Protecting Breastfeeding from the Human Milk Industry

"The 10,000 years of human expertise in feeding us is a women's expertise."
                                            Vandana Shiva-"Seeds of Resistance"
                                            from the International Museum of Women

Vandana Shiva was writing about women as seed experts, "the biodiversity conservers of the world."  Reading about the preservation of seeds, of the need for biodiversity in our crops, I find that instead of thinking about seeds I am thinking about breastfeeding.  The survival of humanity for thousands of years depended upon breastfeeding.  It was dependent upon the knowledge of breastfeeding being passed from one generation to the next.  It was dependent upon the diversity of human milk.  Breastmilk, unlike formula, is not just species specific, but genetically specific for each infant.   The survival of the infant is dependent on the closeness of the mother.  Her milk producing antibodies specific to their shared environment.

Fast forward to our biotech society that believes in separation of mother and infant and that it doesn't really matter what you feed the baby.  All we need is clean water, antibiotics, and available health care facilities and providers and babies will survive.  And most do survive in our biotech society but we might question whether infant's have optimum health.  We do not consider that for 1000s of years,  infants were biologically programed to be close to their mothers and feed at their breasts.

And now we are entering an era where improvement of infant formula will be based on actual human milk components.  I realize there will be people who think this is a great thing, a safe thing for infants.  And maybe that is so.  But the real issue breastfeeding advocates need to ask themselves is how will this protect, promote, and preserve breastfeeding?  How does homogenization of human milk into infant formula safeguard the biological diversity of breastmilk?  Yes, I hear the voices of industry:  some babies cannot breastfeed, some mothers cannot produce enough milk, and some mothers do not want to breastfeed.  We must have a billion dollar industry to save those babies.  Seems like a hell of a lot of babies need saving to support a billion dollar industry.  And adding real human milk components, is only going to add to the cost of infant formula.  What babies are we saving?  Certainly not the babies who are born into poverty?  Not the babies whose parents cannot afford expensive infant formula.  And how do we ethically justify the use of free donor milk to aid a billion dollar industry?  

I hear the little doubters in the room.  This isn't happening.  We are not seeing the merging of the infant formula industry with a human milk industry. Let me see, let's take a look at the clinical trial called, "The Impact of Oligosaccharides and Bifidobacteria on the Intestinal Microflora of Premature Infants,"  ClinicalTrials government identifier NCT00810160.  The study start date was June of 2009 sponsored by University of California, Davis and the collaborators are Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institue of Child Health and Human Services.  Some babies will get Prolact Plus mixed with formula, this group is labeled Permeate (remember Prolacta's patent application for human milk permeate?).  This is a Prolacta product.  Other babies will get a galacto-oligosaccharide supplement, and some babies will get either Bifidobacterium infantis or animalis.  
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00810160

I have no information on the results but I presume that since Abbott has made those 7 applications on human milk oligosaccharides that they may have been very promising. Premature babies are usually the first to get new additions to infant formula.  It was certainly the case with Martek's DHA/ARA.  So one must presume that the next step would be all babies.

Prolacta was started by Elena Medo in California.  Lately, I have not seen her name mentioned among the executives of the company.  Many of those executives were previously employed by Baxter.  So I started trying to find out what happened.  I found a little information.  She is now the CEO of a company called Neolac, Inc. based in Murrieta, California.  At the Manta website it states that Neolac is a private company categorized under Fluid Milk.  Interesting.  But not as interesting as her new invention patent at the World Intellectual Property website.  Her company Neolac has a patent application WO/2012/030764 entitled, "Human Milk Preparation."  So I guess Neolac isn't a company based on cow's milk.  It's really weird writing this.  We have a fluid milk industry and its made up of women donating their milk to save all those little NICU babies.   Science fiction coming alive to a place near you.  Obviously, the US is way ahead of the game of monopolies and using women for greater gain.   I am shaking my head and wondering when will breastfeeding advocates stop imploring women to donate their milk and at the very least question what is going on?  I guess when hell freezes over.
Copyright 2012 Valerie W. McClain

The infant formula industry merges with the human milk industry

"Contemporary patents on life seem to be of a similar quality. They are pieces of paper issued by patent offices of the world that basically are telling corporations that if there's knowledge or living material, plants, seeds, medicines which the white man has not known about before, claim it on our behalf, and make profits out of it.
That then has become the basis of phenomena that we call biopiracy, where seeds such as the Basmati seed, the aromatic rice from India, which we have grown for centuries, right in my valley is being claimed as novel invention by RiceTec.
Neem, which we have used for millennia for pest control, for medicine, which is documented in every one of our texts, which my grandmother and mother have used for everyday functions in the home, for protecting grain, for protecting silks and woolens, for pest control, is treated as invention held by Grace, the chemical company."
                                                        Interview of Dr. Vandana Shiva of India
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/shiva.html




Human milk components (lactoferrin, lysozyme, bile salt-stimulated lipase, HMFG, the oligosaccharides) , like the Basmati seed and Neem, are being patented.  We are witnessing the merger of interests between the infant formula industry and the milk banking industry.  Biopiracy of human milk is entering a new era.  The interests of two companies, Abbott Nutrition and Prolacta Bioscience merged 2-3 years ago with a co-promotion arrangement.  Abbott would help Prolacta advertise their NICU products made from human milk.  But was there more to this deal then was publicly stated?

