There is a Pigeon in the house...

Life is beautiful. Life is complex. Look at the daisy and we see the beauty, the complexity of life. If only one were a flower like the daisy, life would be so simple. No need to think about life, just be life. Just reach to the sun and unfold, feel the rain, the heat of the moment. Feel the wasp gently tickle our petals as she moves and feeds. Feel the wind, gently move us or on some days pull us down to the ground. We are one with the earth, we make no judgments about the flowers next to us. We don't feel prettier or uglier than the flower next to us. We aren't richer than the rose. We aren't dumber than the ivy who climbs to the top of the house. We just are here. We can relax into living until our time is up. Sigh....oh humanity where is our souls? Lost in the maze of getting ahead of our neighbor--being richer, smarter, better-looking, having the power to move others to do our bidding. We are truly lost in a world that could be at one with life, with mother earth.

How does one gently, kindly make criticisms to people you care about, love. I am not sure there is an easy way to do it. Should one remain silent, so that the people you care about are not hurt by your thoughts? Should one remain silent because the situation is too painful to look at, too hurtful. Should one remain silent, because criticism invites ostracism? Should one remain silent because that criticism impacts how people make a living?

There are people outside breastfeeding advocacy that will not understand what I am writing about and I apologize ahead of time. But for those who have been following discussions on Lactnet regarding Lansinoh and the WHO Code, this particular post to my blog might be of interest. We, in the breastfeeding community have over the years been upset over the connections that the medical establishment has with the infant formula industry. We become angry about the way in which infant formula is marketed. Yet, we are blind to the insidious way in which various companies have gained favor in our breastfeeding organizations. Take for instance Lansinoh. Back some years ago, Lansinoh became the first company that La Leche League endorsed. As a La Leche League leader back then, I felt the need to write letters to the BOD of La Leche League stating my disapproval of this event. In response, I got a hand written note from one of La Leche League founders, Betty Wagner Spandikow. Her letter stated her agreement with my disapproval of endorsements by La Leche League but that the majority of the BOD had approved the endorsement. This was before I had a personal computer (1980 something) and I had typed letters sent by snail mail to every board member and every founding mother. I kept Betty's letter to me for some years but at this point I have no idea if it is still around. I was impressed that one of the founders took the time to hand write a letter to me. Not long after that I attended a Breastfeeding Conference and who should sit down next to me but Sue Huml, IBCLC who was an employee of Lansinoh (last I read she was the Director of Education & member of the Breastfeeding Advisory Board at Lansinoh). Sue Huml was a former executive director of LLLI and Exhibit Manager for LLLI. We both looked at each others badges and I realized that this was my golden opportunity to ask her a few questions. But someone I knew started talking to me and when I turned again I found that she had moved to the other side of the room. Lost opportunities. Anyway, I was not pleased with La Leche League's endorsement of Lansinoh but I lived with it and mostly forgot about it. Then a few years back I bought a newer edition of the Womanly Art of Breastfeeding because my old edition was ratty. One day I was trying to find a quote from the book and happened upon a sentence in the book where it was basicly an endorsement of Lansinoh for sore nipples. I just sat in my chair and couldn't believe it. I don't think this endorsement was in previous editions of the Womanly Art. I had never seen it before. I felt an enormous sense of anger that La Leche League would use this book to advertise for Lansinoh. I felt shock then but that was some time ago and nothing much shocks me anymore. We are living in mighty strange times. As most breastfeeding advocates now know, Pigeon Company of Japan bought Lansinoh. Pigeon is considered a WHO Code violator. Lansinoh, despite the fact that it is owned by Pigeon, has advertised in the JHL and allowed to have booths at breastfeeding conferences (although Medela is no longer given such privileges). The stance by ILCA, according to Liz Brooks, IBCLC (ILCA board member) is that there is a firewall between Pigeon company and Lansinoh--that the same people that ran the company before the Pigeon takeover are still the people running it now. According to the information I saw on the web the president of Lansinoh is now Shigeru Yamashita, Chief Director of Overseas Business for Pigeon. Reshed Hagen is listed on the website as "Founder." How much control she has over decisions is difficult to know. Lansinoh's breastfeeding advisory board is James Sears, MD (son of William Sears), medical advisor. Rubina Mason, RN, IBCLC is also a medical advisor to Lansinoh. And Gina Ciagne, CLC is director of Breastfeeding Relations and Outreach at Lansinoh. Gina Ciagne at one time was employed by the Office on Women's Health in the US Department of Health and Human Services and she was involved with the Breastfeeding Ad Campaign (a campaign that failed for a number of reasons). The difficulty that the medical profession has with extricating itself from relationships with the infant formula and pharmaceutical industries is similiar to this situation. Endorsements carry obligations to both parties. It is so easy to be critical of the cozy relationships between medical societies and the infant formula industry. But when the Pigeon is in our house, what do we do? Do we walk the walk, talk the talk? Or do we give excuses for our cozy relationships? The Pigeon in our house belongs outside. We are no different then the people we criticize, if we accept this situation.

