NEW YORK (Reuters Health) May 10 - Continuing to breast-feed infants while introducing them to certain foods may cut their risk of developing celiac disease, new study findings suggest. While the cause of celiac disease remains unclear, lead author Anneli Ivarsson, of Umea University in Sweden, and colleagues point out that the dietary patterns of infants might influence the body's immune response, resulting in tolerance or intolerance of a particular food. To investigate, the team of researchers evaluated breast-feeding patterns and the way food was introduced to 627 children with celiac disease and 1254 healthy children.
"A major finding of this study was the lower risk of celiac disease in infants who were still being breast-fed than in infants who had discontinued breast-feeding at the time when gluten-containing foods were introduced into the diet," Dr. Ivarsson and colleagues write in the May issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. According to the report, the risk of celiac disease was reduced by about 40% in children 2 years of age or younger if they were still being breast-fed when dietary gluten was introduced. "This effect was even more pronounced in infants who continued to be breast-fed after dietary gluten was introduced," the authors state.
Moreover, the risk for celiac disease appeared to be greater when gluten-based foods were introduced into an infant's diet in large amounts, they add. "It is tempting to speculate that this dietary pattern also reduces the lifetime risk of celiac disease; however, further studies are needed to confirm this notion," Dr. Ivarsson's team concludes.
Breastfeeding Cuts Risk of Breast Cancer, Study Says
Last Updated: July 18, 2002 07:14 PM ET
Print This Article
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - British scientists confirmed on Friday what researchers have long suspected -- breastfeeding reduces a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.
Along with having several children, breastfeeding is a key factor in the discrepancy between low rates of breast cancer in developing countries and the rising number of cases in wealthier nations. "The longer women breastfeed the greater protection against breast cancer," Professor Valerie Beral, of the charity Cancer Research UK, told a news conference. Beral and her team estimate that if women breastfeed each of their children for an additional six months they could cut their lifetime risk of developing breast cancer from 6.3 to six percent and prevent more than 1,000 cases of the disease each year in Britain alone.
"What we have shown is that prolonging breastfeeding and having more children pushes down breast cancer rates," Beral added. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. A family history of the disease, early puberty, late menopause and not having children are factors which increase the chance of a woman developing the disease.
Scientists first suspected that having children and breastfeeding could have a protective effect against the disease as far back as 1743 when a study showed that nuns had high rates of breast cancer compared to other women. Other research has linked the number of children and the age of the woman when she first gives birth with the disease but the latest study, which is published in The Lancet medical journal, is the most comprehensive in examining the role of breastfeeding.
Beral and her colleagues analyzed data from 47 studies done in 30 countries of 50,000 women with breast cancer and 100,000 healthy volunteers. They calculated that for every year a woman breastfeeds, it cuts her risk of breast cancer by 4.3 percent. Their findings help to explain why breast cancer rates are so low in developing countries where women have six or seven children, compared to two or three in western countries, and they breastfeed each child for up to two years.
Women in developed countries feed their children naturally for about two or three months. Fifty percent of mothers in the United States, about 25 percent in Europe and about 10 percent in Scandinavia choose not to breastfeed. Beral calculated that if western reproductive and breastfeeding habits mimicked those in poor countries, a woman's breast cancer risk by the age of 70 would fall from 6.3 per 100 women to about 2.7. The National Childbirth Trust, which promotes breastfeeding, said the research clearly shows the benefits for mothers as well as children.
"We hope that this important finding -- that the longer women breastfeed, the more they are protected from breast cancer -- will encourage more women to consider breastfeeding their baby," said Belinda Phipps, the chief executive of the trust. The scientists are not sure how childbirth and breastfeeding reduce breast cancer risk but they believe the findings could pave the way for better prevention and treatment methods.
"It is likely to do with hormones and reproductive behavior," said Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel Prize winning interim chief executive of Cancer Research UK.
Breastfeeding Protects Against Asthma Independently of Maternal Asthma History
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Jul 29 - Regardless of whether or not their mother has asthma, infants who are exclusively breastfed for at least 4 months are less likely to develop asthma than those who are breastfed for shorter durations, according to a report from Australia. Dr. Wendy H. Oddy, from the Telethon Institute for Child Health in West Perth, and colleagues analyzed data on 2602 children to evaluate the link between breastfeeding and childhood asthma. The children were enrolled in the study before birth and followed until 6 years of age.
Asthma was significantly more common among children born to asthmatic mothers than among children born to nonasthmatic mothers (p<0.001), the authors note in the July issue of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. On multivariate analysis, maternal asthma, positive atopy tests at 6 years of age, and exclusive breast feeding for less than 4 months were independently associated with increased asthma risk. Further analysis verified that maternal asthma status or atopy status did not influence the relationship between breastfeeding and childhood asthma.
"Given our findings, we continue to recommend that infants with or without a maternal history of asthma be exclusively breastfed for 4 months and beyond," the researchers conclude.
J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;110:65-67.
Breast-Feeding May Boost Baby's Own Immune System
Fri Nov 29,11:59 AM ET Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Clementine Wallace
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - During breast-feeding, substances that protect against infection are passed from mother to child. Now a new study suggests that breast-feeding may also boost an infant's own immune response against infections later on in childhood.
"In the past 10 years, we have been realizing that breast-feeding brings much more than we thought," said Dr. Lars Hanson, from the University of Goteborg in Sweden. "Not only are some of the mother's defenses passed on to the child, but breast-feeding actually seems to activate something in the baby's own defense system."
Hanson, Dr. Sven-Arne Silfverdal, from the Orebro Medical Center Hospital in Sweden, and colleagues looked at children under age 6 who had been seriously ill with Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), a type of bacteria that can cause pneumonia, meningitis, and other potentially life-threatening infections. The children became ill in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before a Hib vaccine became available in Sweden. The researchers found that youngsters 18 months or older who had been breast-fed exclusively for more than 13 weeks (average 19 weeks) had a stronger immune response to Hib than those breast-fed exclusively for less than 13 weeks (average 5 weeks). There was no difference in immune response in children under 18 months of age, according to the report published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. Vaccination against Hib now exists in most countries, but the bacterium still poses a threat in poor countries with inadequate healthcare programs and vaccination, according to the report. Moreover, this report could be used as a model to study the protective benefits of breast-feeding against other types of diseases and infections, Hanson said.
"Convincing studies also demonstrate significant protection against diarrhea, respiratory tract infections, otitis media (ear infections), or urinary tract infection, for instance," he said. In previous studies, Silfverdal's team also suggested that this immune system enhancement could last over the years, beyond the period of breast-feeding itself.
"We don't really understand how that might work, but the information is growing that longer periods of breast-feeding may afford more complete protection not only against certain diseases that may occur during breast-feeding, but also against disorders that surface long after breast-feeding is over," said Dr. Armond Goldman, from the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, who was not involved in the study. The point when a child no longer requires this immunological support via breast-feeding has not yet been established, according to Hanson, but "the more the better and the longer the better," he said.
Current recommendations suggest that exclusive breast-feeding should be continued for the first 4 to 6 months of life and up to a year if possible, according to Goldman, which is not always an easy recommendation to follow in the US. "It's easy to say that people should be child-centered," he said, "but there are obvious socioeconomic factors that have to be taken into consideration and mothers also need an adequate environmental support to be able to breast-feed. Many factors come into play that make breast-feeding difficult."
SOURCE: The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2002;21:816-821.