Why has Abbott applied for 7 patents for infant formula that contain human milk oligosaccharides to be used for preterm and term infants, toddlers and children?  All 7 patent applications (there could be more) are dated December  22, 2011.  Those applications are: Human Milk Oligosaccarides to promote growth of beneficial bacteria (application # 20120171165), Methods for reducing the incidence of oxidative stress using human milk oligosaccharides, vitamin C and anit-inflammatory agents (application # 2012172307), Methods for decreasing the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in infants, toddlers, or children using human milk oligosaccharides (application # 20120172319), Nutritional formulations including human milk oligosaccharides and antioxidants and uses thereof (application # 20120172327), Human milk oligosaccharides for modulating inflammation (application # 20120172330), Methods of using human milk oligosaccharides for improving airway respiratory health (application # 20120172331), and Nutritional compositions comprising human milk oligosaccharides and nucleotides and uses thereof for treating and/or preventing enteric viral infection (application 20120184503).  These patents are about adding the real component not that which is genetically engineered.  

Glycom in Denmark is one company that is using its experience in carbohydate technology to develop HMOs (human milk oligosaccharides).  They are synthetically producing the HMOs, probably genetically engineering them. This company states, "HMOs are the 3rd largest component of mother's milk and are attributed with many of its wonderful health effects.  Until now study of these natural biopharmaceuticals has been limited and commercialization has been blocked by lack of available material and high costs..."
http://www.glycom.com/About_us.asp

In January 2010 in Dairy reporter.com  the headline reads, "Danes unite to mine infant formula prebiotics."   Two  European formula companies, "Danisco and Arla were taking part  in a C2.5m+ business/academia research project to isolate and develop some of the oligosaccharides naturally present in human breast milk for use in infant formulas."

The infant formula industry is working on obtaining a synthetic (GMO) human milk oligosaccharides to improve infant formula.  But it seems that Abbott is interested in the real thing. And through their "partnership with Prolacta," they may have access to the real thing.

In December 2009 Prolacta filed for a patent called, "Human milk permeate compositions and methods of making and using same," patent application # 20110256233.  The abstract says, "This disclosure features human milk permeates and compositions containing the same obtained from fractionated whole milk.  The oligosaccharide rich permeate and permeate compositions of the present invention are useful as nutritional supplements for pre-term and full term infants, for establishing or maintaining gut flora and for treating the symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease,"

I find myself wondering when will the breastfeeding community wake up.  The world has changed.  The merger of interests between the infant formula industry and the human milk industry should be a very late wake up call to breastfeeding advocates around the world.  Should we wonder why the WHO Code does not work in the USA?  This is biopiracy.  The tradition of breastfeeding (not human milk feeding) is being spirited away by corporate values of ownership.

Like our seeds, freely flowing clean water, our earth;  breastfeeding is about the survival of humanity.  Corporations are about ownership, monopolies, and profit.  Our society has chosen profit over survival.  It's another sad day for Mother Earth.
Copyright 2012 Valerie W. McClain

World Breastfeeding Week: Understanding the Past--Planning the Future

     

     I wrote the following to the NY Times Op-Ed department.  It wasn't published but I thought I'd share it with my readers.  The NY Times has a habit of publishing what I consider to be slanted articles on breastfeeding, like the recent opinion piece called, "Milk Wars."   The article sounds like the fearless formula blog.  How times have changed since I was a breastfeeding mother.  Back 30 years ago, breastfeeding did not get much if any support from the medical community.  Weaning was always the solution to any problem a mom might have while breastfeeding.  Have a headache? Must be because you are breastfeeding.  Broke your leg?  You need to wean the baby.  Having mother-in-law problems? Wean the baby.  Despite the growing body of knowledge about breastfeeding, weaning is still the solution.  How far have we really come in 30 years?

Here's the op-ed piece written for the NY Times:

     Every year prior to World Breastfeeding Week (August 1-7), media coverage of infant feeding seems slanted against breastfeeding.  As a long-time breastfeeding advocate, researcher on human milk component patents, and retired International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, I believe these articles are a distortion of reality.  The common theme seems to be about making women feel comfortable about their choice of infant formula.  The long-term and short-term risks of infant formula are not addressed.  Breastfeeding benefits are described in such a manner as to be perceived as enormous burdens.  We start to question whether breastfeeding is an important health care issue.  Or is it just a life-style choice whose promotion is making formula feeders feel guilty?