Copyright 2009 Valerie W. McClain

The International Conference on Lactoferrin, probiotics and Medela in Africa

photo by Jessie McClain

The concluding remarks of Dr. Tony Schryvers at the 8th Conference on Lactoferrin, "Finally with bovine lactoferrin widely available through the dairy industry of a number of countries and with human lactoferrin available from transgenic rice, transgenic cows and fungal expression interest in its application is growing rapidly."

According to Bo Lonnerdal, who has organized the Lactoferrin Conferences, bovines (cows) have little to no lactoferrin. At least that is what he stated to the media some years ago. The FDA does not recognize the term "bovine lactoferrin" instead calling it "milk lactoferrin." So one finds oneself wondering how they are producing all this "bovine lactoferrin?" From the statements made at this Conference, human lactoferrin is genetically engineered through various approaches all involving genetic modifications. At this Conference they all state, "Recently, lactoferrin has been introduced into infant formula because of its potential health effects as we know." The belief seems to be that the real component is identical or somewhat identical to their genetically modified versions. So does the public understand that within infant formula are genetically modified human milk components? Obviously acceptable by the FDA and no need to let the public know what's in that can of infant formula. The Lactoferrin Conference was sponsored in 2007 by Biopole, DMV, Four Leaf, Pharming, Tatua, Armor proteines, Belgo-milk, Friesland Foods, Jarrow, Morinaga, etc. see
http://www.lactoferrin.conference.com/

Next conference in Beijing, China.

Dated October 19, 2004; "Fonterra taps into Asia's appetite for lactoferrin
"Lactoferrin will be to the dairy industry what aspirin has been to the pharmaceutical industry..."

"Lactoferrin is in demand because of its nutritional and immune-enhancing properties as an ingredient in a range of products. These include infant formula, yoghurts and speciality nutritional formulations. It can even be used as an additive in fresh milk to extend shelf life."
http://www.ap-foodtechnology.com/content/view/print/35194

Long live lactoferrin!!! What women make, men take.....

In February 2006, Nutraingredients.com, "Puleva Biotech's human milk probiotic debuts in Spain." Lactobacillus gasseri from human milk. "Results suggest that bacteria in breast milk could be a natural probiotic for newborns. Moreover there is a strong possibility that the strains could be used in products aimed at adults." "The probiotics market could increase as much as threefold this decade, to be worth $137.9 million in Europe in 2010 and $394 million in the US."
http://www.nutraingredients.com/content/view/print/182626

Long live probiotics!!! What women make, men take....

Last but not least, let's discuss Medela (the breast pump company) in Africa. A foundation called "Working to Advance African Women," is partnered with Medela. Partnered might not be the right word, but Medela breast pump products are sold to help finance the foundation. I gather it is somewhat similiar to how La Leche League got involved with Medela years ago. Of course, I am not sure I understand how well the selling of the breast pump culture to African nations will be beneficial. It kinda of reminds me of the infant formula industry in Africa. How do poor women in Africa benefit from this technology? How do you clean a pump, or refrigerate your milk when you live in poverty? Even in the USA, this is an issue. When I worked in the WIC Program I worked with moms who lived in their cars. They had difficulties taking a shower and keeping their babies clean. So exactly how would a pump help them??? Breastfeeding, actually keeping the baby at the breast, was the safest solution. Technology transferred into areas of poverty often does not work. Yet Medela is poised to enter into areas of extreme poverty and high infant mortality rates with their solutions. Is this a solution for women in Africa, particularly in areas of poverty? Does economic survival for women and their babies depend upon separation? Is it dependent upon the technology of pumps, the commodification of human milk? Why are we exporting this kind of culture to Africa?
http://www.waawfoundation.org/contactus.htm