Breast-feeding may boost baby's own immune system
Last Updated: 2002-11-29 10:00:22 -0400 (Reuters Health)
http://www.4woman.org/nwhic/News/2002/02dec2-3.htm
By Clementine Wallace
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - During breast-feeding, substances that protect against infection are passed from mother to child. Now a new study suggests that breast-feeding may also boost an infant's own immune response against infections later on in childhood."In the past 10 years, we have been realizing that breast-feeding brings much more than we thought," said Dr. Lars Hanson, from the University of Goteborg in Sweden. "Not only are some of the mother's defenses passed on to the child, but breast-feeding actually seems to activate something in the baby's own defense system."
Hanson, Dr. Sven-Arne Silfverdal, from the Orebro Medical Center Hospital in Sweden, and colleagues looked at children under age 6 who had been seriously ill with Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), a type of bacteria that can cause pneumonia, meningitis, and other potentially life-threatening infections. The children became ill in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before a Hib vaccine became available in Sweden.
The researchers found that youngsters 18 months or older who had been breast-fed exclusively for more than 13 weeks (average 19 weeks) had a stronger immune response to Hib than those breast-fed exclusively for less than 13 weeks (average 5 weeks). There was no difference in immune response in children under 18 months of age, according to the report published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. Vaccination against Hib now exists in most countries, but the bacterium still poses a threat in poor countries with inadequate healthcare programs and vaccination, according to the report. Moreover, this report could be used as a model to study the protective benefits of breast-feeding against other types of diseases and infections, Hanson said.
"Convincing studies also demonstrate significant protection against diarrhea, respiratory tract infections, otitis media (ear infections), or urinary tract infection, for instance," he said.In previous studies, Silfverdal's team also suggested that this immune system enhancement could last over the years, beyond the period of breast-feeding itself.
"We don't really understand how that might work, but the information is growing that longer periods of breast-feeding may afford more complete protection not only against certain diseases that may occur during breast-feeding, but also against disorders that surface long after breast-feeding is over," said Dr. Armond Goldman, from the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, who was not involved in the study.The point when a child no longer requires this immunological support via breast-feeding has not yet been established, according to Hanson, but "the more the better and the longer the better," he said.
Current recommendations suggest that exclusive breast-feeding should be continued for the first 4 to 6 months of life and up to a year if possible, according to Goldman, which is not always an easy recommendation to follow in the US. "It's easy to say that people should be child-centered," he said, "but there are obvious socioeconomic factors that have to be taken into consideration and mothers also need an adequate environmental support to be able to breast-feed. Many factors come into play that make breast-feeding difficult."
SOURCE: The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2002;21:816-821.
Dangers from plastic feeding bottles A report published by the World Wildlife Fund highlights the dangers of some plastic feeding bottles because of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA) - an industrial chemical used to manufacture polycarbonate and other plastic items. The level of exposure in a bottle-fed infant is less than the tolerable daily intake, but greater than the quantity found to cause effects in studies on animals. WWF are particularly concerned about younger infants, perhaps using their siblings' bottles which are older and have had more exposure to dishwashing and bottle brushing. Manufacturers are asked to include advice to consumers on the label to change bottles every 6 months. WWF adds that "a change to safer materials is preferable". Contact: Elizabeth Salter at WWF, tel: 01483 412518, email: esalter@wwfnet.org
Babies are less likely to be left alone with glass bottles or cups and this can reduce other health risks, e.g. dental caries, choking, otitis media - and isolation. I got that from here http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update28.html#12
It is almost at the bottom of the page.
I don't know how true it is. Just thought I would forward it and maybe it will help you on your search.
From the FDA:
EnfaCare LIPIL Infant Formula Powder Recall
EVANSVILLE, IND., January 9, 2003 -- Mead Johnson Nutritionals, in keeping with our commitment to provide safe and healthy nutritional products, is initiating a voluntary recall of 505 cases of EnfaCare LIPIL 12.9 ounce powdered infant formula. The cases and cans are coded BME01, with an expiration date of January 1, 2004 (embossed 1JAN04). This voluntary recall is being initiated because the product is contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii (E. sakazakii). E. sakazakii, commonly found in the environment, is a food-borne pathogen that can, in rare cases, cause sepsis (bacteria in the blood), meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain), or necrotizing enterocolitis (severe intestinal infection) in newborn infants, particularly premature infants, or infants with weakened immune systems. We are unaware of any reports of illness associated with E. sakazakii as a result of feeding infants product from batch BME01; however, product from batch BME01 should not be used.
EnfaCare LIPIL is a formula for infants with conditions such as prematurity. Five hundred five cases from this batch were shipped to hospitals, retail stores and WIC clinics nationwide during December 2002. No other batches of EnfaCare LIPIL are affected. Parents who have EnfaCare LIPIL infant formula powder with batch code BME01 embossed on the bottom, as well as consumers or health care professionals with questions regarding this situation, may call the Mead Johnson Consumer Resource Center at 1-888-587-7275.
New Beginnings. May-June 1995
Breast Milk is Alive?
Human milk is alive with beneficial bacteria that aid an infant's digestion and help prevent diarrhea (a frequent cause of death in developing countries) and with immunoglobulins that protect infants from disease. In one study a group of infants fed artificial milk had $68,000 in medical care costs in a six-month period while an equal number of nursing babies had only $4,000 worth. In Brazil an artificially-fed baby is 14 times more likely to die than an exclusively breastfed baby and at least 4 times more likely to die than an infant receiving both mother's milk and artificial milk
http://www.safetyalerts.com/recall/f/02.2/f0002524.htm
Boulder, Colorado (SafetyAlerts) - The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that White Wave has recalled some of its 64 ounce/half gallon blue, gable top cartons of Vanilla Silk brand soymilk. The code dates involved in the voluntary recall read - Jun 17 03 H CD70, Jun 17 03 J CD-70, Jun 18 03 H-CD70 and Jun 18 03 J CD-70. The product can be identified by these code dates stamped on each carton. No other Vanilla Silk, Silk or White Wave products are involved in the recall. The containers were distributed throughout the United States.
The voluntary recall was issued after it was discovered that some of the product may contain a caustic, sodium hydroxide based material used to clean and sanitize manufacturing equipment. White Wave has contacted its distributors and stores and ordered the product removed from store shelves. Consumers should return any product in their possession to place of purchase for a refund.
The contaminant impacts the taste and smell of the product so most consumers are not likely to drink it. Two incidents of illness have been reported. Consumers who have consumed the product and experienced burning, nausea or other symptoms should contact a health care provider. "Our company has always been committed to the health and safety of our customers. We have taken immediate steps to isolate and correct this problem," said Steve Demos, president of White Wave.
Consumers with questions may contact White Wave toll free at -(800) 488-9283.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/Art.asp?li=MNI&ArticleKey=23191&page=1
Breastfeeding, Reduces Baby's Diarrhea
In this study, the rates of diarrhea in babies were reduced substantially when mothers fed their babies only breast milk for the first six months. The main reason for this protection from diarrhea probably was that the mothers make antibodies that combat the harmful bacteria and viruses in the environment. Then, the mom transfers these protective antibodies to her baby through the breast milk. Note that this study was done in a developing area in India, so that the results may not apply to people in communities with more advanced public health systems.
Exclusive breastfeeding reduces diarrhea in babies
Last Updated: 2003-04-25 13:04:22 -0400
By Linda Carroll
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Programs that encourage women in developing countries to feed their babies only breast milk for the first six months can lead to reduced rates of diarrhea among infants, a new study shows. Rates of diarrhea were reduced by about one third in babies who were three months old when mothers fed only breast milk, according to the study published in the medical journal The Lancet. An expert unaffiliated with the study said she was not surprised that the infants fed only breast milk were healthier.