     

      

     In September of 1992, the Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter had a photo of an infant at the breast with the caption, “Patent on Life:  Sweden must act to stop the patenting of a gene-manipulated woman, demanded patent lawyer Anders Hagman.”  The Green Party of Europe had learned about this pending patent application to the European Patent Office and mounted a campaign to have it rejected.  The description of this patent was that this was a patent on humans in order to gain monopoly rights to the production of drugs in women’s breasts.  This patent became known as the “Pharm Woman Patent.”  The patent was rejected by the European Patent Office.  But unknown to the public, the US Patent Office had already accepted and published this patent in 1990.  It was entitled, “Lactoferrin as a dietary ingredient promoting the growth of the gastrointestinal tract,” and owned by Baylor College of Medicine.  The source of their claim was on human and bovine lactoferrin.  Cow’s make little to no lactoferrin.  But human milk has substantial amounts of lactoferrin compared to cow’s milk.    “This present invention is based upon the discovery that milk lactoferrin as a dietary ingredient promotes the growth of the gastrointestinal tract when added to infant formula or given separately from the formula and thus reduces the occurrence of chronic diarrhea and may assist in the management of short-gut syndrome and avoids at least to some extent, chronic intractable diarrhea of the infant.”

        

     Baylor College of Medicine believed that lactoferrin, derived from human milk, could be used in infant formula to prevent the risk of diarrhea.  Studies in the 1980’s showed that formula-fed infants in industrialized nations had a 3-4 fold risk of diarrhea.  The inventors from Baylor also believed that short-gut syndrome was caused by a lack of human milk lactoferrin.  This was the beginning of patenting on human milk components.    There are over 2000 human milk component patents and filed patent applications at the US Patent & Trademark Office.  Human milk components, mostly their gene constructs, are being used or will be used to protect and treat not only infants but adults from a wide variety of pathogens.  Human lactoferrin is considered by some pharmaceutical companies to be an antibiotic.  Other human milk components are considered to be probiotic and prebiotic, a treatment in wound healing and cancer, and as a source of stem cells.  The infant formula industry in some countries has been adding lactoferrin to their products to better protect infants.  The infant formula, supplement, and food industries have been using the genetically engineered sugars from human milk as a prebiotic and probiotic.

      

     Patenting human milk components, mostly their gene constructs to make a safer infant formula tells us that the industry knows and is trying to prevent the risks of infant formula.  Pharmaceutical companies want to use those components as a source for drugs to save people from disease and cancers.  The food industry makes claims of health based on the goodness of prebiotics and probiotics, which are components of human milk. Yet, publicly we are still debating the issue of infant feeding as if breastfeeding is a lifestyle choice.  Meanwhile industry and institutions are making claims on what is produced in the human mammary gland.  Why is our society willing to own, monopolize, and commercialize human milk components?  Yet, reluctant to recognize that breastfeeding is an important health care issue? 

Copyright 2012 Valerie W. McClain

The troubled shores of breastfeeding advocacy

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."  Thomas Jefferson

I recently learned that the United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC) in April of this year received a grant of $694,000 from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.  "The three-year award will fund a two-part initiative to build and sustain national and state coalitions to generate collective action to implement policy, systems, and environmental changes need to increase breastfeeding rates and eliminate disparities."  


I have to admit that in the past I have been very critical of the US Breastfeeding Committee.  In 2004 I posted some questions regarding the US Breastfeeding Committee to Lactnet and was roundly criticized both publicly and privately.  I couldn't understand how an organization composed of government agencies and non-profit breastfeeding organizations worked.  Were meeting minutes available, could the public attend?  I also stated that I thought the DHHS, Health Department under the leadership of Tommy Thompson should be "booted" off the Committee.  I guess that was considered a very radical statement.  Tommy Thompson had put the brakes on the US Breastfeeding Ad Campaign--so I thought why should the US Health Department be part of the US Breastfeeding Committee.  Little did I understand the organization then and I can assure you I still am puzzled by this organization.  Marsha Walker, IBCLC, posted to Lactnet, ""I take great exception to Valerie's post regarding the nature of the USBC and the relationship with its member organizations. The USBC was formed to fulfill one of the 4 operational targets of the Innocenti Declaration, i.e. the formation of a national level breastfeeding committee.  There are about 35 organizations that belong to the USBC, including a number of government agencies who deal with breastfeeding through their programs."  There are according the USBC website 6 governmental organizations who are non-voting members of the USBC:  USDA, FDA, CDC, DHHS/Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, DHHS/Indian Health Services, DHHS/Office on Women's Health.  Then there is the National WIC Association which is a voting member.  
http://www.usbreastfeeding.org/AboutUs/Membership/tabid/64/Default.aspx

Is the National WIC Association a governmental body?  Or is it a private entity?  In 2010 the National WIC Association is listed as one of the organizations that is a Gold sponsor (donation between $1000-$4999) to the USBC.  The National WIC Association website http://www.nwica.org states, "The National WIC Association (NWA) works on behalf of The WIC Program to gain bipartisan support in the US Congress, the support of successive Administrations and a broad coalition, including advocacy groups, health care and religious organizations and the CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations."  Some of their Business Council Partners are, Beech Nut, Kellogg Company, General Mills.  [General Mills has partnered with Nestle in several business arrangements].  


