PFAS, "FOREVER CHEMICALS," & BREASTFEEDING- PART 2

“Broad conclusions about potential contamination of breastmilk are hard to make. Not only does each case involve a wide array of factors from the diet of the mother to the air she breathes, many of the suspected toxins are new enough to preclude any long-term studies.  Claims of contamination must be looked at in light of their source:  environmentalists often exaggerate the degree of contamination to boost their case for greater safe-guards, and formula companies freely spread fears of toxins in the hopes that mothers will choose formula as a way of erring on the side of safety.  On the other hand, some breastfeeding promoters would have you believe that breastmilk is impervious to contamination.”—Naomi Baumslag, MD, MPH & Dia Michels in the book, “Milk, Money, and Madness:  The Culture and Politics of Breastfeeding” 1995.  p96.

After rereading the above paragraph; I am bemused, frustrated, and angry.  I read the book some 26 years ago and the only thing about that paragraph that has changed is that we are living with   more toxic chemicals.  Environmentalists still use breastmilk contamination as a means to galvanize the public to create a better environment.  Parents read the media reports, become frightened, and believe that infant formula is the answer to contamination in our environment.

MEDIA RESPONSE  

This year the media (The Guardian and recently The Seattle Times) have focused on the research paper from   Environmental Science & Technology called, “Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Breast Milk:  Concerning Trends for Current-Use PFAS,” by Guomao Zheng et al.  The Seattle Times article was a more informative exposé on the research paper than The Guardian.  While The Seattle Times article was informative, it was uncritical of the research paper itself.  The article also featured one of mothers, who donated her milk for the research.  While personalizing this issue may sway people to support the need to restrict PFAS chemicals in our environment, the uncritical stance of the research paper presumes the accuracy of the research.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/seattle-study-of-breast-milk-from-50-women-finds-chemical-used-in-food-wrappers-firefighting-foam/#comments

The Guardian article that was published a few months ago was inaccurate and alarmist.  One of the Guardian’s partners is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Interestingly, the Joseph Rowntree company (maker of the Kit Kat candy bar, Smarties) was bought out by Nestlé in 1988 for $4.5 billion.  Nestlé appears to partner (the Living Wage Project in UK) with The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Nestlé responded to recent queries regarding the history of the Rowntree company and its relationship to the slave trade. When a newspaper partners with foundations that are allied with corporations that have an economic agenda, one might consider that articles in that newspaper might be slanted or biased.

https://uknewstoday.co.uk/2021/05/15/british-chocolate-maker-rowntree-apologises-for-shameful-role-in-slave-trade/

https://www.nestle.co.uk/en-gb/media/pressreleases/nestl%C3%A9-becomes-living-wage-principal-partner

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/13/pfas-forever-chemicals-breast-milk-us-study

https://www.theguardian.com/info/2018/oct/02/philanthropic-partnerships-at-the-guardian

 

“Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Breast Milk: Concerning Trends for Current-Use PFAS” by Guomao Zheng et al.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c06978

After reading and rereading this paper which was the basis for US media headlines this year,  I find myself questioning the accuracy of their measurements of PFAS concentrations in breast milk.  As a lactation consultant for many years, and having read many research papers over the years; I am somewhat taken aback that research is still being done on breast milk in which a paper does not define feeding methods.  Were these mothers breastfeeding exclusively, and how was it defined?  Were they partially breastfeeding and using other milks, water, and/or food?  Were they pumping their milk exclusively or occasionally or not at all?  One might wonder why this would matter, since they are only looking at PFAS chemicals in breast milk.  A mother who is exclusively pumping her milk and bottlefeeding the milk or a mom who is partially breastfeeding (using animal or plant milks, water, or foods) would  potentially expose her infant thru water, packaging of food products, and plastic bottles to more PFAS chemicals than a exclusively breastfeeding mom (no water, infant formula, or other food and drinks).

One of the facts of breast milk is that it is a substance in which its many components change from hour to hour, day to day, month by month with the fat content being the most variable component.  Taking one sample at one moment in time will not give us a full picture of the toxins in breast milk. A woman that is partially breastfeeding or in the process of weaning (protein and sodium increased with a decrease in lactose) will have milk in which the components are more or less concentrated than a woman who is exclusively breastfeeding.  This would mean that at different times in the day the woman donating her breast milk may have more toxins in her milk than at other times.   Taking human milk samples over a day or over weeks, would give a more accurate view of toxins in a milk sample.

