[panic]

Hi All,

I am not really a lactivist. Personally, I don't feel comfortable making mothers feel guilty about things that they can't change (e.g. they gave up breastfeeding months ago). I try to influence by my own example of extended breastfeeding and by recommending resources such as books by Dr. Sears, and Alfie Kohn (to introduce them to attachment parenting and gentle discipline) and Mothering Magazine of course! So far, this tactful method is not working out too well

. So I while I'm a bit of wimp when it comes to be being a lactivist, I applaud the work of lactivists in changing public attitudes towards breastfeeding.

I will normally refrain from comment when my friends or acquaintances make stupid remarks about the benefits of breastfeeding...but sometimes I can't help speaking up when they make such remarks to pregnant or new moms. I have a close friend who is a health professional and who is quite crunchy (buys organic food and toiletries, uses homeopathic remedies, is against vax, homeschools etc.) who has made statements like breastmilk is perhaps more toxic than formula as the mother eats or is exposed to toxic elements. She has formula-fed all her children and plans to formula feed her next baby.Recently she's mentioned a new study mentioned in New Scientist magazine which seems to indicate that exclusive breastfeeding over the age of 6 months can CAUSE allergies. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125634.400.html
Can anyone give me advice about what I can say to refute this article?

Thanks all.

 

[sapphire_chan]

The article doesn't indicate how they controlled for the mother's diet. In fact, given how hard an elimination diet can be, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some of the mothers who gave up sooner were the ones who had cut out allergy/eczema triggers like dairy and then possibly switched to a hypoallergenic formula (see first sentence, third paragraph below).

The other question that the study probably didn't address because it's subjective is were the mothers following their babies' cues about feeding other foods? For all we know *all* of the allergic babies were the ones given food before they showed they were ready.

The study also doesn't indicate whether solids were introduced at 2 months for the babies who weren't exclusively breastfed at that point or whether they got formula. Also, breaking it down into 20% before 6 months and 56% after 9 months is about as helpful as categorizing all births after 42 weeks as "dangerous" because some babies after 45 weeks had problems. Why aren't they telling us the numbers between 6 and 9 months I wonder.

Also, what's the bias of the New Scientist News? Who backs them, what's their angle?

And "I know some kids who were exclusively breastfed to 15 months and they turned out just fine, but my hayfever ridden ezcematized self got solids right at 6months."

 

[arlecchina]

I have my doubts as to the validity of the study. it was very small, and only an indicator of allergies in families already with a history of allergies. plus finland has a small population and have not been historically exogenic..for example, they have a high incidence of type 1 diabetes, etc.

 

[wannabe]

The article is not about breastfeeding, it's about introducing solids. When they say exclusive BFing, they mean exclusive, no solids as opposed to BFing with solids.

It's actually much needed research, because we don't really know yet whether delaying intro of solids past six months helps prevent allergies. They have thought it probably does help prevent them, with no evidence either way. So I am glad to see the research being done.

ot that I've read it yet

Quote:

Also, what's the bias of the New Scientist News? Who backs them, what's their angle?

They are unbiased. They are all about the evidence.

Can anyone find the actual article? I assume an author will be M Kuitunen, but can't find it on pubmed.

 

[arlecchina]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wannabe They are unbiased. They are all about the evidence.

can you cite sources for this, please? only curious because true lack of bias in any human is hard to come by.

 

[bri276]

your friend is very uneducated about bf'ing. every toxin we are exposed to, through the environment, water, food- most if not all cows are exposed to the same thing, I am assuming she uses dairy formula instead of soy, soy is a whole other ballpark that gets very touchy, nonetheless even organic soy formula will have "toxins". TOXINS are everywhere, on everything. It's the amount that's key. If a mother was guzzling mugs of mercury every day, then of course I'd say formula is better. But the research done on breastfed vs. formula fed babies is by far done on mothers who are exposed to "normal" amounts of so called toxins. And the breastfed babies are still statistically healthier than their formula fed counterparts. Baby's immune systems *require* antibodies from their mothers.

http://www.promom.org/101/
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/199...la/index2.html
http://www.wiessinger.baka.com/bfing...ttle/wean.html
http://rehydrate.org/breastfeed/inde...0breastfeeding
http://www.kellymom.com

I could go on forever but I will spare you

The bottom line is risk assessment.

The article you provided a link to does not support ending breastfeeding at six months AT ALL- what it actually would imply is that solids need to be started before nine months, to reduce a risk of food allergy- in addition to breastfeeding. The problems I see with this study are that we aren't told whether the children who developed allergies had a family history, what exact allergies they developed, that there were only 200 children, that it was in Finland (smaller genetic base), and that it was not peer-reviewed.
eta: there is no reason to believe the results of the study would be any different for infants were exclusively fed formula past 6 months, delaying solids is delaying solids.