Personally, I have had issues with the US Breastfeeding Committee.  In 2000, I was in email correspondence with Linda Smith, IBCLC regarding my writings on Lactnet about human milk component patenting.  She asked me to put together a binder of the patents and the industries involved so that she could present it to the USBC.  At that time, I did not realize that the USBC was in part composed of representatives from US Governmental agencies.  It never crossed my mind that government agency representatives were allowed to participate in non-profit organizations.  Because I live in Florida with strict government in the sunshine laws, I assumed that any meetings with governmental representatives would have to be public and that meetings would have to be public record.  Guess I was wrong.  I don't really know what happened to that binder.  I was told by Linda Smith that someone from one of the government agencies took it for a period of time.  The explanations continuously changed over time and at this point in time I just chalk it up to a learned experience about how things work in breastfeeding organizations.  At that time I thought there was about 60 patents on human milk components.  Now we are way over 2000 human milk component patents.  But the reason I mention this at all is to let you, the reader, know that yes, I am biased when it comes to discussions of the USBC.  I think that having representatives of government agencies combined with non-profit breastfeeding organizations is not a good idea for a number of reasons.  How can non-profit breastfeeding organizations ever be critical of governmental policy?  Difficult to do.  In fact I would say it would be close to impossible.  How can the public determine whether government policy is being influenced by non-profits?  Whether the policy is good, bad, or neutral, is it okay for meetings between non-profits and representatives of government to be private?  Are any individuals of the various non-profits benefiting from close relationships with governmental agencies?  Referrals?  Government contracts?  We can't know.  We don't know because there is no transparency.  And yes I recognize that people in breastfeeding advocacy believe that they are the good guys therefore no questions should be asked.  And yes I believe breastfeeding advocacy is a force for good and is needed.  But there also has to be accountability, transparency in our work.

What do we know about this Kellogg Foundation Grant?  From the WK Kellogg Foundation website, "Both the Kellogg company and the W.K. Kellog Foundation were established by cereal industry pioneer Will Keith Kellogg, and the assets of the foundation originally consisted of Kellogg company stock.." Their stock portfolio is now diversified.  But the Foundation is still financially reflective of the Kellogg Company.  One of the troubling aspects of this Grant that was accepted by the USBC is that Kellogg Company is considered a stakeholder in infant formula and adult nutritionals.  In September of 2010 Kellogg along with other stakeholders in the formula industry:  Nestle, Danone, Mead Johnson, Abbott, Martek, PBM, Wageningen University, International Formula Council, USDA, Texas A & M University, Arla, etc. met in Orlando, Florida.
http://www.aoac.org/SPIFAN/Sept_25_Meeting_Minutes.pdf  


The Kellogg Company has teamed up with Monsanto in adopting their low-linolenic soybean oil.  I am assuming that this soybean oil is in all probability a gmo product.  Martek Bioscience, maker of DHA, (another probable gmo product) signed a license agreement with Kellogg to supply DHA for their fortified foods. 

Many of Kellogg's food products (cereal, nutritonal bars, etc) contain soy protein isolate and whey protein isolate.  These are substances that are used in baby formulas.  Worthington Foods and Loma Linda are owned by Kellogg's.  Loma Linda was well-known for its soy infant formula.  Soy protein isolates have some health risks that are well-known.


Should we be troubled by the USBC acceptance of this funding?  What does it mean when we accept money from companies that are stakeholders in the very industry that competes against breastfeeding for the hearts and minds of mothers around the world?   How can we expect others to follow the WHO Code of infant formula marketing, when we accept monies from the stakeholders in that industry?  Do what I say, not what I do?
Copyright 2012 Valerie W. McClain

Nestle's obesity campaigns

"And now the whole country, indeed, the whole world seemed suddenly to be caught up in a mad chocolate buying spree..."
                                    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, by Roald Dahl

Roald Dahl was one of my favorite author's to read out loud to my children.  His book, Matilda, had our whole family in tears laughing so hard.  I read the BFG over and over again to one of my children.  The worlds he created seemed real, despite the wildness of the characters.  One could not help but root for Matilda, the innocent, incredible intelligent child, tormented by uncaring, stupid people in her life.  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, was one of his books that never really appealed to me, that is until now.  Suddenly, a light bulb went off in my head and I began to see the sophistication of Dahl's story about a poor boy who wins a ticket to tour Willy Wonka's chocolate factory.  So you, the reader of my blog, ask what does this have to do with human milk, infant formula,patents, breastfeeding?  Well....read the book. Does fiction imitate life or does life imitate fiction?

