"There is a desire..." bacteria, food, & breastfeeding

 

Patent # 5902743 says, "There is a desire to provide women with the option to replace human breastmilk with manufactured formula/foods."

Patent #590274 is called, "Probiotic bifidobacterium strain, filed in 1998 by Luchansky et al and owned by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Association. Luchansky was a professor at the University of Wisconsin and is now a research microbiologist for the USDA (for the Microbial Food Safety Research Unit). In this patent, it is stated that breastmilk appears to be prebiotic and a Bifido strain is isolated, cultured, and deposited with The Amercian Type Culture Collection (ATCC)--Bifidobacterium longum JBL. The isolate was derived from the feces of a breastfed infant. The uses for this bacteria are very specific--Carnation Good Start and Gerber baby foods as well as food and drinks for adults. The bacteria derived from the feces of the breastfed infant is probiotic.

Surprised? No, you shouldn't be.

 

There is a patent from 1976 called, "Fermented milk containing viable bifidobacterium." Patents inventors are Masahiko Hutai et al. and the patent is owned by a Japanese company called Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha. They state, "Bifidobacteria are well-known as dominant bacteria in the intestinal fora of a breast-fed infant." The new strain they discovered was from the feces of the breastfed infant. A patent #4756913, called Sour milk product,: filed in 1987 by Russian inventors Khorkova eet al. says, "A disbalance in an infant's intestinal microflora due to lack of human milk, dysbacteriosis, antibiotic therapy or intestinal infection results in sudden decrease in the number of bifidbacteria conductive to pathogenesis of prolonged disfuntions and metabolic failures and very often causes severe chronical diseases in children."

 

More interesting are the patents owned by the infant formula industry. Patent # 6083934 called "Nutritional formulations containing Lacto-N-neoTetraose," by Prieto et al, filed in 1999, and owned by Abbott states that Lacto-N-neoTetraose was isolated from pooled human milk and that it also can be made synthetically. This Abbott patent states, "Lacto-N-neoTetraose stimulates growth and/or metabolic activity of Bifidobacteria inhibiting bacterial infections caused by Bacteroides, Clostridium, and E.coli." And then we also have a patent by Wyeth by inventor Jeffrey L. Wilson called, "Nutritional formulation containing prebiotic substances." (patent #6630452) It states, "A nutritional composition is provided which comprise oligofructose and sialyllactose." The oligofructose will be derived from chicory. The sialyllactose is a human milk component. "Sialyllactoses are oligosaccharides which occur naturally in human milk as well as milk of other mammals....present in noticeably higher concentrations in human milk." The combination of chicory and silayllactose produces a prebiotic effect...increasing bifidobacteria. 

 

Last but not least is a patent owned by Nestec (Nestle) called "Lactic acid bacteria for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of giardiasis." (patent # 7229616) It has many references but of interest to many of us who are IBCLCs is the reference to a study, "Reiner et al. "Human Milk Kills Giardia lamblia by Generating Toxic Liploytic Products" The Journal of Infections Diseases vol 154.no.5, 1986, pp 832-835."

This Nestle patent used a novel lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria. Yes, there is a desire to provide women with options to feeding their infants. Choice, the bedrock of infant feeding and women's liberation. While the industry liberates human milk components from women or the results of human milk feeding from babies, it tells us there is a desire. Desire....

Copyright 2008 Valerie W. McClain

Children prohibited from receiving human milk feeding

photo by Jessie McClain

In a patent filed in 1996 called, "Use of indigestible oligosaccharides to prevent gastrointestinal infections and reduce duration of diarrhea in humans," (patent #5827526) the inventors Dohnalek et al. mention that the children were prohibited from receiving human milk feeding. This was a study on children (10-24 months of age) who were attending day care. All these "children" (I would call them infants) were on various formulas none were breastfed. Yet the inventors of this patent that is owned by Abbott, felt the need to prohibit these infants from getting any human milk feeding. This is a study on daycare and diarrhea in infants. We know that human milk feeding would alleviate gastrointestinal infections and diarrhea. We knew this in 1996 and I am sure that Abbott knew it, too. How ethical is it to deny infants/children something you know will help them when they are ill? The only reason to deny these infants this medicinal fluid is because you know it will mess up your study. Many questions but who will ask them? Who is actually monitoring infant formula studies?