Focusing on PFAS chemicals in breast milk, obscures the reality that babies under a year in the US are not solely being fed at the breast.  Most breastfeeding moms by 3 months postpartum are no longer exclusively breastfeeding.  Breastfed babies under 6 months may be receiving lots of formula feeds as well as bottles of water.  Thus avoiding the issue of other foods and water being ingested by infants is a very narrowed approach to the problem of infant exposure to PFAS chemicals.

It is particularly a problem, when one reads various research papers in which dairy products (some studies includes infant formula), and water are considered high risk foods and drinks for PFAS chemical contamination.  Infant formula is often reconstituted with water from municipal water systems.

“Recent studies in the Journal of Dairy Science and Food Science, have examined the bioaccumulation and transfer of PFAS from contaminated feed and drinking water to cow’s milk and results suggest that certain PFAS compounds have a relatively high potential to transfer to milk and beef from the diet of dairy cows.” https://www.bbjgroup.com/blog/crying-over-spilled-milk-the-latest-victims-of-pfas-contamination-in-new-mexico

.“…the number of Americans exposed to PFAS from contaminated tap water has been dramatically underestimated by previous studies…” https://www.bbjgroup.com/blog/crying-over-spilled-milk-the-latest-victims-of-pfas-contamination-in-new-mexico

In a research paper called, “Infant Dietary Exposures to Environmental Chemicals and Infant/Child Health,” published in September of 2018 in Environmental Health Perspective, compared the number of research papers on toxins in breast milk versus toxins in infant formula.  They found plenty of studies on breast milk but very few on infant formula.  The authors did a literature search using PubMed and the Web of Science (WoS) on human milk and infant formula.  They initially found 1,151 studies and 259 citations on human milk, and 139 studies and 644 citations on infant formula.  They narrowed down these numbers in both categories according to specific criteria (PECO-Population, Exposure, Comparison, Outcome).  None of the infant formula studies passed the PECO criteria and only 74 studies and 11 citations of human milk passed their criteria.  I highly recommend this particular study for an understanding of the importance of having data on prenatal exposures of infants, the need for a comparison group-such as infant formula, and documentation of health outcomes of infants.

“A critical gap is a lack of research on environmental chemicals in formula and infant/child health outcomes.”

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP1954

When we examine the research paper cited by The Guardian and The Seattle Times, there is no comparison of infants being breastfeed versus infant formula fed. Nor do we have any prenatal blood data; even more telling this paper has no data on the mothers’ blood levels of PFAS chemicals.  Without paired blood samples from the mothers, they instead used the CDC’s breast milk and serum data published in 2015-2016 of the NHANES (National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey) to calculate the lactational transfer efficiencies.  I consider this to be very problematic, a fatal flaw. They also used the US EPA average age-based daily breast milk consumption rates.  The US EPA defines exclusive breastfeeding as the “sole source of milk from human milk with no other milk substitutes.”  This definition would mean that a mother who gave water and/or food would be considered to be exclusively breastfeeding.  Yet we know that water consumption can be a high risk for PFAS chemical exposure.

There are other issues regarding this research.  Sixty-eight percent of the mothers were over 33 years old and having their first baby.  Older moms would potentially be exposed to more PFAS chemicals than younger mothers. It is believed that first time mothers deliver more toxins to their first born than to their subsequent children.  Fifty-two percent of the babies were over 6 months of age.  This means that the milk collected for these older babies would be very different from babies under 6 months. I would have liked to have seen samples of milk from mothers with newborns, and at 3 months postpartum.  Again, one sample of donated milk does not tell us enough about a breastfed baby’s exposure to toxins.  And no comparison made with mothers who do not breastfeed and use infant formula, means our understanding is limited.

The mothers who participated in this research were mostly Caucasian.  Sixty-two percent of the mothers had advanced degrees with 46 percent having middle incomes ($70,000-100,000).  It would seem that these women would probably have far less exposure to PFAS chemicals than women of lower income.  While all populations are important to study PFAS chemicals exposure, I would like to see more studies done on women/babies from riskier environments (those living in more industrial areas where these chemicals are manufactured) in order to get a total picture of the reality of this problem.

One of the more interesting issues brought up in a research paper I ran across states, “Levels of PFASs in breast milk have been reported to be lower than PFAS levels in maternal plasma and serum in matched samples collected from the same donors (Hinderliter et al. 2005; Karrman et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2010).” “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances in human breast milk and current analytical methods,” Macheka-Tendenguwo et al.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018.

