Recently, somone has asserted that formula contains fewer "toxins" than breastmilk b/c all of your own toxins pass into the breastmilk. Then she added that many children could've been saved from getting AIDS if their mothers only had access to formula.

I know this isn't true, right? who can give me some data?

I don't have anything offhand but I'd go to kellymom.com for more on both those topics. To me it's just common sense that if we are absorbing toxins from our environment, so are the cows/soybean plants. It's not like they live somewhere that is toxin free, we all gotta share the same planet. So whatever toxins are in the air, water, food... cows & soybeans are exposed to it everyday just like us. Common sense.

:scratch

The idea that human breastmilk has more toxins in it than cow-breastmilk-based products comes from the process called biological magnification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification. For the same reason that large, carnivorous fish has more mercury in it than small, phytoplankton-eating fish (accumulation of toxins in fatty tissues), omnivorous humans, at the top of the food chain, have more accumulated toxins than herbivorous cows, for example. Because breastmilk is so fatty, it is going to include whatever lovely substances you have stored up in your own fatty tissues from past consumption of contaminated foods (so pesticides, mercury, etc.). BUT since the cows used to produce the milk used in formula are fed pesticide-laden soybeans, growth hormones, and antibiotics instead of organic grass, and there is a whole (probably toxic) manufacturing process that the milk goes through to make it into formula, I would suspect that formula is not a whole lot safer, especially if you are a vegetarian and/or eat organic. AND, since breastmilk includes many beneficial antibodies and more easily absorbed nutrients than formula it is clearly superior in terms of health benefits. Not to mention that formula comes from a hard plastic bottle and breastmilk comes from a warm loving bottle :)
As for passing AIDS to babies in breastmilk... I have read that there is about a 50% chance of this happening if babies are fed breastmilk straight from the infected mother's breast. However, I also read an article somewhere that a simple home pasteurization of expressed breastmilk (basically just heating it till it boils or something) effectively kills HIV. Obviously pasteurized breastmilk won't have as many beneficial antibodies etc. as raw breastmilk but I am sure it is superior to formula, not to mention free, which is extremely important for poor mothers in developing countries.
So basically the commentor saw part of the picture and got freaked out. Which is unfortunately so often the case with AP things :(

Their is also a train of through that says that if a child is EXCLUSIVELY breastfed for a certain period of time (I think 6 months at least) the chances of the baby getting the HIV virus is less..... BUT one needs to see all of this within context. I grew up and lived in South Africa until a few months ago. AIDS is mostly found under the impoverished population: Exclusively breastfeeding until even the age of 6 months is not going to happen. The culture is one where solids are introduced at around 2 weeks.

Many moms are sole breadwinners for their families and the babies stay with their gogo's (grannies), so feeding exclusively and from the breast is highly unlikely.

Children die from water that has not been boiled and sterilized. So heating the breastmilk to a certain temp is highly unlikely to happen.

In the case of rural people in Africa who are HIV +, I am all for formula feeding!

Here are a few links in re: the HIV and breastfeeding issue.

http://www.unicef.org/programme/breastfeeding/hiv.htm
(Quite a few additional links here which also bear reading as they go more in-depth on the issue)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070329195658.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050427200634.htm

I believe the current recommendation, given the death rate for infants/toddlers in the developed world from other causes of death -- is that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age (no supplementation at all in any form). The research shows that the HIV transmission likelihood occurs with the introduction of other foods (formula or solids). I believe then that with HIV mothers, at what point the baby hits six months, they are supposed to wean abruptly, as they introduce solids etc. They actually believe that while exclusively breastfed, there is a protective factor which reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission, in the mother's milk.

The rate of transmission of HIV to infants by their mothers after their birth (that is, via breastfeeding or etc., likely to have taken place once solids/formula were introduced) -- was 15%. The rate of death from diarrhea etc. from formula with unsafe drinking water etc. (the overall death rate from illnesses which would be treatable in the Developed world) is much higher.

So given all that - the HIV/AIDs argument is just not true. The recommendations differ between the USA and the Developing World, given the different risks facing infants in each.

In terms of the toxins in our foods and environment getting into our breastmilk -- we can control some of that with what we eat (i.e., organic foods) -- and cows are eating and breathing and drinking many of the same things we would be eating (in terms of toxins in the fertilizer used on the corn they were fed or etc.).

