Article on breast milk on the guardian today

[OneLittleBabyTerror]

Has anyone seen it?

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/16/breasts-breastfeeding-milk-florence-williams

A lot of interesting things about breastmilk I've learned. First it's got a lot of live culture, similar to probiotic yoghurt. It's also filled with sugar an infant can't absorb. Lastly I'm shocked how much of the chemicals we absorb is passed onto our babies. (I shouldn't be so shocked about the last one because I do know the higher you are in the food chain, the more concentrated things like mercury is in your body)

A very interesting read.

Interesting stuff. It doesn't surprise me about the chemicals. My DD and DE react to all sorts despite being told there's no evidence. I firmly budge one day there will be!

*believe not budge

The thing that gets me is we should be thinking how to get the chemicals put of our bodies, not debating stopping BF [confised]

Haven;t read yet, should be seeing to kids but lots of sugars are for good bacteria to live on, so v v good and there for a reason. HTH.

God that's a bit scary - all the crap you put up with to bf and we're dumping chemicals in them?

Hmm, formula looks even more appealing...

Pomm most of these chemicals would also be in cows milk and therefore in formula too. We should be looking at reducing their use for everyone's benefit which ever type of milk they use.

Goodness, what an interesting article. Food for thought so to speak...esp as I'm 39 weeks with DC2 and hope to bf again for a year or so....

...In fact i would guess cows milk would possibly have lots more of some chemicals such a pesticides and considering what we feed cows these days who can say what else their milk might have in it.

It is food for thought, but it surely would be better to concentrate on reducing the toxins in our environment (our immediate environment - our homes - as well as the greater environment)?

Randomly found this to contribute:
"Breastfeeding can counteract any adverse developmental effects caused in the womb, despite current PCB levels in breastmilk. That's because breastmilk contains antioxidants, which seem to compensate for the toxic effects of the environment. Breastmilk also helps babies develop stronger immune systems. So the most harmful effects of toxins are from exposure in the womb, not breastfeeding, and government bodies conclude that breastfeeding should continue to be promoted and supported. "

www.babycenter.com.au/baby/breastfeeding/problemsandsolutions/toxinsinbreastmilk/#10

Also would like to add, recent research has found that breastmilk does more than previously thought for babies' immunity - it actually changes (enhances) their genes to provide better immunity for them AND their children in due course. Which makes me wonder about future generations who may be formula fed for 3, 4 or more generations - what effect could it have?

I've seen this around for a long time, but I didn't realise how much of our accumulated chemicals went into breast milk. I have read that Inuit women have been advised not to breastfeed because the chemicals are so concentrated in the Arctic and therefore in their bodies. I have also read that breast milk contains in general more of these type of chemicals than cow's milk.

I see no reason to stop. These chemicals will be in the other food we give them and in their environments. Our babies don't live on the moon - they can't avoid the chemicals any more than we can.

I'm with Ginger. It's so sad

Hmm maybe. I'm just desperate for some sleep at the moment :)

Farming regulations on pesticides for food products are pretty stringent though.

Gemma - that is interesting about the generational thing - i.e. that bm actually changes genetic make up (or formula does I guess depending on how you look at it).

Well compared to the shit in formula and cows milk i'll still take my chances breast feeding thanks very much

There's seems to be plenty of money to research and discredit breastmilk but no one willing to pay for similar research on the cows milk in formula

sponsored by nestle/p&g/any other big food manufacturer by any chance?

Fuck's sake, bloody Guardian.

Used to be my paper of choice, but they do indeed advertise SMA, etc, and then there was Zoe Williams. Don't buy it anymore.

Totally agree that toxins in environment is the issue here, not breastmilk. Loads of toxins in cows milk too, even organic.

Before anyone starts accusing me of saying 'formula is devils work', no, no not at all, it can be a useful thing and I've used it too. What irks is the undermining of breastfeeding.

The build up of toxins in our environment is definately something to be concerned about. The fact that they have sneaked their way into what should be the most natural food in the world should make us angry and motivated to tackle this pollution and the companies that produce it.

A very good book on this subject is The Story of Stuff for indepth discussion of this issue of environmental pollutants. She's also made a great little film about it for a quick overview.

Since 'Silent Spring' we've become aware that pollution isn't just the visible litter on the ground, its the chemicals we produce and coat our world in too, and these chemicals can get into the food chain and cause all sorts of problems.

The build up of these chemicals isn't the fault of breastfeeding. They are in all of our bodies, and it is sad that we're passing them onto our babies. But children will also be exposed to these same chemicals through cow's milk formula and through their environment and diet. Of course we should keep an eye on the concentrating effect of the food chain and breastfeeding. But its worth remembering that all the studies done which show that breastfeeding/breastmilk is beneficial are still true despite these toxins. So the net effect of breastfeeding is positive.

It certainly won't be putting me off, but its worth a reminder that its not just the planet that suffers through our polluting habits, its us too.

Yes indeed my reaction to the chemicals is we should reduce the toxins in our environment. I believe the chemicals would be in all our food always, including formula. Most of our formula isn't organic isn't it? So our cows would be fed with grass that has pesticide and chemical fertilisers. Many mums give their LO organic food because of the worry of chemicals in food, and how it affects our infants more than us. This should be extended then to ourselves (maybe switch to an organic diet when pregnant). And our production of formula. I'm sure the formula companies will say that the chemicals are trace amounts and not shown to cause any harms to infants.

Disclaimer : DD didn't have an organic diet, because we can't afford it.

And obviously the next question I have is how much of this toxin is in say a brand like hipp organic.

The Innuit policy made after exploring the issues round pcbs and the high levels within their community was that bf should continue and be recognised as the optimum way to feed. There was adverse press but AFAIK there has been no recommendation to limit bf.

Green Peace all the way. We should all have lower levels, big impacts in utero for all babies.

Gosh that is a bit scary.

I would still breastfeed a baby though rather than feed it formula, but I'm still breastfeeding my 2.2 year old so I'm a bit concerned how this relates to extended breastfeeding.

I found this article really odd TBH.

It is titled 'The Wonder of Breasts', yet ends with a really worrying string of facts about chemicals in breast milk, with no real discussion of this or information on how prevalent these chemicals are in formula as well as breast milk. The author states she is reconsidering her choice to breastfeed. Which is up to her of course, but the combination of this, the picture and caption seemed strange to me.

Anyone else?

Hmm, came on after reading that piece to see what others thought. Seems to make sense that cows must be as much affected, if not more so, than us... Will carry on BFing DD (1.6)