"Milk is species specific," Bonnie Higgins-Esplund, a lactation expert at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia, said in an interview with Reuters Health. "It's a complete diet. And if there are harmful microbes in the environment -- bacteria, protozoa, viruses -- the mom will make antibodies and pass them on to the baby through the breast milk." By feeding babies only breast milk, mothers can protect their children from contaminated drinking water, Higgins-Esplund added.
The study followed 895 women who had recently given birth. The women and babies in the study were from the state of Haryana in India, where literacy rates are low, points out a team led by Nita Bhandari at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi. They note that community hand pumps are the main water supply in Haryana and that families normally defecate in the fields.
Researchers sent 483 of the women to counselors who provided education about the benefits of exclusively feeding children breast milk during the first six months of life. The other 412 women were not counseled. Among women who received counseling, 79 percent fed their babies only breast milk. This is compared to 48 percent in the group that received no counseling.
Babies whose mothers had been counseled about breastfeeding were less likely to develop diarrhea, according to the report. At three months, they were 36 percent less likely to have diarrhea than children whose mothers had not been advised to breastfeed exclusively. At six months, they were 15 percent less likely to have diarrhea.
Despite the differences in diet, babies in both groups were of comparable size and weight at the end of the study.
Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited.
Breastmilk component kills cancer cells
A few years ago immunology student, Anders Hakansson1, of Lund University, Sweden, was experimenting by mixing human milk, cancer cells and bacteria. To his surprise the cancer cells were "acting up". Their volume was decreasing and their nuclei shrinking. Hakansson's supervisor, Catharina Svanborg, quickly recognized that the cancer cells were committing suicide. The phenomenon of apoptosis, whereby the body rids itself of old and unnecessary cells was well known, however for this to occur with cancer cells was unknown as their usual pattern is to reproduce in an uncontrolled fashion. Something in the breastmilk caused the cancer cells to self-destruct. Svanborg and her team had already done extensive investigation in the ability of breastmilk to protect the gut lining from invasive bacteria such as pneumococcus that causes the increased rates of upper respiratory tract infections and otitis media in children not breastfed. And so they began to track down the cancer-killing component in breastmilk. Then in 1995 they reported2 that the protein alpha-lactalbumin, or alpha-lac for short, was capable of targeting not only cancer cells but also other immature and rapidly growing cells, leaving stable, mature cells for growth and development. Alpha-lac's amazing capabilities may explain in part why formula fed infants suffer from increased rates of infectious diseases as well as childhood cancers.
References:
1. Discover Magazine, June 30, 1999
2. Hakahsson, A. et al. Apoptosis induced by a human milk protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 92:8064-8068, 1995
Blessed Thistle tea is the old stand by for increasing milk supply.
From Doc Christopher...........
PARTRIDGE BERRY
Other names for the plant include checkerberry, winter clover, deerberry, partridge vine, hive vine, one berry, twinberry and squawberry. It stimulates lactation and aids in normal recovery after confinement. It should be used throughout the entire period of nursing, according to one herbalist. For pregnancy and nursing, it is most conveniently taken in capsules or tablets, although the tincture is preferable for most other uses (Cly:112).
Wild lettuce is said to increase the flow of milk in a nursing mother.
You can use Rosemary in other ways. Shepherds like to pasture their milk animals on Rosemary as it strengthens the animals and gives a good flavor to the milk. Nursing mothers could do the same for their little ones. Fennel works as a diaphoretic, increasing the flow of perspiration, urine, and milk. It is said to be an effective emmenagogue, helping to start the flow of the menses if interrupted. It is also given to nursing mothers to influence the flow of milk.
Alfalfa is also thought to dramatically help bring the milk in for the nursing mother. It certainly enriches the quality of the milk and is much preferable to other hot beverages, such as regular tea, which can pollute the breast milk. It can be flavored with mint, orange peel, and honey. Alfalfa is one of the few vegetable sources of Vitamin D. Although the sun is generally regarded as the best source for getting this vitamin (although you shouldn't shower or bathe for about a half-hour after sunning in order to absorb the D that collects in the skin's oils), there are about 4740 International Units of Vitamin D per pound of Alfalfa. This is valuable knowledge if a person is unable to take the sun, such as during the wintertime. Taking Vitamin D in Alfalfa is much healthier than drinking it in pasteurized, homogenized, Vitamin-D enriched milk!
MILK
Pg. 537
Milk, the infant's life-line: Milk is a very jealous food, to be used only at the correct time. It is a food that was intended to feed the infant mammal. A newborn babe is equipped with red corpuscle-making facilities in the bone marrow which is ready to go to work immediately, but there are at first no gastric juices present to digest solid foods such as protein or starch. Consequently, a baby must have predigested food. Nature amply provides for each stage and condition of life, and here is where the mother eats and digests the food, which is transferred via the blood stream into the mammary glands or "breasts" where only the red corpuscles are filtered out--and the infant is actually given an oral blood transfusion by the mother. This is a perfect arrangement, for since the child and mother being of similar flesh and blood, the vibration of the milk is compatible and suitable as a particularized food. The first feedings from the breast were even provided with good purpose by the Lord, as this clear liquid is a mild laxative that cleans out the baby's bowels and eliminates the tar-like black substance that previously could not be evacuated. Man has not yet and never will synthetically match this perfect prescription that God has provided for the newborn suckling baby. Many doctors have confidently said: "Oh, we will feed the baby the first day or two while you rest up and your milk is coming in, for all you have to offer is this watery substance." But God's natural provision is that as the baby is cleaned out, the mammary gland automatically switches to a light milk formula, as this is all the baby needs at first, just a light snack, and then the milk becomes richer feeding by feeding as the baby grows older.
Many doctors have placed their puny knowledge above God's and have advised: "Oh, don't bother nursing your baby; we have far better formulas that will make a healthier baby than what comes from the breast." The poor little fellow is then put onto an inorganic, man-made concoction that is really not fit for man nor beast--or, the mother is told to give the babe plenty of cow's milk (which suits the dairy interests just fine). Well, cow's milk was made for baby calves and not for humans, and it has over 20 times more casein in it than can be utilized properly by humans. So right off, the newborn begins life in struggle, with a mucus and acid-forming diet, which makes those big, fat, roly-poly babies of which people comment, "Oh, how nice and healthy!" The natural milk from the mother is for the young infant, alkaline and nonmucus-forming; and it is a perfect food (if the mother is eating properly and leaving harmful substances such as coffee, liquor, drugs and tobacco alone) which will build good teeth, healthy tissue, and strong bones. The baby's body will accept this perfect alkaline diet (wherein nothing else is needed) until it cuts its eye teeth and its stomach teeth (usually at 18 to 20 months of age). When these teeth come through, it is nature's signal that the gastric juices have started to flow, and as these now mix with the milk, it now becomes acid to the baby. From that time on, the milk will have the opposite and unhealthy effect. It forms into mucus, causing sinus problems allergies, colds, tooth deterioration, etc. So at this time, the child must be taken off milk and put onto an alkaline diet; the mucusless fruits, vegetables, and juices. Many babies have been effectively suffocated as a result of adults forcing mucus-forming foods and improper formulas down them before they were equipped with the digestive juices to handle them. These harmful substances include bread, meats, pablum, and other baby cereal foods that are so commonly recommended by medicinal practitioners supposedly "in the know" long before the baby has even a fighting chance.