"Nestle has joined a Government campaign to combat obesity--by rewarding families for buying Kit Kats, Smarties and Milky Bars."
                          an article in the UK's Daily Mail online 10/14/2010

In the Philipines a Nestle Promo, "Wellness 'Win A Laptop Every Week.'  To join the raffle promotion one must register via mobile (SMS) phone and proof of purchase of at least one hundred pesos worth of participating Nestle products within the promotion period (Jan15, 2011 til March 31, 2011)."  Some of the participating products were:  Nescafe, Milo, Nestea, Maggi, Nido, Nestle Crunch, Kit Kat, Fox's, Smarties, etc.  
http://www.nestle.com.ph/wellness/Mechanics.asp 

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was published in 1964.  I was already a teenager and never had the pleasure of reading the book as a child but only as an adult to her own children.  Funny how life seems to imitate fiction.  Nestle in real life owns Wonka, which makes gobbstoppers, nerds, etc.  Augustus Gloop is the obese child in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, who drinks from the river of chocolate and is duly punished by Willy Wonka.  Augustus Gloop gets the chocolate squeezed out of him as punishment. Back when Dahl wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, childhood obesity did occur but was rare.  The CDC documents that obesity rates in USA for children aged 2-19 years old is now approximately 17% or 12.5 million children.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/data.html

Something has changed in the past 40-50 years.  Blame it on the food or lack of activity, many of our children who are obese face a lifetime of health issues as well as being socially ostracized.  Health organizations, governments, corporations have taken notice of this "epidemic" and have decided to wage a battle.  How?  By letting the very industries, the Willy Wonka's of the global food system "educate" us.  We will learn portion control, we will become more active, and we will buy the food products that will fight obesity.


"Mr. Willy Wonka can make marshmallows that taste of violets...he can make lovely blue bird eggs..."  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl


In the USA, Nestle's obesity battle has joined forces with governmental organizations.  In the state of Michigan, Governor Rick Snyder wants to attack childhood obesity.  Gerber (which is now owned by Nestle) along with state agencies, the Michigan Grocers Association and the Michigan Health and Hospital Association have created a health and nutrition initiative.  Gerber will lend to the state program its expertise in childhood nutrition and Nestle-owned meal planning and educational materials.  Nestle's Gerber is also helping Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, New Jersey.  They will help Newark reverse its childhood obesity rates through an educational curriculum.  Nestle is partnered with local community organization, including Newark Youth Policy Board and Rutgers University.  Nothing like an independent educational system....


Other countries seem to be benefiting from Nestle's generosity in its fight against the global obesity epidemic.  South Africa and it's governmental organization the CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, part of South Africa's Department for Science and Technology).  "We expect the collaboration will help to provide the scientific basis for sound nutrition and food safety policies, as well as identify research needs for science-based regulations on food, nutrition and health."


"The Mozambican Nestle Global Healthy Kids Programme is a partnership project between Nestle Mozambique and Mozambican Ministry of Education..."


"The American University of Beirut joins forces with Nestle to fight obesity among Lebanon's schoolchildren through research and intervention programs."

Surprisingly or not so surprisingly I found that one of the USDA's National Strategic Partners is Gerber and yes, Nestle, as well as the National Dairy Council (many other corporations Dean Foods, Birds Eye, Chiquita, Juicy-Juice--oh wait that is a Nestle owned company).
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/partnering-program/national-partners/partner-list.html


It seems the food industry, in particular Nestle, is setting the scene to educate the governments of this world as well as academic institutions about obesity.  Believe it or not, but how babies are feed in the early days influences obesity.  Breastfeeding is recognized as important for healthy weight gain.  Thus, the infant formula industry will educate us about breastfeeding.  Huh?  Roald Dahl (if he were still alive) could write a hilarious children's book about an infant formula industry teaching mothers to breastfeed.   Nestle in its patent applications describes the problem and how to go about fixing it.  Presto, chango...ta-da...create a better infant formula, more like human milk!!!  Nestle seems more prepared to fight the obesity campaign than any other infant formula company.  They have submitted over 50 patent applications to the US Patent & Trademark Office since 2003.  Other infant formula companies have a few patents regarding obesity but Nestle is outstanding.  Financially for this company, its a win-win situation.  And this is what our adult world seems to be about, making money and just more money, more toys, more candy...gluttony, thy name is capitalism.


Anyway, just a small sample of some of Nestle's obesity patent applications.


Patent application 20120029080 entitles, "Reduction of risk of obesity."
"Increasingly it is believed that the first 6 months of life represent one of the most important post natal periods for human fat mass development and consequently may be critical window for programming excess of adiposity later in life."


Patent application 2012021977, entitled, "Promotion of healthy catch-up growth."  This patent is about how catch-up growth might not be such a great thing, there are risks for babies who gain rapid weight on previous infant formulas.


Patent application 20118244072 entitled, "Modulation of infant fat mass."
"Weight gain during the first week of life has been associated with overweight in adulthood."