 

[moonfirefaery]

It makes sense in a way, that if they are not exposed to it, it will be treated as foreign. However, it doesn't make sense in that children all over the world are nursed for years and are fine, even healthier than those who do not. Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for 6 months by most organizations, though I don't know what that's based on. I do know that these studies need to include what the mother ate, as well as what kind of environment. For all we know, those allergic babies had mothers who weren't watching what they ate--or they lived in environments that made them more likely to get allergies, or were started on more allergenic foods right away when solids were indeed introduced. There are too many unknowns.

 

[Rico'sAlice]

My completely non-expert, unresearched instinct is that a bunch of these parents who delayed solids late for whatever reason, went too much & too fast once they did start in an effort to "catch up."

I could imagine thinking " Ok, you can start solids at 4-6 mo. but I've waited until 11 months. Normally you would introduce one food at a time, small amount per day, and add one new food at a time. But since I waited an extra 5 months I can just go ahead and feed whatever I want, however I want. My sister's baby was eating XYZ at 11 months, so why not." Not thinking about the fact that sisters baby had months of building up to XYZ.

Maybe?

 

[Arwyn]

Although I'm sure it could/will be used by anti-milk folk, and I dislike the title, it's not inherantly a bad study. Though there's also no comparison of the allergies in formula fed infants, and the categories (2-6 months? There's NOTHING developmentally similar between a 2mo and a 6mo!) are too broad.

I don't think it's automatically a bad/anti-milk thing to say that there is a more and a less ideal time to introduce solids. There is NOTHING in this study to support early weaning, or the overfeeding of solids - there are many studies, and more importantly our children themselves to tell us that they want to start experimenting with solids in the middleish of the first year, but that milk will be their primary source of nutrition for at least the first year. Look at the babies: they're our best guides.

 

[mamajama]

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." —Margaret Mead

 

[panic]

Great discussion. I've got some ammunition now if she brings the subject again... but I admit I was hoping that someone would find out that formula companies funded the study

I realize that the study was about delaying solids, but the news articles that are the spawn of the original New Scientist article can be easily misinterpreted and misused to imply that breastmilk is not as wonderful as it seems. Headlines like "Too Much Breastfeeding Can Cause Allergies", "Breastfeeding after 9 months may be risky", "Too much mother's milk can increase allergy risk, study shows" and so on.

Bri 2776, or anyone else who'd like to answer: my friend has used soy and cow milk formula in the past. She later switched to organic formula. Can you give me an idea of what kind of toxins in soy and in organic formula? I can do a web search if you would give me some pointers. Thanks.

 

[Susuhound]

Hmmmmmm seems to me they haven't adequatly controlled this study.

Twenty years ago researchers at the Helsinki Skin and Allergy Hospital in Finland asked 200 mothers of newborns to maintain exclusive breastfeeding for as long as possible. The children were assessed for allergies at ages 5, 11 and 20.

Exclusive breastfeeding for nine months or more actually appeared to increase the chances of a baby developing allergic conditions such as eczema and food hypersensitivity. At age 5, 56 per cent of children with a family history of allergy who had been breastfed for nine months or more had allergic symptoms, compared with 20 per cent of those who had been breastfed for between two and six months.

"hold off solids as long as possible" ?????so the mothers with babies who refused solids longer had babies who were more likely to have allergies.
There is loads of evidence that babies refuse foods they have allrgic tendencies to. This probably just reflects that. A better study would put the babies into groups (randomly selected) eg 100 babies start at 6 months, 100 at 9 months. Only babies who are exclusively breastfed prior to intoduction of solds should be included as the contaminents and foreigh proteins in formula wouls skew the results..I could go on and on about the the drawbacks of this study on the little information presented here. I certainly wouldn't use it to make important decisions about my child's nutrition.

 

[eirual]

Soy can block the absorbtion of its own nutrients, and it contains....something that starts with a p....hey, it's 6:00am give me a break!lol

Do an online search for dangers of soy, or even a search over in the nutrition forum. Excess soy can also botch your thyroid (like it did for me).

Using formula in order to avoid toxins?!?!

:

One mama on here who was a teacher put it to her students roughly like this: Sure, formula and breastmilk will delivier some of the same nutrients, but what would you rather eat: a great green chef's salad loaded with veggies, cheese, etc or a bowl full of doritos with some vitamins in it. Both will get you your essentials, but like the salad, the nutrients in breastmilk are living and more useful, without all the added junk...designed specifically for your child!!