Page 537
No milk after weaning time:
The human is the only mammal on the face of the earth that tolerates milk after weaning, that is, with the exception of our domestic animals that we have led astray. The cow on the range will kick the calf away when it is time for weaning; and man is so disgusted upon seeing a mature cow getting milk from another one that he shoots her, but he goes home for lunch and sits down to a big pitcher of milk. All wildlife, like the range cow, have the natural instinct that tells them that milk is not a proper food after
weaning time.
Her own beautiful teeth:
A lady brought three of her married daughters into her office once to have us repeat to them what she had heard at one of our lectures concerning milk. She told how two of these ladies were very good little girls and had drunk their milk faithfully and would at times ask for more, but she had one that was not so cooperative and would not drink her milk, and this child would almost vomit when the milk was forced upon her, until the family finally gave up with the threat that she would be the family weakling and lose all her teeth! Well, these three little girls grew up, and here they sat in our office as young women, the two good little milk drinkers with false teeth and the one that could not tolerate milk had all her own very beautiful teeth. One of the ladies was a bit perplexed and said, "But we must drink milk when nursing a baby!" And our answer was: "Do you give a cow milk so she can nurse her calf? No she gets the milk from the grass alone--and you have a good choice of green foods to pick from".
Pediatric Bulletin
Human Milk and the Prevention of Infection
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/457915?mpid=16607
from Infections in Medicine ®
Posted 07/23/2003
Benjamin Estrada, MD
Breast-feeding is the recommended form of infant nutrition. In addition to nutritional and psychological benefits, it is well known that breast-feeding has a protective effect against infection. Human milk contains significant concentrations of secretory IgA and oligosaccharides, which provide protection against bacterial infection. In addition, the bifidus factor present in human milk stimulates the development of protective intestinal microflora in breast-fed infants. Protective effects of human milk against infection caused by rotavirus, enterobacteria, and Streptococcus pneumoniae are well known. The following are a series of recent findings that add significant information to our understanding of the anti-infective properties of human milk.
Recently, the presence of different natural antibacterial agents has been described in human milk. Hakansson and collaborators (Hakansson A et al. Mol Microbiol. 2000;35:589-600) have reported that -lactalbumin present in human milk has bactericidal activity against S pneumoniae. The antibacterial activity of this substance seems to be independent of S pneumoniae bacterial serotype or antibiotic resistance pattern. In addition, Liepke and collaborators (Liepke C et al. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl. 2001;752:369-377) have identified a peptide in human milk similar to a proteolytic fragment of human k-casein. This peptide was found to inhibit the growth of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria as well as yeasts (Hakansson A et al. Mol Microbiol. 2000;35:589-600). Human milk contains relatively large amounts of xanthine oxidase, and this enzyme has been linked to antibacterial activity. The combination of xanthine oxidase and nitrites present in the newborn's GI tract generates nitric oxide, which inhibits the metabolism of Enterobacteriaceae, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella enteritidis (Hancock JT et al. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:3308-3310).
It has been proved that human milk contains protective cytokines, such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The concentrations of this cytokine have been found to be higher during the first 2 postpartum days, and they are lower in breast milk of mothers who have given birth to premature infants than in milk of mothers who have given birth to full-term infants. In addition, G-CSF receptors are present in intestinal cells of breast-fed infants (Calhoun DA et al. Pediatrics. 2000;105:e7).
Among the major protective factors present in human milk are secretory IgA and sialic acid, which have activity against infections with enteric pathogens. Recently, investigators have demonstrated that these factors present in human milk survive passage through the GI tract and are present in higher concentrations in the stool of breast-fed infants than in the stool of bottle-fed infants (Kohler H et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002;34:188-193; Fernandes RC et al. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002;44:331-336).
Two recent studies support previous research that suggested a role of breast-feeding in protecting against infection caused by rotavirus. In a study performed in Italy, breast-feeding was found to be associated with a significantly lower rate of nosocomial rotavirus infection. Breast-feeding was more effective than administration of lactobacillus GG in the prevention of nosocomial rotavirus infection in the same setting (Mastretta E et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002;35:527-531; Gianino P et al. J Hosp Infect. 2002;50:13-17).
New data suggest that the anti-infective properties of human milk can be preserved for up to 3 months after its expression when the milk is frozen at 220°C (24.0°F) (Ogundele MO. Br J Biomed Sci. 2002;59:205-211). These findings should encourage the promotion and acceptance of breast-feeding as the ideal form of infant nutrition. Time spent in the promotion of breast-feeding is always time well invested.
Dr Estrada is associate professor of pediatrics, division of infectious diseases, University of South Alabama, Mobile. Infect Med 20(6):270, 2003. © 2003 Cliggott Publishing, Division of SCP
Communications
Pediatric Bulletin
Human Milk and the Prevention of Infection
from Infections in Medicine .
Posted 07/23/2003
Benjamin Estrada, MD
Breast-feeding is the recommended form of infant nutrition. In addition to nutritional and psychological benefits, it is well known that breast-feeding has a protective effect against infection. Human milk contains significant concentrations of secretory IgA and oligosaccharides, which provide protection against bacterial infection. In addition, the bifidus factor present in human milk stimulates the development of protective intestinal microflora in breast-fed infants. Protective effects of human milk against infection caused by rotavirus, enterobacteria, and Streptococcus pneumoniae are well known. The following are a series of recent findings that add significant information to our understanding of the anti-infective properties of human milk.
Recently, the presence of different natural antibacterial agents has been described in human milk. Hakansson and collaborators (Hakansson A et al. Mol Microbiol. 2000;35:589-600) have reported that alpha-lactalbumin present in human milk has bactericidal activity against S pneumoniae. The antibacterial activity of this substance seems to be independent of S pneumoniae bacterial serotype or antibiotic resistance pattern. In addition, Liepke and collaborators (Liepke C et al. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl. 2001;752:369-377) have identified a peptide in human milk similar to a proteolytic fragment of human k-casein. This peptide was found to inhibit the growth of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria as well as yeasts (Hakansson A et al. Mol Microbiol. 2000;35:589-600). Human milk contains relatively large amounts of xanthine oxidase, and this enzyme has been linked to antibacterial activity. The combination of xanthine oxidase and nitrites
present in the newborn's GI tract generates nitric oxide, which inhibits the metabolism of Enterobacteriaceae, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella enteritidis (Hancock JT et al. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:3308-3310).
It has been proved that human milk contains protective cytokines, such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The concentrations of this cytokine have been found to be higher during the first 2 postpartum days, and they are lower in breast milk of mothers who have given birth to premature infants than in milk of mothers who have given birth to full-term infants. In addition, G-CSF receptors are present in intestinal cells of breast-fed infants (Calhoun DA et al. Pediatrics. 2000;105:e7).
Among the major protective factors present in human milk are secretory IgA and sialic acid, which have activity against infections with enteric pathogens. Recently, investigators have demonstrated that these factors present in human milk survive passage through the GI tract and are present in higher concentrations in the stool of breast-fed infants than in the stool of bottle-fed infants (Kohler H et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002;34:188-193; Fernandes RC et al. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002;44:331-336).
Two recent studies support previous research that suggested a role of breast-feeding in protecting against infection caused by rotavirus. In a study performed in Italy, breast-feeding was found to be associated with a significantly lower rate of nosocomial rotavirus infection. Breast-feeding was more effective than administration of lactobacillus GG in the prevention of nosocomial rotavirus infection in the same setting (Mastretta E et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002;35:527-531; Gianino P et al. J Hosp Infect. 2002;50:13-17).