As someone who tried to help woman breastfeed, reading these patents creates some angry feeling.  One of the main issues during the years I was involved with breastfeeding assistance (1985-2005) was breastfed infants who were not gaining enough.  Pediatricians using infant formula provided growth charts would tell mothers that their baby was not gaining enough.  When the person in the white coat, the doctor, tells a mother that her baby is not gaining enough and that supplementation is required; it is next to impossible to step-in and change the situation.  Most often, I could not see that there was a weight-gain problem, just a "chart" problem.  Growth charts provided by the infant formula industry, seemed well a little wrong for the breastfed infant.  Supplementation with infant formula, usually is the beginning of the end of breastfeeding in most cases, unless the mother gets some guidance from someone who has a deeper understanding of supply-demand issues that govern breastfeeding.  How many mothers during those years quit breastfeeding, believing that they didn't have enough milk?  How many?  In my practice, I was overwhelmed by these cases. And here we have these patent applications to develop an infant formula more like breastmilk so that babies will not become obese children.  Some of the patent applications want to increase the protein content, some decrease the protein content...all Nestle patent applications.  One patent thinks that Lactobacillus reuteri (a bacteria specifically identified from human milk) is an anti-obesity agent.  Another considers Lactobacillus rhamnous an agent for weight control.  One has to wonder why we think that obesity can be resolved by one ingredient.  


One of the patent applications that became a patent in 2007 is called, "Pre-adipose cell lines,"  patent applciation 20030175957.  In order to develop drugs, food ingredients and supplements against obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, Nestle has created a new immortalized human pre-adipose cell lines.  The patent states, "Obesity has been declared a public health hazard by the National Institutes of Health....The effects of obesity, e.g. non-insulin dependent diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hypertension, are estimated to have resulted in $45.8 billion in direct costs and an additional $23 billion in indirect costs from, e.g. missed work."


This patent thinks it will be "useful to predict and measure a person's propensity or susceptibility to obesity."  I have a better way of predicting and preventing obesity and it doesn't need patenting and is very cost effective.  Infant feeding practices predicts whether an infant will be at high risk for obesity in later life.  Nestle says so in its patents, they have done the research.  I would say exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life would be a first step in prevention of obesity.  And the question must be is how much does Nestle really want breastfeeding to succeed, when so much is riding on diagnosis and treatment of obesity  through patent-pending products?  How is it that our global world lets a corporation make profits from creating a problem and then watches it profit from its resolution?  Curious our world.


"Of course they're real people.  They're Oompa-Loompas. Imported.  direct from Loompaland."    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. by Roald Dahl

Copyright 2012 Valerie W. McClain

Two IBCLCs (Renee Hefti and Maria Parlapiano) are currently working hard to alert people to Nestle's partnerships with several governmental offices in Newark, New Jersey and Michigan.  If you my readers are troubled by this kind of partnership, please consider signing the Health Petition to Stop Newark/Nestle Now at http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-newark-nestle-now# 

You may also be interested in letters written by the organization, Public Citizen.

http://www.citizen.org/letter-to-booker


http://www.citizen.org/letter-to-synder

"Free" infant formula

"If it's free it's for me."  A motto I have lived by since my early twenties.  Obviously in this world there are many who live by this motto.  So when US hospitals give away infant formula, one would suppose that this was manna from heaven.  From what I have read on the Virtual, some mothers are livid that those "breastfeeding fruitcakes" are pushing for the end of free formula in hospitals.  Although I tend to think some of those supposed "moms" are the PR people from the infant formula industry.

Funny how I have never questioned "free" when it comes from nature.  My left- alone compost pile that surprises me with 5 pounds of potatoes or tomato plants galore.  Or my loquat tree, we call Japanese plum, that fruits twice a year and gifts me with such sweet fruit.  Or my free water supply caught by my big old rain barrels...no big water bill this month.  Yet, I do question gifts given by corporations to the public.  What is it about free toys from industry that makes us feel like we, the consumers, have finally caught a break from the reality of a monied world?  We feel that we are strong-minded and that just because an industry gives us some free stuff, we are not ensnared by the industry.  

One of the things the infant formula industry knows (because they do the research) is that the brand of formula given out in the hospital is usually what a parent will use for the first year of their infant's life.  Thus, the introduction of a certain brand in the hospital has enormous monetary effect on profits of a particular infant formula company.  Usually a baby that is fed Nestle in the hospital will be fed Nestle at home.  The thinking of the parent is that if the hospital gave it out, then it must be the better infant formula, the safest infant formula, the medically approved brand.  By default, this kind of give-away becomes endorsement by a medical establishment implying medical approval.

Getting something for free, is often a hook to snare the consumer.  Think about the free cigarettes given out to serviceman in WW II.  How many men from that era got hooked on cigarettes?  Think of the drug dealer on the street, who wants some new customers..free drug trial for a short time. Think of the free samples of prescription medicine given out by your friendly doc.  How grateful we are because the bill for some of those drugs might mean you need to rob a Brink's truck.  So that free sample means that you are ever grateful to your doc and the pharmaceutical company.  The pharmaceutical company that so kindly dropped it off to your doctor.  Now why would they do that?  Benevolence? Yes, drug dealers are very benevolent...at first.  But when ya have a bad reaction to your drug, they disavow any responsibility.  It's not their fault, that your kidney's shut down or your liver failed, or your skin fell off or you died.  You should have known better.  Didn't ya read the small print that came with your drug?  No?  You thought it couldn't happen to you.  Yeah, it always happens to the other guy, not me, not my family.