This has also been documented in rats.  Are breastfed infants being protected from toxins in their mother’s milk? This needs to be more fully explored.  This means that studies need to have not just donor milk samples, but also paired blood samples from the mothers in the study.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11356-018-3483-z

CONCLUSION

We do have to clean up the environment for the safety of people on earth now and into the future; that is if we want a future.  The risk of chemical toxins to infants should be based on  accurate statistics of what babies are being fed in their first year of life, babies’ exposure levels prenatally, defining feeding methods as well as including infant formula feeding, the need for multiple milk samples paired to mother’s blood samples, and long term studies on how chemical toxins impact the short and long term health of babies.  Focusing only on the chemical toxins in human milk, does a grave disservice to our society, and its ability to safeguard the next generation. 

 

 

 

 

 

PFAS, "FOREVER CHEMICALS," & BREASTFEEDING PART 1

“I would like you to show me, if you can, where the line can be drawn between an organism and its environment.  The environment is in you.  It’s passing through you. You’re breathing it in and out.” –Wendell Berry, author, poet, environmental activist

INTRODUCTION

We cannot separate ourselves from our environment.  From the first breath as a newborn, to our last breath on this earth; we are one with our environment.  We breathe in gasoline fumes at our local gas station or the fresh paint fumes of a newly painted room; and our lungs, blood, and cells must process those chemical toxins.  Breakfast, lunch, and dinner reflect the environment of where our foods are grown, processed, and packaged.  With the global food economy, it is very likely that what we eat reflects the global rather than local environment.  Our skin protects our internal organs from the environment but it also absorbs and transfers chemicals in our environment into our blood stream. As Wendell Berry so eloquently says, “The environment is in you.  It’s passing through you.”

The burden of chemical toxins in our environment is also passed onto the next generation.  The fetus lives for months inside the mother’s womb.  The womb does not provide a barrier against many chemical toxins but rather transfers them to the fetus.  If the mother in her pregnancy is in contact with toxins in her environment; she transmits those toxins to her fetus.  Scientists believe that exposure prenatally and during infancy can be more harmful than later in life. It is also believed that the first born baby receives substantially more toxins in utero than subsequent siblings.  Mother’s milk reflects the mother’s environment; passing on the chemicals the mother encounters to her offspring.   While mother’s milk reflects the mother’s environment it also is the mechanism in which newborn’s are protected from pathogens (bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites) in the mother’s environment.  The mammary gland creates antibodies to the pathogens in the mother’s environment. Some toxic chemicals (PFAS, forever chemicals for example) attack the human immune system, suppressing the antibody response.  

US newborns/babies are fed a variety of ways and exposed to a variety of food and environmental products.  Studies that actually define breastfeeding categorize breastfeeding into 2 groups:  exclusive breastfeeding and partial breastfeeding/mixed feeding. Exclusive breastfeeding is usually defined as babies given no foods/solids, water, or liquids, only breastmilk.  Partial breastfeeding/mixed feeding is often defined as babies given infant formula, as well as solids/foods, water, or other drinks. These definitions do not categorize babies that are fed human milk in a bottle either exclusively or partly.   In the US about 20-30% of infants are never breastfed.  Of those babies, some are exclusively formula fed, and some also receive food/solids and drinks besides their formula.  While some 70-80% of mothers exclusively breastfeed in the early weeks postpartum, only 30% are exclusively breastfeeding at 3 months postpartum.  US infants are exposed to a variety of foods, baby formulas, and drinks in their first year of life.  How researchers define the way babies are fed is critically important to our understanding of which babies are more at risk to exposure of toxic chemicals.  Yet environmental studies usually do not define breastfeeding or breastmilk feeding. Studies on infant feeding that totally focus on environmental toxins in breast milk without defining breastfeeding or also measuring toxins in infant formula, do not give a clear or actual picture of the risks of toxic chemicals to infants.  And when these studies are broadcast in the media, are they helpful to parents?  Or do these media reports create more harm than good?  Why are researchers focused on human milk and its contamination; rather than looking at the broad spectrum of feeding methods and products given to US newborns and babies? US media headline’s scream toxic, contaminated breast milk, but have no apparent interest in why most scientists aren’t researching toxins in baby formula. [US CDC data on exclusive breastfeeding] https://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/nis_data/results.html