New data suggest that the anti-infective properties of human milk can be preserved for up to 3 months after its expression when the milk is frozen at 2200C (24.00F) (Ogundele MO. Br J Biomed Sci. 2002;59:205-211).
These findings should encourage the promotion and acceptance of breast-feeding as the ideal form of infant nutrition. Time spent in the promotion of breast-feeding is always time well invested.
Dr Estrada is associate professor of pediatrics, division of infectious diseases, University of South Alabama, Mobile. Infect Med 20(6):270, 2003. ) 2003 Cliggott Publishing, Division of SCP
Communications
Article published Oct 3, 2003
Mother learns of tainted breast milk
When Angie Strother-Akhtar's daughter, Graceanna, was born seven months ago, she chose to breast-feed her, believing it was the best start she could give her baby. She never suspected that by nursing, she was also passing along potentially dangerous levels of fire-retardant chemicals in her milk. Then the 33-year-old Gainesville resident found a Web site advertising a research study conducted by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.
The study was collecting samples of breast milk from women across the country and testing them for levels of polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs. The chemicals, which are used to prevent fires in numerous everyday items, are known to cause developmental problems in test animals. "This looked interesting and I wondered how and if I fit into the numbers," Strother-Akhtar said Wednesday. "I fully expected my numbers to be similar to those reported from studies in Europe. Of course, they weren't."
In fact, the levels of PBDEs in her breast milk were the fifth-highest in the group of 20 women (all first-time mothers) enrolled in the study - 178 parts per billion. The levels in the milk fat reported in the study ranged from 9.5 to 1,078 parts per billion. Strother-Akhtar, a graphic designer who works at home, said she was puzzled by the results. How did that level of PBDEs get into her body, she wondered. "I don't drink, use drugs or eat a ton of meat. I don't work around chemicals," she said. "Basically, you'd describe me as 'clean living.' "
The results were even more surprising, she said, because like many residents, she regards Gainesville as an environmentally aware "green community." The Environmental Working Group is not proposing that concerned mothers stop breast-feeding. "The most important thing for women to take away from this is that breast-feeding is still the best option," working group spokesman Jon Corsiglia said. "There are still a lot of benefits of breast-feeding that outweigh the risk of the chemicals found in the breast milk." Strother-Akhtar said she is an even stronger advocate of breast-feeding, given the results of the study.
"These chemicals are already in our bodies and being introduced to our children in utero," she said. "What else can we do besides breast-feed to try to fix whatever harm might have been done?" The working group study, although small, appears to confirm earlier findings reported in Europe and in a study published last month by researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center. What's most alarming, the authors of this latest study say, is that the levels of PBDEs appear to be increasingly present in our bodies and our environment. Studies in mice and rats have shown that PBDEs can cause delayed onset of puberty, decreased sperm counts, learning impairment and hearing loss. The levels being measured in people are 10 to 20 times less than those shown to cause developmental problems in lab animals, but whether the chemicals are potentially toxic to humans remains unclear.
PBDEs are used in computer casings, carpets, marine lacquers and paints, fax machines, printers, cellular phones, lamp sockets, circuit boards and coffee-makers, as well as in the polyurethane foam used as stuffing for furniture, mattresses and car seats. They are thought to enter the body through exposure to contaminated food, house dust and air, the study said. Levels of all PBDEs in house dust and sewage sludge in the United States are markedly higher than in Europe.
Europe has chosen to ban PBDEs, effective next year. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is evaluating alternative flame retardants. That's not enough, in the view of the Environmental Working Group, which has called for more studies and a ban on PBDEs here. Strother-Akhtar agrees. "I think something has to be done," she said. "I hope that a study of these chemicals stays in the forefront."
Diane Chun can be reached at 374-5041 or chund@gvillesun.com.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20040
502/hl_nm/health_infants_dc
Study: Breast Feeding Cuts Infant Death 20 Percent
1 hour, 28 minutes ago
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Breast-fed children in the United States are 20 percent less likely to die during the first year of life than whose who are not nursed, according to a study released on Sunday. Researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences said they based their finding on a survey that included nearly 9,000 infant deaths in 48 states. It found breast-fed babies were 20 percent less likely to die between 1 and 12 months of life than those who were not, and that the longer babies were breast-fed, the lower the risk of early death.
Aimin Chen, a physician who was one of the authors of the study, said in an interview that the protective effect appears to come from the "package of child care skills" that goes along with nursing as well as the benefits of the milk. He said data from 2000 show that 70 percent of U.S. newborns are breast-fed when they leave the hospital and at 6 months almost one third are. But there are still racial and economic disparities in how widely the practice has been adopted. Other studies have shown breast-fed babies are less likely to be overweight, have fewer behavioral problems and may show differences in intelligence.
They also may grow up to have lower blood pressure.
Groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that all mothers breast-feed their babies for the first year, and two years if possible. The study was published in the May edition of Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Study: Breast Milk Compound Kills Warts
By LINDA A. JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer
A compound in breast milk has been found to destroy many skin warts, raising hopes it might also prove effective against cervical cancer and other lethal diseases caused by the same virus. Skin warts are caused by the human papilloma virus, which is extremely widespread. Swedish researchers found that when the breast-milk compound - since named HAMLET - is applied to the skin, it kills virally infected cells in warts resistant to conventional treatments.
"This may have relevance for the treatment of cervical cancer," because virally infected and cancer cells are similar, said lead researcher Dr. Catharina Svanborg, professor of clinical immunology at Lund University in Lund, Sweden. The researchers hope to start small-scale testing of the compound soon on women with cervical cancer.
"Any long-term potential for any devastating diseases is very speculative at this stage" but should be followed up, said Catherine Laughlin, chief of the virology branch in the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. There are 130 known types of the human papilloma virus. Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by two sexually transmitted types. Other types cause skin and genital warts, squamous cell skin cancer and lesions in the throat that are deadly in rare cases.
Many people carry the virus in skin cells, but it does not always cause disease. Doctors knew breast milk contained a natural antibiotic. But its potential against viruses and tumors was discovered by accident. Svanborg's team was testing ways to fight what is called bacterial superinfection - bacteria infecting cells already infected by a virus. They applied a protein in mother's milk called alpha-lactalbumin to double-infected lung cancer cells.
To the researchers' surprise, the cancer cells as well as the bacteria inside them were killed. That was because the milk protein had changed its configuration, bound to another milk component called oleic acid, and created the more powerful HAMLET compound.
The research team then tested the compound against warts on patients' hands and painful ones on their feet, called plantar warts. The warts shrank by at least 75 percent over the first three weeks the compound was applied to the skin. And at least three-quarters of the warts disappeared after a second treatment. The researchers dubbed the compound HAMLET, an acronym for human alpha-lactalbumin made lethal to tumor cells, partly because of their proximity to the scene of the Shakespeare play, which took place in Denmark.
The research was reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
"Any agent that can be topically applied and absorbs well into cancerous or precancerous cells has great potential," said Dr. Frank Murphy, chief of dermatology at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.
Murphy noted that the compound probably would be much more expensive than standard treatments for warts, about half of which go away on their own within two years. The standard treatments for getting rid of warts include burning, freezing, laser removal and various topical solutions. Dr. Karl Beutner, associate clinical professor of dermatology at University of California-San Francisco, said a drug that destroys skin warts also should work against papilloma lesions in the throat, but not necessarily against cervical cancer.
