[LydiaJW]

A friend of mine debated me on the Nestle thing, saying that women in Africa are benefiting from formula because otherwise their babies get AIDS from their BM. Is this true? And how come babies don't get other sicknesses passed to them from their mothers thru breastmilk?

Sorry if this is a stupid, uneducated question. I really honestly don't know.

 

[elmh23]

Well, IMO, breastmilk from an AIDS infected mother would be better than formula for an infant in Africa. The water supply just isn't great and it leads to thousands of deaths of small children a year. I'm pretty sure AIDS can be transmitted through AIDS, but that doesn't mean it WILL transmit.

This is a topic I haven't really researched so I could be totally wrong, lol.

 

[BelgianSheepDog]

From what I understand this is a complicated and controversial subject (transmission of HIV through breastmilk.) I know it's possible and it happens, but I believe that the likelihood of it happening has to do with the person's viral load--how much of the HIV virus is currently in their body, which is roughly correlated with how sick they are. So someone in the "dormant" phase of the illness would be less likely to transmit HIV through her breastmilk than someone with fullblown AIDS.

As for the situation in Africa, I couldn't even begin to guess. I'd imagine many babies are born HIV+ if their mothers are positive to begin with, absent any kind of preventive measures.

 

[KrystalC]

I disagree. The point behind breastfeeding is giving your baby what is best for him or her. If it means the possibility of KNOWINGLY transmitting a fatal illness to the infant, the entire purpose of breastfeeding is null and void. If formula is not available, the mother may have no choice but to breastfeed, but I think any woman who has tested positive for HIV and has access to an alternate means for feeding the child should refrain from breastfeeding.

 

[elanorh]

BF is recommended instead of FF in the Developing World by health agencies etc., because the risk of HIV transmission via bf (espeically exclusive bf) is far lower than the risks of diarrhea and other infectious diseases causing death, which can happen with ff (I believe the mortality rate is 5-6 times higher for ff'd than bf'd babies).

Unfortunately, the access to clean safe drinking water -- the exposure to diseases which are easily treated here, but no sufficient medical care available there -- and the simple fact that the costs of formula are such a LARGE portion of the family's income, mean that the quality (and quantity) of formula that the infants would receive, except in the upper classes, would be dangerously watered down, etc.

My aunt works in the Developing World as a nutritionist and helped with the latest WHO codes on BF etc. -- and she's adamant about this one.

This site describes the situations/concerns and breaks down the "likelihood" of infection and recent research - essentially, the article says (and I quote):

The conclusion is obvious. In a developing country setting, all mothers should be encouraged to breastfeed exclusively for at least the first 6 months, regardless of their HIV status, and then to wean the baby rapidly. Research needs to be done to see what would be the cheapest and most available weaning food to use (It appears that once foods/formula are introduced, then the system allows in the HIV virus much more readily).

http://www.aids.net.au/aids-breast-feeding.htm

(A major factor is that women can become infected with HIV during bf process as well as prior to birth) ... difficult for moms to know whether they're HIV positive or not, it's entirely reliant on the honesty of their partner.

It's a huge issue ... the larger one being the pandemic of AIDS which is going on there, and all the myriad causes of its rampant spread ... if that could be resolved, I think concern about a formerly HIV neg mom becomin HIV positive during her breastfeeding time, would be much less of an issue. I hate to read that babies should be weaned at 6 months to prevent the possibility of HIV infection - there are a lot of benefits of bf which those babies still need! So IMO the issue comes down to how to foment effective, respectful communication between partners in re: sexuality -- and how to slow/halt the spread of AIDS itself.

Edited to add:

Quote:

As for the situation in Africa, I couldn't even begin to guess. I'd imagine many babies are born HIV+ if their mothers are positive to begin with, absent any kind of preventive measures.

Yes - the article I linked to states that 5-10% of exposure is intrauterine, and an additional 10-20% happen during the birth process. So right there, you've a range of 5-30% of the exposure happening completely independently of bf/ff.

Definitely, folks, check out the research in the link I posted -- the evidence appears to be strongly in favor of exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months as the best way to feed infants in the Developing World, even if the mom is HIV positive. And my link is not from a "lactation" source, but from an AIDS site.

 

[Nisupulla]

This is so controversial, I hesitate to post...

The whole AIDS epidemic in Africa is heart wrenching. But I think people (Americans in particular) have such a strong belief in the goodness of formula that they believe that whether or not AIDS really passes through breastmilk, it's best to be cautious and use formula. According to an Australian/HIV site, that it not a wise choice.

Quote:

Why Breast is still Best ...The situation has now changed for the better, with the exciting discoveries made by Prof. Coovadia and his team from Durban, South Africa (Coutsoudis et al, 2001). In a large prospective study of HIV-positive women who chose to either breastfeed or bottlefeed their babies, 118 infants that were exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life had NO increased risk of acquiring HIV infection compared to 157 infants not given any breastmilk. However, 276 infants who were on mixed breast and bottle feeding from birth had a significantly higher rate of HIV infection. After 6 months, when the exclusively breastfed babies started to go on to mixed feeding, their rates of HIV infection started to rise significantly when compared to babies who were never breastfed. The explanation for this surprising finding appears to be related to the viral load in the breastmilk, which determines its infectivity. With the approach of weaning, or if there is any sub-clinical mastitis, the white cell count in the milk and hence the viral load is increased, making it much more infectious to the baby (Willumsen et al, 2003). The conclusion is obvious. In a developing country setting, all mothers should be encouraged to breastfeed exclusively for at least the first 6 months, regardless of their HIV status, and then to wean the baby rapidly. Research needs to be done to see what would be the cheapest and most available weaning food to use. http://www.aids.net.au/aids-breast-feeding.htm

ETA: elanorh, I see you posted this link first. oops. I'll leave this in anyway.