FOREVER CHEMICALS, PFAS IN HUMAN MILK

There are some 5000 PFAS chemicals; these forever chemicals are described in the recent US media articles.  For example The Guardian published the article, “Study finds alarming levels of ‘forever chemicals’ in US mothers’ milk,” written by Tom Perkins in May of this year.  The author states breast milk levels of PFAS in a new study are “at levels nearly 2,000 times higher than public health advocates advise is safe for drinking water.”  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/13/pfas-forever-chemicals-breast-milk-us-study

The article does state that no standards exist for PFAS in breast milk.  But does not mention that water standards vary from state to state and the 1 parts per trillion (ppt) recommended by the Environmental Working Group is not the same recommendation made by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency-US Governmental agency).  The EPA recommends 70 ppt. There appears to be no consistent water standard for PFAS chemicals in the USA.   The study that Perkins is revealing states that the levels of PFAS in this new study ranged from 50ppt (lower than the EPA water standard) to more than 1850ppt.  Yet at the Toxic-Free-Future-Action-Center, in which many of the researchers in this particular study were a part of, they state, “…the study finds that 50 out of 50 women tested positive for PFAS, with levels ranging from 52 parts per trillion (ppt) to more than 500ppt.”  There is a huge difference between “more than 500ppt” to “more than 1850ppt.”  One would suppose that the article from Toxic Free Future would be correct.   https://toxicfreefuture.org/research/breast-milk-study/

The research paper states that the PFAS concentrations in breast milk were the sum of 16 different PFAS chemicals with the predominant PFAS being PFOS and PFOA.  Those 2 PFAS showed a decline from breast milk samples taken in US in 2004.  Both these chemicals are no longer manufactured in the US and have been around since the 1940s.  Yet the Guardian article did not mention this decline, but focused on the “alarming levels of PFAS chemicals.” 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

There are some 5000 or more PFAS chemicals, “forever chemicals,” being manufactured around the world. Two of the most commonly detected PFAS chemicals in the US are PFOA and PFOS.  These two chemicals are no longer manufactured in the USA but are still manufactured in other countries.  PFOA was used to produce Teflon products and PFOS was used to produce ScotchGard-a water/stain resistant product used in fabrics. PFAS chemicals are suspected to increase the risk of various cancers:  kidney, thyroid, prostate, bladder, ovarian, liver, testicle, breast, and pancreas. Other suspected health risks are increased cholesterol levels, increased risk of high blood pressure or pre-eclampsia in pregnancy, small decreases of infant birth weights, decreased vaccine response in children, changes in liver enzymes.  Lab animals have shown damage to their livers and immune systems, birth defects, and newborn deaths.  PFAS chemicals do not concentrate in the fat/lipids of the body.  They bind to serum proteins (albumin, globulin).  The human body stores PFAS chemicals in the liver, blood, kidney, and muscle.  The chemicals are slowly excreted in the urine and feces.  Humans are exposed to PFAS chemicals primarily through ingestion of food or drink.  But also exposed to these chemicals through inhalation, and skin contact.

PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN PFAS CHEMICALS  

Fire fighting foam-contamination of wells near airports and military base  

     Flame retardants in clothing-found in 80% of baby and children’s clothing

     Most US infant car seats- flame retardant/stain and water resistant fabric

Water resistant fabrics-found in upholstery and upholstery in cars

Teflon used in cooking pots/pans;  The chemical contamination of the Ohio River in West Virginia and Ohio by Dupont now Chemours (a spin-off company of DuPont)  in the production of Teflon products has resulted in a US lawsuit. https://pfasproject.com/2018/02/12/ohio-attorney-general-sues-dupont-chemours-over-c8-contamination/ Lawsuits in North Carolina https://www.ncdoj.gov/attorney-general-josh-stein-takes-legal-action-against-dupont-over-pfas-pollution/  Interestingly, Dupont’s Nutritional unit manufactures Human Milk Oligosaccharides (HMOs) for use in baby formulas.  Dupont applied for FDA GRAS for their manufactured HMOs derived form Escherichia coli K12 strain.  FDA had no questions. GRAS notice #897  https://www.fda.gov/media/136755/download 

Pesticides mosquito spray, migration of PFAS from storage container such as High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

Carpeting

Microwave popcorn bags

      Food packaging-for example pizza boxes 

     Cosmetics

Hand Sanitizers

Dental floss

Plastic food storage containers

Drinking water in many US muncipalities and water bottles

Laptops and smart phones 

*Lab equipment-for example: reagents, glassware, tubing, vial caps, aluminum foil, filters

*This poses problems for researchers of PFAS chemicals, requiring that lab equipment must be checked for PFAS chemical contamination before its use.

