issues as anything else. Maybe #5 is healthier because of my whole food vegan pregnancy, not because of formula. There is no way to know for sure. Its like a million piece puzzle I am just hoping that someday gets solved. 

 

The website in the OP is designed to discourage breastfeeding, yes,  but the majority of breastmilk toxin awareness articles are still pro-breastfeeding. My posts here are just to help people see past this guys "crazy" approach and see that the issue of toxins in our bodies and the possible side effects of that are worth looking into.  To realize that our modern choices are having real, long lasting effects that aren't easily remedied. In some of the studies they discuss how these fat soluble toxins are excreted during breastfeeding because that is one of the only routes out of the body. Otherwise, they just sit there and build up. The older a woman is the more of these toxins are in her body. The more children she's breastfed the less that is in her body. Where did it go? It became part of her child's body burden. These things just don't go away, and we don't just pee out dioxins, PCB's and the residue from that Teflon pan we've been meaning to through out. For those of us with daughters (not me, lol) we need to be very aware of their toxic load, knowing that someday when they bear and suckle children that their body burdens will in part be passed on to their infants, along with all the other wonderful stuff. I wish someone had told me this 20 years ago. I wish they had talked about it at WIC when I was 21 and having my first baby. Its unpleasant, but its information that is vital to a young woman having choices about how she lives, raises, and feeds her children. It is vital for women like me with older children who are struggling to have information as to the possible roots of it all. I don't want the breastfeeding advocacy movement to become like the big corporations and govt depts that filter what we know about our food and energy sources. That would just feel like the worst hypocrisy to me. 

post #19 of 19

Muelenberg trashes all the "observational" studies in favor of breastfeeding; cites a crazy Norwegian anti-breastfeeding article; misunderstands the Belarus study, thinking it was randomized to breastfeeding (it was randomized to breastfeeding promotion); then he uses his own brand of "historical" comparison (extremely weak approach subject to heavy confounding) to present what he thinks is strong data showing that breastfeeding never offers any advantages, is the cause of autism and infant cancer, and only protects against breast cancer in mothers because the pollutants are thus "cleansed" from the mother's body. (It's actually probably a hormonal effect.)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breastfeeding
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › VERY UPSETING PROPAGANDA?