The thing to fix, is the toxins in the milk of all mammals -- not to swap to the milk of a different mammal in hopes that it won't matter that the cow's milk was not intended for the growth and sustenance of an infant human.

ETA: The possibility to exclusively breastfeed will vary from area to area - my aunt helped write the WHO breastfeeding code, has lived and worked with indigenous people in South and Central America, Asia, and parts of Africa -- where many women simply bring their children to work with them and can nurse while working, whether in fields or factories. It's going to vary. There are also of course, cultural variations in terms of infant feeding practices in general - ie, the practice of giving honey to newborns in India would certainly be detrimental with mothers who are HIV positive and wanting to breastfeed.

Here are a few links in re: the HIV and breastfeeding issue.

http://www.unicef.org/programme/breastfeeding/hiv.htm
(Quite a few additional links here which also bear reading as they go more in-depth on the issue)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070329195658.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050427200634.htm

I believe the current recommendation, given the death rate for infants/toddlers in the developed world from other causes of death -- is that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age (no supplementation at all in any form). The research shows that the HIV transmission likelihood occurs with the introduction of other foods (formula or solids). I believe then that with HIV mothers, at what point the baby hits six months, they are supposed to wean abruptly, as they introduce solids etc. They actually believe that while exclusively breastfed, there is a protective factor which reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission, in the mother's milk.

The rate of transmission of HIV to infants by their mothers after their birth (that is, via breastfeeding or etc., likely to have taken place once solids/formula were introduced) -- was 15%. The rate of death from diarrhea etc. from formula with unsafe drinking water etc. (the overall death rate from illnesses which would be treatable in the Developed world) is much higher.

So given all that - the HIV/AIDs argument is just not true. The recommendations differ between the USA and the Developing World, given the different risks facing infants in each.

In terms of the toxins in our foods and environment getting into our breastmilk -- we can control some of that with what we eat (i.e., organic foods) -- and cows are eating and breathing and drinking many of the same things we would be eating (in terms of toxins in the fertilizer used on the corn they were fed or etc.).

The thing to fix, is the toxins in the milk of all mammals -- not to swap to the milk of a different mammal in hopes that it won't matter that the cow's milk was not intended for the growth and sustenance of an infant human.

I so agree with you on a theoretical level, but honestly on a practical level it does pan out differently! We lived in a very rural area of South Africa. Our closest neighbours was a traditional Zulu village with mud-huts and basically subsistance farming. Many of the "middle generation" was no longer there (ie. they were either migrant workers but more often they have died from AIDS). The ones who were there worked on farms in the area. The men as farm labourers and the women as domestic workers or on the nearby chicken farm.

Many of these women would not even tell their employers that they were pregnant in the fear of losing their employment (yes, it is illegal, but it does happen). Even if they did get any maternity leave it was for 4 months only with no work, no pay. Although their is an Unemployment Fund which pays up to 75% (but usually around 45%) of your income whilst you are on maternity leave. This system is also very slow and backwards and new moms often only start receiving their payments at the end of their maternity leave. So, most of these ladies go back to work very soon after having their babies. Exclusively breastfeeding from the breast for 6 months is HIGHLY, HIGHLY unlikely!

Thee second issue is that in the prevailing culture babies start getting maize porridge around 2 weeks. Maize porridge is a staple food, btw. Yes, there needs to be education, but culture plays a HUGE roll!

I honestly believe that breastfeeding is best, but in that situation, I believe that formula would be better! :-(