THE MEDIA PORTRAYAL OF PFAS CHEMICALS IN HUMAN MILK

There is very little objectivity in articles published in the US media.  Most articles in this past decade appear to be biased in favor of corporate interest; which is about increasing profits.  Reality is far more nuanced than the media portrays.  Scientific studies are not necessarily a true description of the natural world and how it works.  Nor is one study necessarily a definitive understanding of what is being researched.  The reality is that isolating one component from other components may give us some understanding of that one component but that one component does not work in isolation. Isolated cells only exist in science labs and only with the aid of various chemicals and human manipulation.  

Copyright 2021 Valerie W. McClain

FOOD INSECURITY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

“The head of the UN’s World Food Program (WFP) visited Yemen and described the conditions he saw in the country as “hell.”  His visit comes as the UN is warning 400,000 Yemeni children will starve to death in 2021 if conditions do not change.” https://news.antiwar.com/2021/03/10/this-is-hell-un-food-chief-visits-yemen-as-children-starve/

FOOD INSECURITY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Across the world many countries are faced with the growing threat of food insecurity* and in some countries malnutrition and starvation of their children because of the covid-19 pandemic.   The situation in Yemen has been made worse because of their 6-year war with Saudi Arabia (bombs bought from the USA) and the US-backed Saudi blockade creating food and fuel shortages.

*food insecurity defined by the United States Department of Agriculture as “a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life.”

While the situation in the US in no way compares to developing countries facing famines, US food insecurity doubled (some studies state US food insecurity tripled) during the covid-19 pandemic.  The Brooking Institute found that 27.5% of US households with children were food insecure.

“In 2018, an estimated 1 in 9 Americans were food insecure, equaling to over 37 million Americans, including more than 11 million children.”

https://knpr.org/npr/2020-09/food-insecurity-us-numbers

BREASTFEEDING IS A NATURAL RESOURCE THAT IS A COST EFFECTIVE STRATEGY TO PROTECT INFANTS

 

Infants and children who are malnourished are more prone to infectious diseases.  One of the best prevention's against infectious disease for infants and young children is breastfeeding.

In a Mead Johnson patent #8137718 entitled, “Probiotic infant products,” filed in 2008 they state,

“Consumption of human milk is one of the most cost effective strategies known to medicine for protecting infants against morbidity and mortality due to infectious disease.”

And, “Significantly enhanced immunological protection by breastfeeding has been demonstrated for diarrheal diseases, respiratory tract illnesses, bacteremia, meningitis, and necrotizing enterocolitis. Protection by breastfeeding is especially efficacious against diarrheal disease.”

Mead Johnson in this patent  may use Bifidobacteria longum AH1205 obtained from the feces of a 3-day old male breastfed infant to create an infant formula “closer” to human milk. Or they may genetically engineer the bacteria.  http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8137718.PN.&OS=PN/8137718&RS=PN/8137718

For many years diarrheal disease has been and is the leading cause of death in children under 5.  It is a vicious cycle of diarrhea that leads to malnutrition that leads back to diarrhea with deadly consequences.

“Among children who survive severe diarrhea, chronic infections can contribute to malnutrition.  In turn malnutrition makes children vulnerable to diarrhea infections.” https://www.defeatdd.org/sites/default/files/node-images/Malnutrition%20Diarrhea%20Messages.pdf

Patent #5505955 entitled, “Anti-diarrheic product and method of treating rotavirus-associated infection, filed in 1995 and owned by Senomed Inc., Cancer Research Fund of Contra Costa. And John Hopkins Univ. School of Medicine, they state,

“In the developing countries, infectious gastrointestinal diseases are estimated to cause up to 12,000 deaths per day.  Diarrheal disease is also an important health problem in the developed countries.  In the U.S. over 200,000 children under 5 years of age are hospitalized each year with acute diarrheal disease.  This results in nearly 880,000 in-patient hospital days, over 500 deaths, and almost one billion dollars of in-patient costs per year.”