Why are women in the dark about the value of breastfeeding? Is it because men of industry, men of science have mammary envy? Why imitate the mammary gland, why use the cells in cultures, in cloning, in genetic engineering? Our esteemed men of science called the first sheep cloned, Dolly. Why? Because they used a mammary cell in cloning the sheep and it reminded them of a well-known human female known for her mammary cells (Dolly Parton). I read this in a news article...those research scientists have a sense of humor.....depending on your perspective.
Copyright 2009 Valerie W. McClain

$$$stem cells and other medicinal properties of breastmilk

photo by Jessie McClain

"Research shows that breastfeeding provides multiple lifelong biologic advantages to children, including increased survival and improved neurocognitive and immune functioning."

James A. McGregor MD CM and Lisa J. Rogo

Their article in the JHL (Journal of Human Lactation) states, "We propose that maternal stem cells secreted in milk and suckled by the infant may be an important but so far unappreciated live, functional component of breast milk."

Several years later, an article in ScienceAlert states, "He [Dr. Mark Cregan] believes that it [breast milk] not only meets all the nutritional needs of a growing infant but contains key markers that guide his or her development into adulthood."

In Current Science of March 2001 the discovery of "Leukaemic inhibitory factor [LIF] in human milk," is announced by D. Kaul and Jogender Singh from the Department of Experimental Medicine and Biotchnology in Chandigarh, India. "LIF plays a major role in the host response to inflammation, tissue injury and septic shock."

In an article in Behind the Medical Headlines called, "Hamlet, breast milk and viral warts," Dr. EC Benton discusses the human milk component, alpha-lactalbumin (AL) which is in breastmilk and protects infants from infection. She discusses several researchers and their work with AL. She writes that in 2000 Svensson et al "suggest that in addition to its well recognised anti-microbial activities, breast milk might also contribute to mucosal immunity by a process of immune surveillance of the infant's immature epithelium protecting it against both infection and cancer."

Her last statement in this article states, "Optimum mode of in vivo delivery to tumours may still pose challenges, as might the supply of sufficient quantities of human breast milk, but there seems little doubt that HAMLET promises to be a major player on the stage of cancer therapeutics."

http://behindthemedicalheadlines.com/articles/hamlet-breast-milk-and-viral-warts

This article also discusses the use of topical alpha lactalbumin-oleic acid (from breast milk) as a treatment for skin papillomas.

Dr. Mark Cregan discussed earlier regarding stem cells, is also co-inventor to a patent application #2007005922 called "Method for isolating cells from mammary secretion." Which is about harvesting stem cells from breastmilk. While it is about a "method" there seems to be some questionable claims that would make those of us without a legal background wonder whether an actual claim is being made on stem cells. The article in sciencealert states that harvesting stem cells from breastmilk would be entirely ethical in comparison to the harvesting of cells from embryos. Yes, that is true to a degree. It circumvents the need for aborted fetuses. But there are still ethical issues involved in harvesting stem cells from breastmilk. First, would mothers be informed that the intent of the researchers was to harvest stem cells?? We have reason to doubt that mothers would be fully informed of this intent. Should mothers who provide their breastmilk for stem cell research have a financial share in any economic windfall of that research? Will this interest of stem cells increase breastfeeding promotion? Or will the need for secrecy (patenting requires a degree of secrecy) create a media atmosphere in which breastfeeding is devalued?

HAMLET is already patented (about 5 patents) by researcher Catherine Svanborg and owned by a pharmaceutical company. HAMLET's proposed use is for cancer and HPV (human papilloma virus). Yet mother's are bombarded by articles that question the validity of breastfeeding as a public health measure (The Case Against Breastfeeding by Rosin in The Atlantic). The media has played an enormous role in presenting breastfeeding as a lifestyle choice, when the reality is that breastfeeding is a public health issue. How does a consumer make a health decision when evidence of the value of breastfeeding and the risks of infant formula are surpressed. Even breastfeeding advocates seem to be unaware of the increasing commodification of human milk components (genetically engineered), its use in foods, infant formula, supplements, and most importantly in the pharmaceutical industry.