Infant formula has no warnings on their label.  Parents assume because you can buy it at any grocery store, pharmacy, or over the internet that it is a safe product, tested and approved by the FDA.  Yeah...sure.  The FDA approves nothing, it presumes safety based on the industry's own evaluations.  Parents may hear about infants who have died or been neurologically impaired by contamination of infant formula by enterobacter sakazakii or salmonella or melamine (all those Chinese babies who died).  But it's not going to happen to their child.  This is kinda like the smokers who knew that other smokers died from lung cancer but it wasn't going to happen to them.  Although they did not understand that smoking not only damaged the lungs but the cardiovascular system.  Likewise, infant formula, impacts babies in many, many ways not discussed publicly.  Nor is their any public discussion of the use of genetically engineered bacteria (for probiotics) in baby formulas and how this would seem to be a huge experiment on infants.  The ramifications of the use of genetically engineered bacteria in baby formulas is unknown. 


The infant formula industry studies human milk, collects it, and patents off of it.  Human milk is their standard, the gold standard.  The general public and the medical community seems to believe that infant formula is the standard and that human milk is always questionable, tarnished.  Rather ironic and sad.  Industry knows better than the medical community regarding the risks of infant formula.


A recent patent owned by N.V. Nutrica (infant formula company in
Europe) makes some interesting statements in its patent # 8114441 called, "Immune stimulatory infant nutrition," filed in 2005 at the US Patent & Trademark Office.


"The composition reduces-among others-the risks attached to feeding whey dominant infant formula."


"...whey dominant formulas do not optimally protect against infections."


"Moreover, the flora of infants fed with formulas containing whey dominant bovine protein source contain increased amounts pathological bacteria such as clostridia and enterobacteria."

Hm...parents ought to know this risk.  The medical community ought to understand this risk.  

The infant formula industry in order to combat this situation is trying all sorts of experiments to change the gut flora of the formula-fed infant.  For instance, Mead Johnson has a patent called, "Probiotic infant products," patent # 8137718 filed in 2008.

"In another embodiment, the infant formula or children's nutritional product contains B. longum strain AH1205 or a mutant or variant thereof.  The mutant may be a genetically modified mutant."

"Genetic modification includes introduction of exogenous and/or endogenous DNA sequences into the genome of a Bifidobacteria strain, for example by insertion into the genome of the bacterial strain by vectors, including plasmid DNA, or bacteriophages."

The infant formula industry is playing with bacteria and feeding it to our young.  Why?  Because they believe they need to create a substance more like human milk because human milk is the gold standard.  Do parents understand what they are feeding their infants?  Do hospitals understand what they are giving to parents to feed to their infants?  Who is legally responsible for this situation, when this experiment goes haywire?  Or will we even know if this massive experiment is going wrong?

Meanwhile in Spain, other inventors and another company-Hero Espana have decided to use micro-organisms isolated from the feces of children exclusively breastfed to create a probiotic for use in infant formula.  They have a US patent application 20120076829 entitled, "Isolation, identification and characterisation of strains with probiotic activity, from faeces of infants fed exclusively with breast milk."

"Said microorganisms are used in the food or pharmaceutical industry, especially for use in infant formula milk, due to their probiotic properties which have beneficial effects on the health of those ingesting them."

Oh yes, women can't or won't breastfeed, so by golly, they will get human milk components genetically engineered by our men and women of industry.  Of course, one might ask why parents want to feed their infants genetically engineered foods?  Well, we know very well women can't or won't breastfeed.  And since they can't or won't, the hospital will all so kindly provide these designer infant formulas for free, so that parents can try them out.  And let's see what happens...parents need to wake up and the medical community needs to think about their legal responsibility in this mess.  Unless of course, there is this belief in the safety of feeding newborns genetically engineered foods.  Yeah, free stuff usually has a hook...and that hook is your child becomes part of an experiment.
Copyright 2012 Valerie W. McClain

Nuclear accidents and breastfeeding-part 2-What do we know?

How do we know when something is not fit to drink, touch, eat or breathe?  What happens when that something is invisible to the eye.  We can not taste it, or smell it.  With radiation we know that, NO DOSE IS SAFE.  A panel of the US National Academy of Sciences recognized that there is no safe radiation dose.
http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radtech/nosafedose072005.pdf

Not what you heard?  Yeah, I heard the PR people from the nuclear industry after Fukushima.  It was the don't worry dance, a little radiation isn't going to hurt you. Or we read that fear is the bigger danger in Japan than radiation. Then the experts bring out the numbers and then confusion rains upon the American populace because the world measures things in System Internationale (SI), derived from the metric system and in the US we do the conventional.  For example emitting radiation is measured in the US by the unit called curie (Ci) and in the SI system the unit is becquerel.  Measuring the unit dose absorbed by someone in the US is the rad and SI unit system is gray (Gy).  Biological risk is measured in the US by the unit rem and the SI unit is sievert (Sv).  Mighty easy to get confused trying to figure it out.  The CDC puts out a pdf that explains the system.  A good example is the measurement of exposure to radiation.  In the US one mammogram gives you a dose of 70 mrm (milli rem), in Japan that would be 0.7 mSv (milli sievert).  In the US one dental x-ray is 4-15 mrem in Japan that would be 0.04-0.15 mSv.  
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/pdf/measurement.pdf