Svanborg said if HAMLET proves useful against serious diseases, the compound would probably be synthesized in the lab instead of being extracted from breast milk.
http://www.nursingtimes.net/nav?page=nt.news.story&resource=1377859
Breastfeeding prevents diarrhoea
NT Online Clinical News
posted on 18 10 2004
New research shows oligoscaccharides in human milk protect infants from diarrhoea.
A study published in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the association between maternal milk levels of 2-linked fucosylated oligosaccharide and the prevention of diarrhoea in breast-fed infants.
Infants whose milk contained high levels of total 2-linked fucosylated oligosaccharide experienced fewer episodes of moderate-to-severe diarrhoea. 'This study provides initial clinical evidence that human milk oligosaccharides may offer clinically relevant protection against diarrhoea and suggest the potential for oligosaccharides to form the basis of oral agents with potent antibacterial and antiviral activity,' conclude the authors.
Reference: J Pediatr 2004;145:297-303
Toxic Breast Milk? By FLORENCE WILLIAMS
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/magazine/09TOXIC.html
‘‘Breast-Feeding Emmanuelle, First Month 2004,’’ self-portrait.
If human breast milk came stamped with an ingredients label, it might read something like this: 4 percent fat, vitamins A, C, E and K, lactose, essential minerals, growth hormones, proteins, enzymes and antibodies. In a healthy woman, it contains 100 percent of virtually everything a baby needs to survive, plus a solid hedge of extras to help ward off a lifetime of diseases like diabetes and cancer. Breast milk helps disarm salmonella and E. coli. Its unique recipe of fatty acids boosts brain growth and results in babies with higher I.Q.'s than their formula-slurping counterparts. Nursing babies suffer from fewer infections, hospitalizations and cases of sudden infant death syndrome. For the mother, too, breast-feeding and its delicate plumbing of hormones afford protection against breast and ovarian cancers and stress. Despite exhaustion, the in-laws and dirty laundry, every time we nurse our babies, the love hormone oxytocin courses out of our pituitaries like a warm bath. Human milk is like ice cream, Valium and Ecstasy all wrapped up in two pretty packages.
But read down the label, and the fine print, at least for some women, sounds considerably less appetizing: DDT (the banned but stubbornly persistent pesticide famous for nearly wiping out the bald eagle), PCB's, dioxin, trichloroethylene, perchlorate, mercury, lead, benzene, arsenic. When we nurse our babies, we feed them not only the fats, sugars and proteins that fire their immune systems, metabolisms and cerebral synapses. We also feed them, albeit in minuscule amounts, paint thinners, dry-cleaning fluids, wood preservatives, toilet deodorizers, cosmetic additives, gasoline byproducts, rocket fuel, termite poisons, fungicides and flame retardants.
If, as Cicero said, your face tells the story of your mind, your breast milk tells the decades-old story of your diet, your neighborhood and, increasingly, your household decor. Your old shag-carpet padding? It's there. That cool blue paint in your pantry? There. The chemical cloud your landlord used to kill cockroaches? There. Ditto, the mercury in last week's sushi, the benzene from your gas station, the preservative parabens from your face cream, the chromium from your neighborhood smokestack. One property of breast milk is that its high-fat and -protein content attracts heavy metals and other contaminants. Most of these chemicals are found in microscopic amounts, but if human milk were sold at the local Piggly Wiggly, some stock would exceed federal food-safety levels for DDT residues and PCB's.
Some of the chemicals I'm mainlining to my 1-year-old daughter will stay in her body long enough for her to pass them on to her own offspring. PCB's, for example, can remain in human tissue for decades. On a body-weight basis, the dietary doses my baby gets are much higher than the doses I get. This is not only because she is smaller, but also because her food -- my milk -- contains more concentrated contaminants than my food. It's the law of the food chain, and it's called biomagnification.
To refresh that lesson from seventh grade, here's how it works: Animals at the top of the food chain receive the concentrated energy and persistent chemicals of all the biota underneath them. Each member up the food chain takes in exponentially more fat-loving toxins than its counterpart below. This is why a slab of shark contains more mercury than its weight in plankton. Ocean food chains are longer than terrestrial ones, so people who eat many marine carnivores carry higher body concentrations of some chemicals than the vegan at your local salad bar. When it comes to these fat-soluble toxins, the Inuit are among the most contaminated populations on earth, even though they live in the remote Arctic. But don't picture Eskimo Woman in sealskin on the top of the food chain. Picture her suckling baby.
For a mother and child, nursing is perhaps the most intimate of acts. Evolutionary biologists call it matrotropy: eating one's mother. My daughter is not only physically attached to me; she is taking from me all that I can give her. Each time I lift my shirt, she pants and flaps her arms and legs as if it were Christmas. Then she settles in, both of us wholly reassured that this is the best, safest and most satisfying food she could eat. I nurse because, like many women, this is what I've been told by contemporary pregnancy books and my pediatrician. I want to give her the best possible start in an uncertain world.
I take this responsibility seriously, as most of us do; for her sake, I don't drink much alcohol or caffeine. I avoid spicy foods, strawberries and cruciferous vegetables, which are believed to cause gas in babies. I take my vitamins to ensure that I have enough calcium and iron. I don't smoke. I'm aware of concerns about pesticides and heavy metals, and I try to take precautions. Since I have been pregnant with or nursing two children for almost four years, I have been buying mostly organic food. Several years ago we installed a three-stage reverse-osmosis filter on our tap water and ice maker. I live in a leafy, scenic town in the Rocky Mountains far from brown clouds and belching diesel freeways.
So it was with increasing discomfort that I scanned recent headlines about pervasive toxic chemicals, the ones you can't easily avoid. There were articles about elevated mercury levels in women of child-bearing age, federal actions against the makers of Teflon and flame retardants accumulating in breast milk. This last one especially frightened me. Not only was nature's purest food tainted by chemicals, but the act of breast-feeding itself, an act of love and nurture, was also now marred by fear. Had I been wrong to be so smug about the superiority of breast-feeding? Should I switch to formula, which contains plant-based fats and therefore lower levels of some contaminants (although it may contain higher levels of others, like aluminum and manganese, as well as the pathogens and pesticides found in tap water)? I learned that in general, older women have stored up more toxins than younger ones. Scientists believe that mothers siphon off to their baby a significant amount of their lifelong store of chemicals in the course of breast-feeding. Nursing a baby, it turns out, is the ultimate detox diet. I'm 37. What toxins have I passed on to my son and daughter?
To find out, I sent my breast milk off to be tested for certain flame retardants called PBDE's, reputed in some press reports to be ''the next PCB,'' a class of industrial chemicals banned in the late 70's. I knew some PBDE's would turn up; they are found in virtually every animal and human tested so far. The milk of American women has the highest levels in the world, although still mostly lower (we think and hope) than levels at which health effects might be seen in us or our children. What these levels tell us is that our world is full of unhappy and improbable surprises, like the fact that the plastic in our computers and TV's somehow ends up inside us. Our collective levels tell us that the chemicals are increasing over time, that someone should be paying attention and that it would be helpful to know what havoc may be wreaked in our cells if present trends continue.
Waiting for results over the next two months, I learned more about chemicals in my everyday life. I began eyeing my degrading foam mouse pad: was I ingesting it? I read the ingredients label on my sunscreen. I noticed the little white pesticide-notification flags on my neighbors' lawns. I watched my 3-year-old son. Was he meeting his development targets? How was his attention span? I recognized that in its incremental way, alarm over toxic contamination creates a perfect storm for the overanxious parent. Now in addition to worrying about the right schools, dirty bombs and car-seat recalls, we get to wonder if our mattresses are emitting developmental neurotoxins.