Copyright 2009 Valerie W. McClain

The Case Against Infant-formula-feeding, part 2

Sunset.....

Would you ever see an article entitled, "The Case Against Infant-formula-feeding" in magazines or newspapers? Nope. There is enormous monetary interest in sustaining the infant formula industry and by default the dairy and biotech industries that provide the ingredients for the receipes made for babies around the world. They control the media. In this New Age we have biotech central's receipes, made in factories around the world. The need for human milk components (the gold standard for the infant formula industry) has encouraged a great deal of creativity. Hey, you there, woman of the world, we can make something equal to your mammary gland. We can take an algae or fungi, clone it, ferment it, cut it with hexane, clarify it with acetone and presto-chango we have DHA and ARA. Its the same thing you women produce in your mammary gland (wink-wink, the smile of the used car salesman). And we the gullible public believe it because we are bombarded by article after article espousing the virtues of DHA and ARA. We have a deficiency....a deficiency...a deficiency...we need DHA and ARA....the words roll on into our brain, a yoga mantra brought to you by our friends from space science, Martek Bioscience. Yes, our space programs have brought us some marvelous inventions. So algae and fungi, as space foods brought to earth seems rather bizarre but cute. Fish eat algae, right? So it can't be all that bad. And let me see what eats fungi?? Oh yeah formula-fed babies who need their ARA. Children in Africa are starving so ya better drink up that algae and fungi--made specially for you.

Probiotics....giggling now, you really don't want to know how our modern darlings of functional foods make probiotics do you? Let's talk microbe hunting and the exciting adventures of finding bacteria in the most interesting places. Nestle has one patent in which they found their bacteria in breastfed baby poop. They cloned it and have it at the ATCC. They aren't the only ones. So pass the breastfed baby poop bacteria. Here's to functional food!!!!! Hey I use to eat yogurt, haven't had yogurt or acidophilus since reading that patent gem. Let's talk about how ya influence the next generation of university-trained students. Nestle USA had a medical researcher who was also a nutrition professor at the John Hopkins Medical School. His research--probiotics. That my friends happens alot. I gather that universities don't pay well enough, so moonlighting happens. Not a bad situation for the corporate business world who can influence generations. But not a wonderful gift for freedom of thought, freedom from corporate interests.

This is for Hanna Rosin. Look up patent #7230078 called, "Soluble toll-like receptor," at the US Patent & Trademark Office

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/

Its a Nestec S.A. (Nestle) patent. Inventors are Eduardo Schiffrin et al. "It is particularly surprising that a soluble variant of a protein known as a transmembrane protein was found in human milk." and this Toll-like transmembrane proteins "play a crucial role in the regulation of immune responses of mammals, especially of immune responses against bacterial conserved molecules present in the intestinal tracts of mammals." It will be used as a medicine, a cosmetic, a therapy.

"The sTLRR of the present invention may be obtained from human milk, especially during the early stages of lactation."

Interesting...Nestle seems to believe that there is a protein in human milk that regulates immunity and that this will provide a tool for Nestle to regulate inflammation. Wow...what do you believe and why do you believe it? Look at the patents and patent applications on human milk components (2000 and increasing daily) and we believe that the "choice" of whether to breastfeed or not is an equal one. While industry scrambles to own the components of human milk in order to improve our immune system, we are given articles like Rosin's to read. I have been writing about this for 10 years and the silence particularly from breastfeeding advocates is well...astonishing. I guess we all believe what we want to believe.

Nestle isn't the only company patenting. We have Pharmasurgics from Sweden with patent # 7253143 called "Peptides based on the sequence of human lactoferrin and their use." Human lactoferrin is a component of human milk and this invention will treat and prevent infections, inflammations and tumors and be used in INFANT FORMULA. The inventors are Lars Hanson et al.

Are we witnessing the sunset of breastfeeding? Breastfeeding advocates have for years self-monitored themselves--don't talk about the RISKS of INFANT FORMULA. Instead focus on the benefits of breastfeeding. Instead talk about the risks of not breastfeeding. What? That means there are risks to breastfeeding. Why say that except to be politically correct in a hostile environment? Yes, politically correct to the point of extinction.....seeing the sunset, the pinks, the coolness, the end of the day.

