http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/116-10/toc.html
So they say that on the cover and then when you read the actual article IT SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE. I wonder how many formula ads run in this magazine. Because more people will read the cover and take it as gospel because it's a science magazine.
Should an article that includes the text:
have as its the bulk of its cover page summary:
My husband found this and he's going to write a letter. Sorry if this has been posted. I did a search and didn't find anything.
Frankly I am pretty disgusted at the shadiness of the whole thing.
Quote:
| The health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and child have been widely documented. But with national surveys and other studies finding an increasing number of toxicants in human milk, clinicians and parents are asking whether the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the potential risks posed by infant exposure to toxic chemicals. The Focus article examines the current state of the science. |
So they say that on the cover and then when you read the actual article IT SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE. I wonder how many formula ads run in this magazine. Because more people will read the cover and take it as gospel because it's a science magazine.
Should an article that includes the text:
Quote:
| The fact that studies of child [health] outcomes in highly polluted areas are still better for the breastfed infant . . . would seem to indicate that certain factors in the production of human milk and in the milk itself, immunological and other, may mitigate or lessen the potential harm of the ambient pollution. |
Quote:
| with national surveys and other studies finding an increasing number of toxicants in human milk, clinicians and parents are asking whether the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the potential risks posed by infant exposure to toxic chemicals. |
Frankly I am pretty disgusted at the shadiness of the whole thing.