During this time, one thing became clear to me: we live in a flame-retardant nation. The reason is polyurethane. Originally used by the German Army in World War II, by the mid-50's the polymer was transforming everything from refrigeration insulation to upholstered foam furniture to car bumpers. It was an industrial miracle: cheap, soft and malleable. As one industry Web site puts it, ''Today, polyurethanes can be found in virtually everything we touch -- our desks, chairs, cars, clothes, footwear, appliances, beds, the insulation in our walls, roof and moldings on our homes.''
It has just one problem: it's highly flammable. Responding to strong consumer-protection laws dating from the 70's, manufacturers increasingly treated household foam and plastics with brominated flame retardants. The National Association of State Fire Marshals says that such fire retardants have saved hundred of lives from house fires. They also help prevent the release of combustion byproducts like dioxin, a known human carcinogen. PBDE's reflect a wholly modern conundrum: they are one toxic solution most of us didn't know existed to a toxic problem most of us didn't know we had.
For the flame retardant to work, foams, plastics and fabrics are mixed with, or coated in, PBDE's, polybrominated diphenylethers, but in such a way that the chemical is not molecularly bound to anything. It appears to migrate out of its product and attach to household dust. A class of so-called organic compounds, PBDE's have as one of their signature properties fat-solubility. Hence their unwelcome appearance in our breast milk. They may remain in humans for several months to at least several years. Semi-volatile in the environment, certain PBDE's have lately been found in soil sediments; in chicken, pork, sausage and dairy products; in sewage sludge and crop fertilizer; in fresh and saltwater fish; in wild birds; on computer and desk surfaces; in clothes-dryer lint; on the insides of residential windows; and in human fetal liver tissue.
Persistent toxins were first discovered in breast milk in 1951, when black mothers in Washington were tested for the pesticide DDT. In 1966, a Swedish researcher thought to test his wife's breast milk for PCB's, or polychlorinated biphenyls, after he discovered them in the tissue of a dead eagle. Five years later, Sweden banned PCB's, with the United States following a few years later. But because of those chemicals' widespread use and persistence, they are still the highest-concentration toxins in breast milk, even in mothers born after the 1978 ban. Most scientists maintain that prenatal exposure to PCB's -- considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to be a probable human carcinogen -- can do real damage. Researchers in the Great Lakes region, the Arctic and the Netherlands found that babies born to mothers with mid- to upper-range background levels of PCB contamination (probably because of diets rich in contaminated fish and animal products) have delayed learning capabilities, lower I.Q.'s and reduced immunities against infections. The longitudinal studies on which these findings were based showed that some problems persisted at least into early adolescence.
The message from these studies about breast-feeding, however, was not what you might expect. Although the children who were breast-fed had higher PCB levels than children who were exposed only in utero, they consistently performed better than those who drank formula. When researchers controlled for socioeconomic factors, the differences were more subtle but still there. In other words, breast milk appears to be at least partly protective against the effects of toxic chemicals. In fact, the World Health Organization and other groups continue to recommend breast-feeding for all women. At first this sounds reassuring, until you wonder how much better the breast milk would be without the companion chemicals. We'll never know, since an uncontaminated control group doesn't exist.
Swedish researchers first discovered the PBDE flame retardants in pike in 1981. Like PCB's, they concentrated in fat and stuck around. But unlike PCB's, whose levels were gradually declining worldwide, the flame-retardant levels were rising. The Swedes decided to look for the chemicals in stored human milk samples, and what they found rocked the scientific community: from the early 70's, when they first appeared commercially, to 1998, levels of PBDE's in breast milk were doubling every five years, a rate unmatched by any known chemical in the last 25 years.
''No one had ever heard of them -- we thought it was just a European problem,'' said Kim Hooper, a specialist with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. ''So our lab looked in San Francisco Bay seal blubber, and found a 100-fold increase over 10 years.'' When European scientists first saw the test results of American women, they thought there must be a mistake. Our levels were 10 to 100 times higher than those of women in Europe and Japan.
So far, little is known about the health effects of PBDE's in humans. It's difficult to experiment with human subjects, and so to estimate toxicity scientists look to laboratory animals. What they have found is that in rats, exposure to PBDE's has resulted in damage to the thyroid and its ability to orchestrate proper brain development, although the exact mechanism remains unclear. We know that the offspring of exposed rats suffer reduced motor function, and that some develop tumors at high doses of one type of PBDE. Several recent animal studies indicate that PCB's and PBDE's may act in unison to block protein receptors and affect thyroid and endocrine functioning.
Such observations can be useful in helping us determine toxic chains of events but not in predicting at what dose the bad effects occur in humans. And, as Paracelsus put it, the dose makes the poison. The dose required to harm a developing fetus or small baby is likely to be much lower than to harm an adult.
''No one at this time knows at what levels nursing is not the best approach and in fact becomes harmful to babies,'' said Arnold Schecter, at the University of Texas School of Public Health, the researcher to whom I sent my samples. ''But such levels must exist.''
Aake Bergman, head of the department of environmental chemistry at Stockholm University, whose data was instrumental in influencing the European Union to ban two formulations of PBDE's, said: ''I hope I never will be able to tell you about effects in humans. We will so totally have failed if we see effects in humans.''
When Congress ordered the banning of PCB's in 1976, it also passed the Toxic Substances Control Act, which authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to approve and regulate new chemicals. Approximately 58,000 existing chemicals were grandfathered in, no questions asked, including PBDE's. Today, about 15,000 chemicals are used commercially in the United States. Under the law, manufacturers are required to submit any available information on the health and safety of new chemicals, and the Environmental Protection Agency has 90 days to assess it. Manufacturers are also required to submit available toxicity information as it becomes available on older substances. But with 2,000 new chemicals proposed every year and limited data to review, the agency is seriously behind the curve. Of chemicals used by children and families in consumer products, only about 25 percent have registered complete toxicity data. In nearly 30 years, the E.P.A. has required manufacturers to test about 1,500 chemicals, or 10 percent of the total, and flat-out rejected only a handful of chemicals.
''We don't like to see a chemical building up in the tissues of people,'' said Charlie Auer, director of the E.P.A.'s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. With PBDE's, he said, ''there certainly is a basis for some level of concern, but we don't have enough information.'' Still, in 2003 his office reached an agreement with the biggest manufacturer of PBDE's, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, to stop producing two of three formulations by the end of 2004. Existing stocks of those two forms of the chemical will be used and eliminated ''over time,'' he said.
And so I do what any mother would: I try to gain a sense of control. Not entirely happy about the exposed foam in my husband's old pick-up, I cover the rips with duct tape. I retire my son's adorable airplane-print foam chair to the garage. I even replace his questionable polystyrene beanbag with one made out of organic buckwheat hulls. But there's not much I can do about the television sets, computers, printers, coffee makers, carpets, roof insulation and the rest of it short of moving my family into a tree and sleeping on a horse-hair mattress.
To get a reality check, I call David Ropeik, a former environmental journalist now with the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. ''We're developing new and better tests to allow us to do more biomonitoring, but so what?'' he asked. ''It's really dicey to know what that means for human babies. The mom who lets her kids get sunburned and worries about PBDE's is worrying about the wrong thing.''