Copyright 2009 Valerie W. McClain

The Case Against Infant-formula-feeding

photo by Jessie McClain

Those darn beavers damning up "our" river!! Just like people they take a good thing and create mayhem. But if it weren't for those damn beavers....

The complex weave of life on this planet effects us all. Add a few billion humans who think they know what it's all about, and we have become a planet on the verge of environmental collapse. So what's that got to do with breastfeeding and the article, "The Case Against Breastfeeding?" Nothing and everything. The case against infant-formula-feeding is compelling for those who are environmentally aware of the degradation of the planet. Pile up those empty cans, plastic bottles, and various containers of artificial baby milks in our landfills. Add those bottles and plastic nipples and pacifiers to the mix, and let's see how fast they degrade. Support and push the dairy industry so that our babies will be fed milk from another species. Support your local landfill, bottlefeed your baby.
How much does infant formula really cost? In terms of buying it at the store, and in the need for easy access to medical facilities. Because let's face it babies fed infant formula are sicker. I worked in the WIC program for 4 years. I encountered many mothers who told me regretfully that right after they weaned their babies from the breast their babies got sick. I used that moment to talk about relactation but mothers while interested in the idea had issues that made continued breastfeeding a problem for them. Sometimes it was employment but sometimes it was a member of the family who was pressuring the mother to quit. Sometimes it was because the pediatrician advised them to quit. Mothers noticed that once their infant stopped breastfeeding, their healthy infant got sick. Just mere coincidence? I'd like to see a study done on this issue.
Rosin in her case against breastfeeding writes, "...by insisting that milk is some kind of vaccine, they make it less likely that we'll experience nursing primarily as a loving maternal act..."
Not. One of the most interesting aspects of my experience of breastfeeding was that I breastfed to save money. Yes a very utilitarian motive but I am from the working class and our motivations are quite different from those who are middle class. I got hooked on breastfeeding. Breastfeeding worked its magic on me. It became less and less about the money I would save and more about how I felt about my baby. Even Rosin got hooked with breastfeeding despite her belief that its no better than using infant formula. She hasn't quit yet. I once had a mom tell me that she had 5 children. The first 4 she bottlefed. The last one she breastfed because it was going to be her last child. She whispered to me, that she was afraid she loved her last child more than her others. What magic is this? How can we love our breastfed children more? Is this unusual? I had major difficulties breastfeeding my first baby and quit breastfeeding for about a month and then relactated. While I was bottlefeeding I felt an enormous distance develop between myself and my baby. Upon relactation, I felt that huge gulf between us disappear. What do we believe? Breastfeeding is certainly magical but we don't need to tell women this. We just have to let them do it. Oxytocin works wonders on the body.
As for Rosin's dismissal of breastfeeding being some kind of vaccine, I am amused. She should go interview a company called Glycom APS in Denmark. They are using their understanding of carbohydrate chemistry to produce human milk oligosaccharides (genetically engineered) for use in infant formula and functional foods and also in the development of vaccines. In 2006 they entered into an agreement with Nestle Nutrition. Another biotech company, Agennix, plans on using human lactoferrin genetically engineered as a vaccine against cancer. Some companies are using HMFG (human milk fat globule genetically engineered and the real thing) in vaccines. But Rosin feels that breastfeeding advocates should not use the word vaccine. Industry can use human milk components as vaccines. But heaven forbid breastfeeding advocates talk about breastfeeding as being a continuous vaccination. Instead we can just go and spend some money and get the vaccine that imitates the real thing.
Copyright 2009 Valerie W. McClain

The value system that can create "The case against breastfeeding"

"Mary lost in the garden of thought"