The idea that human breastmilk has more toxins in it than cow-breastmilk-based products comes from the process called biological magnification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification. For the same reason that large, carnivorous fish has more mercury in it than small, phytoplankton-eating fish (accumulation of toxins in fatty tissues), omnivorous humans, at the top of the food chain, have more accumulated toxins than herbivorous cows, for example. Because breastmilk is so fatty, it is going to include whatever lovely substances you have stored up in your own fatty tissues from past consumption of contaminated foods (so pesticides, mercury, etc.). BUT since the cows used to produce the milk used in formula are fed pesticide-laden soybeans, growth hormones, and antibiotics instead of organic grass, and there is a whole (probably toxic) manufacturing process that the milk goes through to make it into formula, I would suspect that formula is not a whole lot safer, especially if you are a vegetarian and/or eat organic. AND, since breastmilk includes many beneficial antibodies and more easily absorbed nutrients than formula it is clearly superior in terms of health benefits. Not to mention that formula comes from a hard plastic bottle and breastmilk comes from a warm loving bottle :)
As for passing AIDS to babies in breastmilk... I have read that there is about a 50% chance of this happening if babies are fed breastmilk straight from the infected mother's breast. However, I also read an article somewhere that a simple home pasteurization of expressed breastmilk (basically just heating it till it boils or something) effectively kills HIV. Obviously pasteurized breastmilk won't have as many beneficial antibodies etc. as raw breastmilk but I am sure it is superior to formula, not to mention free, which is extremely important for poor mothers in developing countries.
So basically the commentor saw part of the picture and got freaked out. Which is unfortunately so often the case with AP things :(

:yeah:

Thank you, ladies! I knew I could count on y'all for good info fast... I understand that non-breastfeeding moms sometimes get bitter for what they perceive as bias agst them but, geeze, to keep trying to keep trying to say or perpetuate this myth that 'really formula is better' I just can't let that go!

A pp mentioned the processing of the cow's milk during formula production - anytime milk is "powdered" it is damaged. Here's some info about that from http://www.realmilk.com/moreraw.html


Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk— one-percent and two-percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large quantities of nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens.


(so it's even in regular pasteurized milk - and doesn't have to be listed as an ingredient because "it's still milk")

Yes, there are toxins in breastmilk. There are also toxins in formula, both from the cow's milk itself, as well as the potential for contamination at any stage of the manufacturing process- including when it's diluted in the home or poured from the packaging into a bottle that may not have been properly cleaned.

The HIV/breastmilk connection has been thoroughly explained above.

The whole "toxic breastmilk" studies have ALWAYS been phrased in terms of "the environment is so polluted, even breastmilk isn't pristine." None of the researchers have ever suggested that formula is a safer choice than breastmilk for normal, healthy moms and babies. Unfortunately, not all the media coverage of those studies have made that fact clear. "Toxic breastmilk" is too catchy a title to pass up.

Remember that all the studies showing the benefits of breastmilk/risks of formula feeding have been done on "modern, toxin riddled" breastmilk- even with the toxins, babies fare better with their own mothers' milk than with a highly processed substitute.

Remember that all the studies showing the benefits of breastmilk/risks of formula feeding have been done on "modern, toxin riddled" breastmilk- even with the toxins, babies fare better with their own mothers' milk than with a highly processed substitute.

:thumb Great point - I need to remember that one!

I just skimmed the replies, so perhaps this has been covered.

Sandra Steingraber has a good discussion of the toxins in breastmilk (vs. formula) in her book, Having Faith: An Ecologist's Journey to Motherhood. (I have also heard her lecture on several occasions.)

http://www.amazon.com/Having-Faith-Sandra-Steingraber/dp/0425189996

As all of you, she knocks down the conclusion that formula is better because breastmilk contains toxins. However, she also explains that the older the mother, the higher the level of toxins (more time to accummulate). Infants get more toxins early on, but fewer when they are older. Finally, first borns get more toxins than later born.

All this and she still demonstrates that the overwhelming bulk of the evidence is in favor of breastfeeding.

I think the bigger issue with "toxic breastmilk" is that whatever toxins are in that breastmilk, came from mom--which is where baby grew. We pass on, in-utero, a big chunk of our toxic load. Feeding kids formula while they are trying to deal with the toxic load from our environment is darn risky.

And it's frustrating that just minimizing toxins as adults, while important, doesn't help much with the years of toxins we may not have thought about as children, teens, and young adults, before we considered childbearing and our health and our future children's health. Teaching our kids to be mindful of such things will help them and their children for years to come.

eta--ASusan, thanks for the book link, I'll check it out. I passed on a huge toxic load to both my kids, I think it was more for my first than my second, and it would be interesting to read about it in a more formal way, vs just experiencing it. Thx.