Knowing what we carry inside us, rather than making anyone feel better, may in fact be making us feel worse. ''Biomonitoring is now so refined that you can detect pretty much anything,'' said Peter O'Toole, a spokesman for the industry-financed Bromine Science and Environmental Forum. ''It's become a cottage business. We just want to see it done right, and not used as a scare tactic.''
Fewer than 200 women have been tested in the United States for flame retardants in their breast milk, many of them for a study by Arnold Schecter. When he called with my PBDE results from the lab, he had mixed news. The good news in relative terms is that at 36 parts per billion, my levels are only 2 points above what Schecter's work suggests is the U.S. median. This means that roughly half of women tested have levels above mine and half below. The bad news is that my levels are presumed to be rising with the current trend and are still an order of magnitude higher than those of the rest of the industrialized world. At current rates of increase, my levels could reach 300 parts per billion in 10 to 15 years. That's the level that Tom McDonald, at the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, says corresponds to endocrine and thyroid dysfunction in lab animals. What this means, though, in human terms, remains unclear. Talking about PBDE's, Schecter said, ''We know less than one-tenth of one percent of what we know about PCB toxicity. Your level, and that of other American women, suggests to me that the E.P.A. still has a lot of work to do.''
I called Michael Dourson, a toxicology consultant who is very familiar with the current research on PBDE's and children, to get a read on my own numbers. He translated my PBDE levels -- 36 parts per billion -- into an exposure estimate for my breast-feeding daughter and then compared that with the best-known safe level that scientists can more or less agree on. What it comes down to is that, roughly and with some uncertainty, my baby is receiving one-seventh the exposure of the maximum level believed to be safe. ''Above that level, we're not sure, but we become less confident,'' he said. ''And at some point, it becomes not safe.''
After countries in Northern Europe began restricting certain flame retardants in the 90's, levels in breast milk there declined. That is what we hope to see here now that production of the two most worrisome flame retardants has ceased.
I'm relieved that my exposure levels aren't higher. I'm relieved that some of the substances are going off the market. And I'm relieved, frankly, to get back to worrying about trans fats and car seats. But there is a lingering unease that more toxic surprises await us. A few years ago, many American toxicologists had never heard of polybrominated diphenylethers. Already, another chemical is ready to claim ''the next PCB'' label: PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid (used to make nonstick frying pans), believed by some to be an even bigger problem.
Ultimately, though, the question for me as a mother is not at what threshold of exposure will my baby be harmed, but why are we manufacturing common products made with these toxins at all? ''There is almost no example of a toxic chemical in breast milk that doesn't have a nontoxic substitute,'' said Sandra Steingraber, a visiting scholar at Ithaca College and author of ''Having Faith: An Ecologist's Journey to Motherhood.'' ''We haven't yet compromised breast milk to such an extent that it's a worse food than infant formula, but why get to that point?''
For now, I will continue to breast-feed my daughter. As for PBDE's, McDonald said, ''My hope is that we caught it early enough.''
Florence Williams, a contributing writer for Outside magazine, writes frequently about environmental issues.
Dozens of Words for Snow, None for Pollution
Perched atop the Arctic food chain, the people of the Far North face an impossible choice: abandon their traditional foods, or ingest the rest of the world's poisons with every bite.
By Marla Cone
January/February 2005 Issue
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/01/12_402.html
[excerpt]
" The Arctic has been transformed into the planet's chemical trash can, the final destination for toxic waste that originates thousands of miles away. Atmospheric and oceanic currents conspire to send industrial chemicals, pesticides, and power-plant emissions on a journey to the Far North. Many airborne chemicals tend to migrate to, and precipitate in, cold climates, where they then endure for decades, perhaps centuries, slow to break down in the frigid temperatures and low sunlight. The Arctic Ocean is a deep-freeze archive, holding the memories of the world's past and present mistakes. Its wildlife, too, are archives, as poisonous chemicals accumulate in the fat that Arctic animals need to survive. Polar bears denning in Norway and Russia near the North Pole carry some of the highest levels of toxic compounds ever found in living animals."
One way to stem pollution in the Arctic is to reduce U.S. power plants' mercury emissions. Physicians for Social Responsibility is pushing the Bush administration and Congress to clean up our skies at
mercuryaction.org
Get Generation Green's Mercury Action Kit by calling (800) 652-0827.
Sign up for mercury action alerts at
generationgreen.org
The material in this post is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Babies Motor Better with Breast Milk Janet Raloff
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061007/food.asp
{More of mothers milk and less of vaccines.............??}
Physicians have been advocating for years that breast milk is the best food for infants. Not only does it have the nutrition that babies need, but it also provides some antibodies and growth factors that speed maturation of the infant gut, thereby fending off disease. Now, a team of scientists in Britain offers strong evidence of another benefit. Mother's milk boosts early neurological development.
Social epidemiologist Yvonne J. Kelly of University College London and her colleagues were aware of studies that had suggested neurological benefits from breastfeeding. However, notes Kelly, those earlier analyses tended to be small and done in special populations—such as preemies. They also failed to rule out many factors that might account for differences in a child's developmental skills. Among such possible confounders: race, parent's education, family income, parenting attitudes, depression in the mother, characteristics of childcare, or the baby's overall health. Kelly and her coauthors had access to information on such features for the families of 18,000 infants from throughout the United Kingdom. The scientists also had motor-development data from in-home interviews with the families of those children when each baby was between 8 and 11 months old. The data were collected as part of the still-ongoing Millennium Cohort Study begun in 2000. Among these children, 9 percent exhibited gross motor delays, which means being late in reaching such major milestones as sitting up, proficient crawling, or standing. Six percent also showed delays in fine-motor coordination—such as clapping hands, transferring an object from one hand to another, or efficiently using the thumb and forefinger like pincers to pick things up. Only 1 percent of the infants showed both types of delays, the scientists report in the September Pediatrics. When the researchers began their work, they were skeptical of a link between breastfeeding and motor skills. "Although we thought we'd initially see some kind of effect, we had expected to be able to later explain it all away when we [adjusted for] covariants," such as a family's income or mother's mental health, Kelly says. To the researchers' surprise, Kelly notes, children "were about 50 percent less likely to have a [developmental] delay if they had prolonged, exclusive breastfeeding when compared to those who were never breastfed." They defined breastfeeding as prolonged when it had lasted at least 4 months. Even babies receiving mother's milk for a short while—2 months or less—were 30 percent less likely to have a developmental delay than those who received solely infant formula, beginning right after birth.
Singh M. Essential fatty acids, DHA and human brain. Indian J Pediatr [serial online] 2005 [cited 2006 Oct 30];72:239-242. Available from: http://www.ijppediatricsindia.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5456;year=2005;volume=72;issue=3;spage=239;epage=242;aulast=Singh
Most of the brain growth is completed by 5-6 years of age. At birth brain weight is 70% of an adult, 15% brain growth occurs during infancy and remaining brain growth is completed during preschool years. DHA is the predominant structural fatty acid in the central nervous system and retina and its availability is crucial for brain development. It is recommended that the pregnant and nursing woman should take at least 2.6g of omega-3 fatty acids and 100-300 mg of DHA daily to look after the needs of her fetus and suckling infant. The follow-up studies have shown that infants of mothers supplemented with EFAs and DHA had higher mental processing scores, psychomotor development, eye-hand coordination and stereo acuity at 4 years of age. Intake of EFAs and DHA during preschool years may also have a beneficial role in the prevention of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and enhancing learning capability and academic performance.