The decision to breastfeed by middleclass, college-educated women seems to be predicated on the benefits of breastfeeding as marketed in the USA. Rosin in her article in The Atlantic writes about Dr. William Sears, the parenting guru of breastfeeding. She writes about brighter brains being at the top of the list of benefits. Dr. William Sears is/was the medical advisor to Martek Bioscience maker of DHA and ARA for infant formula. This is the genetically engineered (the company denies gmo but it admits to its novelty as a food) algae and fungi that is put into infant formula in order to imitate the human milk components. He has a financial axe to grind. The studies done on IQ in breastfed infants (DHA/ARA) were funded by Mead Johnson and Martek Bioscience. Great marketing--glorify breastfeeding, imitate the human milk component, and sell it in artificial baby milks. And another target for DHA/ARA supplementation is pregnant and breastfeeding mothers. Thus a new industry is born. What is the reality? IQ is obvious a mixture of a variety of factors and I am quite sure that species specific nutrition would encourage brain function. Are women like Rosin aware that their are being influenced by marketing of a product, DHA/ARA? Sears has mixed the messages to women because he has a financial interest in women believing in the importance of DHA and ARA. It is one of those partial truths that makes for great marketing.
Industries know what women value, particularly middle class professional women. They value education, knowledge and having bright, smart children. So Dr. Sears (Dr. DHA) has cornered the market. He is valued by breastfeeding mothers for his words of wisdom (and he does have alot of good things to say) and he also has the infant formula and supplement market in case of breastfeeding failure. Oh Parodox of paradoxes...life is so darn complex.
Real scientifc literature does not look like popular literature because popular literature is mostly social marketing, propaganda. Most scientists understand the complexity of life and that benefits and risks can be generalized but are also individualized.
Rosin writes that her and husband noticed that few women hold positions of serious power and blame is put on women breastfeeding. Because current society does not accept women breastfeeding in the workplace, breastfeeding mothers must stay home. Rosin and her husband place a value on "power." Not all humans value power or the side dishes of power--fame and fortune. But it is certainly the undercurrent of US politics and culture.
Rosin is still breastfeeding despite her resentment of being left "powerless" by it. What is that magical thread that binds us to breastfeeding even when we resent it? Oxytocin? Maybe. What do we believe about breastfeeding? What do we value? Rosin seems annoyed by people who say breastfeeding is free. "It's only free if a woman's time worth nothing." Time as in hourly wage? I think I am going to send my children a bill for all the time I spent with them breastfeeding--let me see 3 children nursed 4 years 2 months, 3 years 9 months, 5 years 6 months=13 years 5 months. Multiplied by hourly minmum wage-currently $7.21 an hour in Florida. Or course I didn't nurse them 24 hours a day but some daze it felt like 24 hours. So let's say half that number: 6 years 2.5months. Oh god the math involved in this!!!I have no brain since breastfeeding siphoned most of it off. Let's see 365 days in a year times 6= 2190 days times 8 hours=17520 hours times $7.21=$126,319.20 Each child owes me about $42, 000 a piece--ought to pay for my nursing home care? Maybe. Let's look at it another way. Last time I looked human milk per ounce was going for (Prolacta's price) $42 an ounce? Not sure of this cause its been awhile since I looked at those figures. Assuming I averaged 32 oz of milk for each child each day for the first year (my kids never ate solids very much that first year--so 99% breastmilk), my milk was worth $1,344 per day times 365 days= $490,560 for one child. For 3 children it would be $1,471,680. That's just for one year. I will be rich some day soon....AIG eat your heart out. I don't need a government bailout, I just need my accountant to send the bills to my kids.
Copyright 2009 Valerie W. McClain

Female Middle-Class Angst in "The Case Against Breast-Feeding."