I'm pretty sure the cows making the milk that eventually winds its way into formula (as well as the soybeans, etc.), don't live in a bubble. Sounds like a wonderful marketing scheme though :shake

Remember that all the studies showing the benefits of breastmilk/risks of formula feeding have been done on "modern, toxin riddled" breastmilk- even with the toxins, babies fare better with their own mothers' milk than with a highly processed substitute.

:thumb

I think many of you are missing important factors in the HIV/breastmilk/formula question. I'm working on a research paper on this very subject for my certification. I'm still not done or to a solid conclusion but there are so many more questions that need to be asked and points that need to be considered than I imagined when I first thought about doing the paper. Here's just a few.

How were the studies done? Was breastfeeding defined (I.e., did they account for any and all non-bm additions to the diet, how long was baby breastfed exclusively or at all, etc.)? What age did they stop the study? Did they group babies by feeding (bf exclusively for 6 mos, ff after 2 weeks, mixed after 9 months, etc.)? Etc., etc., etc.

What did they use to define a child as HIV positive or negative? Depending on who you ask, defining a child's status could be anything from 2 different tests with the same results to merely having 3 symptoms (regardless of whether they are common sicknesses there, HIV or no) with no test. You'd be amazed at how widely one's "criteria" for diagnosing HIV and AIDS varies. It varies country to country, even doctor to doctor! Even the criteria for considering the same test as positive or negative varies depending on who is reading it. There is no standard whatsoever and that sets us up for failure in any kind of studies right there.

There's so much more and I'm actually on my phone right now so my fingers are hurting, haha. Check out anotherlook.org, an organization founded by one of the LLL founders. I believe there they have a paper basically debunking Dunn's analysis (where the 15%/30%/50% transmission "statistics" come from). It's amazing what you find when you look beyond what you thought you knew. Just check out the MDC articles! That's what got me thinking and made me want to do my research paper on this.

Also...one of the most important things they forget is what was the health outcome of the breastfed HIV positive babes compared to the HIV negative formula fed babies. And HIV positive breastfed compared to HIV positive formula fed? Even if we assume transmission via breastmilk is possible, do the risks of formula outweigh the risks of HIV if it's contracted? Babe will DEFINITELY be exposed to formula and it's risks if not breastfed...breastfed babes will not for sure contract HIV. This is where the factor of where this baby is (I.e., Africa or the U.S.) and available sanitation, nutrition, healthcare, etc. Comes into play.

Well this 'aquaintance' has sort of given up on the hiv/aids argument for now but her new argument is that there was a study a few years ago that found hundreds and hundreds of toxins in breastmilk that were from environmental exposure of the mother. She could not find a list of toxins in formula, to compare the sheer numbers. - because it would be such a huge and easy rebuttal to the "hundreds of toxins found in breastmilk" headlines, she could only assume that the actual comparison would not have been favorable. If you have a study that makes a side-by-side toxin study I would be interested in seeing it.


My response was not so scientific but I said that I patently do not believe it because study after study shows the superiority of breastmilk over formula (Higher IQs, better immunity, far less obesity in childhood and adulthood, better able to handle stress as an adult, etc., ... It simply cannot be so laden with "hundreds" of toxins - our babies would be dead rather than not only thriving but getting so many extra advantages over formula. I mean this is just common sense (again). I suspected that it was some untrue nonsense put out by a formula company (and I defend pharmaceutical company after pharmaceutical company so I know how these companies lie to the public - I have seen it literally in black and white).

I have to say I am really annoyed by her and I donlt know why ... she stated smething like breatfeeding advocates keep this sort of info (about the toxins in breastmilk) out of the news ...

Recently, somone has asserted that formula contains fewer "toxins" than breastmilk b/c all of your own toxins pass into the breastmilk. Then she added that many children could've been saved from getting AIDS if their mothers only had access to formula. What makes her think they didn't? Considering the whole reason for the Nestle boycott is all the free samples being given to impoverished nations, I'd bet a lot of the children she's talking about *were* given formula.

I would like to add that re: the HIV issue; women who are being treated with current anti-virals have been shown (in studies of Western women) to have a virtually non-existent rate of transmission. WHO itself recommends in areas with little or no access to clean water to have HIV positive women breastfeed whether they are receiving treatment or not; they feel the risks of formula are worse.