Dude, if she's so worried about toxins she should have them conceled in a bubble and fed only sterilized water and vitamins....I don't follow her logic at ALL

:

 

[Kavita]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susuhound Hmmmmmm seems to me they haven't adequatly controlled this study. Twenty years ago researchers at the Helsinki Skin and Allergy Hospital in Finland asked 200 mothers of newborns to maintain exclusive breastfeeding for as long as possible. The children were assessed for allergies at ages 5, 11 and 20. Exclusive breastfeeding for nine months or more actually appeared to increase the chances of a baby developing allergic conditions such as eczema and food hypersensitivity. At age 5, 56 per cent of children with a family history of allergy who had been breastfed for nine months or more had allergic symptoms, compared with 20 per cent of those who had been breastfed for between two and six months. "hold off solids as long as possible" ?????so the mothers with babies who refused solids longer had babies who were more likely to have allergies. There is loads of evidence that babies refuse foods they have allrgic tendencies to. This probably just reflects that. A better study would put the babies into groups (randomly selected) eg 100 babies start at 6 months, 100 at 9 months. Only babies who are exclusively breastfed prior to intoduction of solds should be included as the contaminents and foreigh proteins in formula wouls skew the results..I could go on and on about the the drawbacks of this study on the little information presented here. I certainly wouldn't use it to make important decisions about my child's nutrition.

That's an excellent point--if the babies are not randomized that makes perfect sense.

And eirual--it's phytoestrogens.

 

[Fiercemama]

To respond to your questions about toxins in breastmilk. Yes, breastmilk has toxins in it - breastmilk is the absolute top of the foodchain, so whatever toxins are in our world (like the water that formula is made from) are concentrated there. That doesn't mean to stop bfing - it means to clean up our world! By providing optimal infant nutrition, bfing helps our children by giving them the best defense possible in a toxic world. Also, my breastmilk has never been recalled!

Here is a great link on environmental toxins in bm:

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

 

[Meiri]

Quote:

who has made statements like breastmilk is perhaps more toxic than formula as the mother eats or is exposed to toxic elements.

And the cows are living in pristine environments? never given meds? never live downwind of chemical and/or power plants? Don't swat their own rumps with their poop laden tails? (yes, I know they wash the cows' teats, just making a point)

 

[wannabe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arlecchina can you cite sources for this, please? only curious because true lack of bias in any human is hard to come by.

They are, I've been reading them for twenty years. They don't have 'pet' causes - they report what's published, and get a statement from another expert in the field.

True lack of bias is hard to come by, but it's what scientists strive for at all times - and since this is a science news magazine, they keep each other honest.

I've emailed and asked for the reference.

Susuhound - I also found a study (while I was looking for this one) that found babies exhibiting allergic tendencies were more likely to be breastfed longer because the mother noticed them and knew to keep breastfeeding longer.

 

[bri276]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panic Bri 2776, or anyone else who'd like to answer: my friend has used soy and cow milk formula in the past. She later switched to organic formula. Can you give me an idea of what kind of toxins in soy and in organic formula? I can do a web search if you would give me some pointers. Thanks.

What are the "toxins" she thinks are in her breastmilk from? The air? cows breathe air too. The water? She can drink filtered water- cows do not, at least not to my knowledge. Food? yes, you can buy formula from cows fed organic feed, but many companies have unreliable standards for what is considered organic, so you would still be better off eating organic food yourself and breastfeeding. Non-organic soy would be sprayed with pesticides, and soy itself is in my (and many other's) opinion an unnatural substance for an infant to ingest in the first place, there is a huge controversy over soy that I would prefer not to expand upon in this thread because it takes the focus off of the fact that fearmongering by the media has actually convinced someone that their own body is unsafe. Her fears are based on a ridiculous premise, I understand she is probably trying to do what's best for her child and received some terrrible misinformation along the way.

 

[Arwyn]

Read the book Having Faith - human breastmilk actually arguably is more contaminated in terms of POPs, jet fuel, heavy metals, etc than cow's milk, and therefore formula (although then there's the subject of all the crap that goes into formula, like corn syrup, and how that ought to be considered a contaminent all by itself). AND STILL breastmilk is WAY, WAY better for babies - or rather, formula (yes, even organic) STILL doesn't come close to touching the, contaminated, standard that is mother's milk. It's the difference between having a working kidney (or two) and going on dialysis - thank the god/dess for dialysis, it will keep many people alive that would die otherwise, but it's a dead process designed to continue the basics of life, as opposed to a real, living, biological part with which we thrive. Even a partially damaged kidney is better than no kidneys at all, even with dialysis as a substitute - even contaminated breastmilk is better than no breastmilk at all, even with formula as a substitute.

To continue the analogy, dialysis is only considered a holding therapy until a replacement kidney can be found - in an ideal world, formula would be a stopgap measure until donated breastmilk could be secured. As good as the original? Nope. But better than the holding therapy.

 

[KrystalC]

I have a problem with any article that uses information gleaned from a study to make an argument for or against something without properly citing the source the findings were published in, or if they were at all. Peer-reviewed academic journals are generally the best resources.

*shrug* If you happen to get a source for the study, let me know if you have trouble locating it. I can try looking it up in my university library's database.