Copyright 2008 Valerie W. McClain

Allergies and exclusive breastfeeding studies

photo by Jessie McClain

I have been following a Lactnet discussion of a Finnish study by M. Pesonen et al. published in 2006 on exclusive breastfeeding and atopy. Since I cannot join in on the discussion, I thought I'd use this blog to share my thoughts on this particular study and how this does relate to the patenting of human milk components. One of the first things I usually do when reading a research paper on "exclusive" breastfeeding is to see how the authors define exclusive. In this study exclusive breastfeeding included the use of water supplementation and vitamins. From my perspective (and I believe there are other IBCLCs who feel likewise) that would mean that these infants were not truly "exclusively" breastfed. Water and vitamins means that substances other than human milk were given to these babies. The CDC has changed their definition of exclusive breastfeeding within the past two years. They no longer consider exclusive breastfeeding to include water supplementation. Depending on the brand, vitamins may have dairy, soy, or other allergens in them. Is this a valid study regarding exclusive breastfeeding, particularly when we know that the newborn gut is effected by very small amounts of foreign proteins and/or chemicals? It doesn't take much to change the gut flora of the newborn and therefore change the dynamics of health and illness. Of interest is a statement made in this study, "when supplemented human milk had been needed twice, exclusive breastfeeding was considered terminated, and the child was gradually weaned to cow's milk-based formula (Tutteli, Valio, Helsinki Finland)." Exclusive breastfeeding mothers who needed supplemental human milk more than twice had their infants weaned to a specific infant formula. Interesting. Why a specific infant formula? Why not a choice of infant formulas? This was from a study in the early 1980's. Did the authors get their data from Valio?

I find it difficult to understand the lactation profession's reluctance to believe in human milk, to understand the dynamics of the infant formula industry in its quest for more consumers. Prebiotics and probiotics are seen as the answer to allergies. These micro-organisms are being put into infant formulas to help infants tolerate the gut damage done by ingestion of foreign proteins. Human milk is prebiotic and probiotic. Was this study in anyway funded by Valio? Nothing states this and yet it looks like they only used a specific formula manufactured by Valio.

I find it interesting that Ciba-Geigy Corporation owns a series of the same patent called, "Polypeptide factors from colostrum." (one in 1986, 1992, 1994--patents are held for 20 years and many companies and inventors will have a series of the same patent in order to hold down the patent for extra time). They are patenting on a method to extract IgE-BS from human colostrum (human not cow). Why? as a treatment for allergy. Ciba-Geigy became part of Novartis (Gerber use to be part of Novartis) and in 1997 they filed for a patent called, "Methods and kits for determining the levels of IgE-BS." The 1986 Ciba-Geigy patent states, "Recent prospective studies further indicate that exclusive breast-feeding protects the high risk infants against allergic disease." So in 1986 a huge corporation was willing to own a patent that uses IgE from human colostrum to treat allergy. But the lactation profession is still debating the allergy issue??

Agennix, a company that makes recombinant human lactoferrin (use of this genetically engineered human milk component is based on human milk research) has a patent called, "Oral lactoferrin in the treatment of respiratory disorders." The patent was filed 2003 and will be a treatment for asthma. In 2004 Agennix received a SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) grant from the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease. Agennix's strategic partners are Baylor College of Medicine (who helped create this company), John Hopkins, University of Texas, Avecia, DSM--maker of ARA oils for Martek Bioscience, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

What do these institutions and corporations know that the lactation profession seems to not know? Agennix's patent states, "lactoferin is an essential growth factor for both B & T lymnphocytes." Sounds like the definition of stem cells. Oh yes, I forgot that can't be because we just discovered that human milk has stem cells in it.

So the debate rages on. Meanwhile your friendly multi-national corporations continue to patent human milk components for a wide variety of diseases, cancers, and yes...allergies.