This patent had US government funding from the National Institute of Health and its invention was to use defatted human milk fat globules to prevent and treat rotavirus/diarrheal disease infections.  http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5505955.PN.&OS=PN/5505955&RS=PN/5505955

In a more recent (filed in 2017) infant formula patent #10813940 owned by Abbott Labs, manufacturer of Similac infant formula,  states,

“Breastfeeding has been associated with enhanced development and balanced growth .and maturation of the infant’s respiratory, gastrointestinal and immune systems, thereby providing protection of the infant to infectious and inflammatory diseases.”

Abbott Labs will be using Human Milk Oligosaccharides and nucleotides to treat or prevent viral infections.  HMOs may be “isolated or enriched from milk(s) secreted by mammals including but not limited to human, bovine, ovine, porcine, or caprine species.”  Or HMOs may be manufactured thru use of other processes:  enzymes, fermentation, etc.  http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=10813940.PN.&OS=PN/10813940&RS=PN/10813940

INFANT FORMULA/BOTTLEFEEDING HAS MANY RISKS  DURING EMERGENCIES

Infant formula is a costly product that has many risks in countries where poverty is prevalent.  The product is expensive which sometimes means that parents will water-down the product to save money. This can cause serious health consequences such as electrolyte and sodium imbalances that lead to water intoxication or even death for infants younger than a year.  Bottle-feeding breast milk that has been watered down can also be dangerous for infants.  A US couple was charged with murder of their infant daughter for watering down breast milk in a bottle.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/30/baby-dies-water-toxicity/26670583/

The use of infant formula, bottles, and bottle nipples carries risks during emergency situations in which there is no electricity or fuel to boil water to clean and inactivate pathogens that may reside in formula, bottles, bottle nipples, and on breast pump equipment.  No electricity or fuel also means that there is no refrigeration to store formula or human milk.  No electricity means that electric breast pumps will not work.

While free infant formula is often donated to countries during emergencies, it does not guarantee that there will be enough of it to last during a major crisis.  And often the introduction of free infant formula sabotages those mothers who are breastfeeding by lowering a mother’s milk supply.  Too often the instructions on making infant formula that are on the can/plastic container are in a different language than the mother.  If the mother quits breastfeeding and the free formula becomes unavailable the baby will be fed inappropriate drinks/food.  Babies will become malnourished or die.  In some emergency situations if the baby is malnourished and/or sick; it may be impossible to get medical help or get to a hospital, because roads are impassable or gasoline is unavailable (pumping gasoline requires electricity).

THE CREATION OF GOOD WILL BY GIFTS OF CASH AND INFANT FORMULA DURING COVID-19

In a press release Nestle announced that they have partnered with the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies with CHF 10 million to the British and Irish Red Cross during the pandemic.  In the US Nestle donated $1 million to the American Red Cross for Covid Relief.  Nestle donated to the Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies of numerous countries.  The donations were sometimes cash donations and/or food, medical nutrition products, and bottled water.  The list of countries besides USA, UK, Ireland are Kenya Red Cross, Ghana Red Cross, Australia with Food Bank Australia given $2million in products, Grenada Red Cross, Jamaica, Fiji, Philippines Red Cross Php 10 million in medical supplies, vaccines, etc., Ethiopian Red Cross, Honduras, Pakistan, Peru, Poland.  In the mid-east:  Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Oman, Yemen-Yemeni Food Bank 380,000 servings. Iraq received 280,000 servings of NIDO, Palestine was given contributions to the Ministry of Health Fund, Bethlehem Governorate, Caritas Baby Hospital.  Other mid-eastern countries given various donations were Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia.

In a Bloomberg article Nestle will be helping distribute Covid-19 vaccines, particularly to developing countries.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-02/nestle-plans-to-help-distributing-vaccines-in-covid-19-fight

This massive gift-giving of cash and products is astounding to me.  It will certainly create good will towards the company.   And it is highly likely that other infant formula companies are gift-giving as well as Nestle.  Governments will be particularly grateful, since this pandemic has created a global recession with much unrest among those who lost jobs, businesses, and lost so many family members and friends to covid-19.   Yet this gift-giving also comes with a price.  Infant formula and its risks to the health and well-being of infants and children is the price that will be paid by families globally.  Copyright 2021 Valerie W. McClain

Additionally references:

Walker, M.  “A Fresh Look at the Risks of Artificial Infant Formula,  JHL 1993. https://doi.org/10.1177/089033449300900222

Carothers, C. and Gribble, K. “Infant and Young Child Feeding in Emergencies,”  JHL 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334414537118