Health effects to the body are dependent upon the dosage, and a person's age, and whether they are male or female.  We know that the most vulnerable to radiation exposure is the elderly, women, and children. Women who are pregnant and fetuses are particularly vulnerable.  Radiation increases our risk of cancers (blood and bone), cardiovascular disorders, immune deficiencies, birth defects, endocrine disorders-thyroid problems, and genetic mutations.  

"Childhood disease clusters have been found in many communities with nuclear facilities.  This list includes increases in childhood leukemia near reprocessing facilities in La Hague, France and at Sellafield in the British Isles and the Krummel nuclear reactor in Germany."  from "Radiation and Children:  The Ignored Victims" from Nuclear Information and Resource Service World Information Servie on Energy.

"In November 2009, Joseph Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project published a study of newborn hypothyroidism near the Indian Point nuclear reactors in Buchanan, New York...During the period 1997 to 2007, the rate of newborn hypothyroidism in the combined four-county (nearest Indian Point) population was 92.4% greater, or nearly double the U.S. rate."
from Global Research, "Uranium Weapons, Low-Level Radiation and Deformed Babies" by Paul Zimmerman

Birth defects produced by the Chernobyl accident (in a book by Alexey Yablokov of the Russian Academy of Sciences:  "cleft lip and/or palate, doubling of the kidneys, polydactyly (extra fingers or toes), anomalies in the development of nervous and blood systems, amelia (limb reduction defects), anencephaly (defective development of the brain), spina bifida (incomplete closure of the spinal column), Down's syndrome, abnormal openings in the esophagus and anus, and multiple malformations occurring simultaneously."
from Global Research, "Uranium Weapons, Low-Level Radiation and Deformed Babies" by Paul Zimmerman


According to the Say-Peace Project from the Asia-Pacific Journal, "Fetuses, babies, and young children are far more susceptible to the effects of radiation than adults.  It has been estimated that babies and infants are four times as vulnerable as adults in their 20's or 30's..." and, "In Belarus, where the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident were most severe, the rate of thyroid cancer among children increased rapidly 5 to 10 years after the accident."
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Say_Peace-Project/3549


The Say-Peace Project mentions that standards for radiation (Iodine-131) in tap water in Japan are higher than other countries.  US EPA standard is 0.111 Bq/L, Germany 0.5, Ukraine 2, Belarus 10, WHO 10 and Japan 300 (100 for infants).  They also state, 

"As for breast milk, we cannot simply generalize that mothers should avoid breastfeeding, considering nutritional (immunity) and safety benefits of breast milk, especially when babies less than three-months are concerned.  According to a survey by the Breast milk Survey and Mother-Child Support Network, there were cases in which no radioactivity was detected in breast milk of mothers living in hot spots, while radioactivity was detected in breast milk of a mother in Mitaka, which is not a hot spot."


In the book, Breastfeeding Matters by Maureen Minchin (Alma Publications, page 28), "In the baby who is being breastfed, the body content of strontium diminishes[the baby excretes more than he or she takes in] but the bottlefed infant has increased strontium in his bones, as cows' milk may contain six times as much strontium as breastmilk and the mineral balance of cows' milk ensures that it is deposited in baby's bones."


In the book, Milk, Money, an Madness by Naomi Baumslag and Dia Michels (Bergin & Garvey, page 97), "Information from Italy and Austria shows that breastmilk contained one/three-hundredth the amount of radioactive iodine and caesium that was found in cow's milk following the Chernobyl accident." (this was confirmed by Swedish studies) and, "Resulting shortages of both fresh milk and infant formula put all artificially fed babies at risk.  Additionally, the radiation levels in breastmilk were much lower than were the levels in the mother's body, leading researchers to conclude that some mechanism exists that reduces the radioactive materials in the milk as it is produced."

I wonder whether it is possible that the enzyme in breastmilk (and blood) called cholinesterase, is responsible for this reduction.  The US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense have been studying a nerve agent bioscavenger, Human ButyrylCholinesterase (a genetically engineered compound created in the mammary gland of a goat and derivative of cholinesterase)
http://www.bionity.com/en/news/100868/


The decisions that have to be made by citizens after a nuclear accident are complex.  How does one make such decisions?  How do we fathom such a scary world?  Something we cannot see or smell can impact our lives now and into the future.  My childhood spent for a few years near a nuclear plant haunts me with questions.  Will I ever know whether my mother's breast cancer was caused by our closeness to a nuclear power plant?  And now I wonder about Fukushima?  Chernobyl's devastating health effects were covered up, will this also be covered up?  I suspect that it can't be, it's too huge an accident.
Copyright 2012 Valerie W. McClain