Copyright 2008 Valerie W. McClain

John S. O'Brien

John S. OBrien discovered the genetic cause of Tay-Sachs disease and developed the screening tests. He also was inventor to two patents regarding prosaposin. Prosaposin, according to the patent is in human milk, cerebrospinal fluid, and seminal plasma. Patent # 5700909 is called "Prosaposin and cytokine-derived peptides," and was filed in 1994. It is owned by The Regents of the University of California. He is co-inventor to another patent on prosaposin filed in 1995 but owned by Myelos Neuroscience Corporation. The 1994 patent states that, "Prosaposin increases nerve cell mylination ex vivo." This invention has "significant therapeutic applications in promoting functional recovery after toxic, traumatic, ischemic degenerative and inherited lesions to the peripheral and central nervous system." The patent also states that the invention has use as laboratory reagents and components of cell growth media in order to better enable growth of cells in vitro." Another substance in human milk that creates cell growth. Stem cells?? No, we didn't discovery stem cells until 2008.

Copyright 2008 Valerie W. McClain

Human Breast Epthelial Cells

photo by Mariah McClain

In patent # 5814511 they state, "most normal human breast epithelial cell cultures were derived either from lactational fluids, which contained cells primarily of luminal origin, or were derived from reduction mammoplasty." Dated in 1995, it was named "Human breast epithelial cell type with stem cell and luminal epithelial cell characteristics." The inventors are Chia Cheng Chang and James E. Trosko and the patent is owned by Michigan State University but the US Government has licensing rights since the research was from grants provided by the NIH. Hm....rather odd....I thought the fact that stem cells were in breastmilk was a recent discovery (Cregan 2008). I guess these authors never proved it????

Copyright 2008 Valerie W. McClain

GCSF Treatment...stem cell therapies

photo by Mariah McClain

Advertised on the internet are stem cell therapies that use Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to stimulate patients bone marrow to produce the patients own stem cells.

http://www.stemcelltherapies.biz/information/gcsf.asp

G-CSF is a epidermal growth factor in human milk. In 1992, inventors Robert Burk and David Cox discussed this factor in their patent #5221734 called, "Process for preparing a polypeptide growth factor for milk," owned by Ciba Geigy. They state, "A Colony Stimulating Factor (CSF) which stimulates in vitro bone marrow cell proliferation and which causes differentiation of Colony Forming Granulocytic Macrophage pro-genitor cells has also been isloated from human milk. (Sinha, S.K. and Yunis, A. 1983)" and "The compositions of this invention promote cell migration and proliferation." Stem cells? Can't be because we didn't discover stem cells in human milk until 2008. In 1999 Darlene Calhoun et al from the University of Gailnesville, Florida, writes a paper for Pediatrics in which the conclusion is that, "Human milk contains substantial quantities of G-CSF." Human milk has this factor that stimulates bone marrow cell proliferation and this was known and isolated in 1983 from human milk.

So now that we absolutely, positively know that human milk has stem cells, are we going to change medical protocols that stop women from breastfeeding. Will hiv-positive women be encouraged to breastfeed? Their milk has stem cells in it. Or will we continue to deprive infants of the food that provides stem cells, and provides factors that stimulate the bone marrow production of cells?

I believe that Ciba Geigy is part of Novartis...in 1992 they had a pretty good idea that human milk had something important--growth factors in milk. Sixteen years ago a big corporation knew that human milk had a factor in it that stimulated bone marrow cell proliferation. How could this be???

Copyright 2008 Valerie W. McClain

Good-bye Anonymous

photo by Jessie McClain Anonymous has chosen to stay anonymous...and says good-bye. Of course I wonder who anonymous really is? An IBCLC in Australia, as she/he implies? an IBCLC in the USA? who? who? Fascinating. Just to clear up some of the mistaken comments made by Anonymous, I am not aware that "my views on HIV were published in the JHL." Frankly that would seem highly unlikely. There was a group of us that signed a letter to the JHL on breastfeeding and hiv in August 2002 in regard to a paper by de Paoli et al. I believe all the signees to that letter were from AnotherLook. I wrote a letter to the BMJ on HIV in 2001. I think that letter in particular expresses my views. https://www.bmj.com/content/322/7280/239.2/rapid-responses In that letter I write, "I think the belief that there is such a thing as safe formula feeding misleading." Rather odd statement for someone you state is anti-breastfeeding. I do admit to being out-of-date...at 56 I don't get many dates like I did when I was 18. I am not sure why Anonymous paid to read the US Patent, anyone can read it without paying for it. One can't read a European patent for free, only the abstract is free. I didn't read the European patent, only the abstract. Being Anonymous allows a person to be a fool without facing the consequences. At the very least, I have faced and continue to face the consequences openly and honestly. May your life be more peaceful than your words.