Hanna Rosin's article in The Atlantic has raised a furor among breastfeeding advocates. I read her article and was amused and delighted with her writing. But unimpressed with her understanding regarding the science of "human milk." The article, while quoting studies on human milk, was essentially about mothering in a culture in which breastfeeding is just another competitive game of one-up-man-ship. Women educated in the shark-infested waters of a culture gone mad for competition, feel they have been sold the wrong bill of goods when it comes to breastfeeding. University-educated, career-minded women feel trapped by the need to give the "best" to their babies. American society seems transfixed in the dance and drama of outshining your neighbor.
Rosin highlights the paradox of being a feminist but also being a breastfeeding mommy. How can any woman do both? Do we lose our souls because we breastfeed? Where is the equality when mommy is the only one who can feed the baby? All these issues swirl into our minds, as the masks and mirrors of a warped society distort the reality. Did this article pin down reality or has it created its own agenda, its own propaganda to distort what we know about breastfeeding?
How can Hanna Rosin's article be so very wrong and right at the same time? Is this sophisticated spin, a disinformation campaign brought to us from media man, David Bradley, owner of The Atlantic? Bradley founded a company called Advisory Board Company in the 70's, which directed "business intelligence to improve operational and financial performance" (Wikipedia-Advisory Board Company) to healthcare executives. How much of our media reflects the business goals and values of industries? Why do certain articles get published and others are untouched by the media? Why is patenting of human milk components mostly unknown and undiscussed, even among breastfeeding advocates?
Rosin writes about a 2001 JAMA article she found in her pediatrician's office. I am amazed because the pediatricians offices I have visited had only magazines like Parenting, Baby Talk, Highlights for Children not medical journals. Obviously, big city pediatrician's cater to a more sophisticated group of mothers. The JAMA article was the PROBIT study by Michael S. Kramer et al. One of the problems with this study and many other studies on infant feeding is that breastfeeding or exclusive breastfeeding is not defined. The definition of breastfeeding is critical to a scientific understanding of the impact of feeding methods upon infants. If mothers are breastfeeding and also using infant formula, or foods, or drinks, how do we know the effect of breastfeeding? Wouldn't mixed feeding cause less observable health benefits? We know that human milk has a dose related response in infants, meaning that the more human milk an infant receives the greater the benefits. Not defining breastfeeding or what we mean by exclusive breastfeeding in studies, means that we fail to get a real understanding of the health benefits of breastfeeding or the risks of infant formula. Very few women exclusively breastfeed their infants (by exclusive I mean, only breastmilk-no water, no formula, no foods, no drinks, no drugs, no vitamins).
Most studies on infant feeding are done by the infant formula industry. Most are slanted to a degree. Most human milk researchers are funded by the infant formula industry. Thus, the reality of health effects in breastfed infants is distorted. Distorted by the secrecy of patenting of human milk components and the need of industries to have women believe that breastfeeding does not really matter. Let's look at obesity and what researchers are patenting at the Nemours Foundation. Two patents called "Administraiton of leptin," in which the real component-human milk fat globule will be used to regulate the size of adipose tissue. It will be used in the production of infant formula, foods, and drugs. patent #6475984, #7354896 at the US Patent & Trademark Office. I would suppose that Nemours Foundation would be a reputable organization, not given to fantasy or investment in far-fetched outlandish schemes. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe this is all magical thinking.
How about patent #6258383 called "Dietary supplement combining colostrum & lactoferrin in a mucosal delivery format by Gohlke, et al? The purpose of this patent is to stimulate the immune system to inhibit infection, create healing. Based on human milk, it is a dietary supplement in the marketplace. Another version of magical thinking I suppose, only these men are making money off their magical thinking. Agennix, a biotech pharm company in Texas, has 60-70 patents on the human milk component, lactoferrin. It is genetically engineered and perceived to be identical to the real human milk component. The US Government has funded this company in clinical trials regarding wound healing. They call their drug, a new antibiotic. Heck more magical thinking by industry and the government, too. We can't beat the patent owned by the Department of Health on lactoferrin as a diagnostic but also to be used in treating and inactivating hiv/aids. The magic of human milk brought forth into paper reality at the US Patent & Trademark Office. We have magical thinking at John Hopkins, who owns two patents on Human Milk Fat Globule to controll diarhhea in infants and in immune deficient persons like hiv/aids patients.
Rosin writes, "Given what we know so far, it seems reasonable to put breast-feeding's health benefits on the plus side of the ledger and other things--modesty, independence, career, sanity-on the minus side...."
Confusing, I thought she believed that breastfeeding offered very little in health benefits? Modesty--this from a feminist? This is the real nitty-gritty. Sanity resides on the side of bottlefeeding? Yes, I knew it all along that breastfeeding made us insane, immodest, dependent, and career-less. The IQ points I added to my children (questionable according to Rosin) were directly sucked out of my brain while I immodestly nursed them because I was careerless and dependent on the "man" for a life. We seem to have a younger generation who believes that the center of the universe is middle class virtues. Is this feminism or masochism?
Ms. Rosin writes, "Breast-feeding does not belong in the realm of facts and hard numbers; it is much too intimate and elemental." Who is the magical thinker?
Copyright 2009 Valerie W. McClain