that's odd (in ref to an above post by craven) I prefer women doctors especially for gynecology. I once had a male intern do the exam and he was cute - I felt like having a smoke when it was over. maybe I'm just desperate.
Got breast milk?
Got breast milk?
Infant formulas claim additives copy important nutrients in breast milk, but breast-feeding activists think they're wrong
Julie Deardorff
Chicago Tribune
When a new infant formula appeared on store shelves in the U.S. last year, some scientists and pediatricians said it could narrow the nutrient gap between formula and breast milk.
Since then, however, breast-feeding activists have grown increasingly incensed over the new products, saying manufacturers mislead mothers and undermine efforts to promote breast-feeding, which is the consensus gold standard in infant nutrition.
The new ingredients in the formula had been sought for years, ever since scientists discovered that certain fatty acids found in breast milk and food are key building blocks for a baby's brain and eyes.
But for those who work to support breast-feeding, the existence of a formula that compares itself with breast milk in its advertising means breast-feeding is again under attack. They are especially angry that wording on the cans claims that the formulas, Enfamil Lipil and Similac Advance, contain nutrients found in breast milk.
Some believe formula companies' marketing practices are an attempt to sabotage breast-feeding and hook more women on the bottle. The formula industry routinely donates samples to new mothers when they leave the hospital or delivers formula directly to the doorstep.
"The jury is out whether these additives provide anything for these babies," said Marsha Walker, a nurse and executive director of the National Alliance for Breast-feeding Advocacy. "They have not shown the addition of the fatty acids do anything in terms of growth, intelligence or anything else, but they are marketing it so mothers think their babies will be smarter. The standard is breast milk."
Until more tests are done, Walker and some other breast-feeding promoters want the new formulas pulled from store shelves.
Both U.S. formula companies say the science backs their claims that the formulas work and offer an alternative mothers should have.
The companies readily admit breast milk is best but also say women who can't breast-feed or choose not to deserve a choice.
"We're advocates for the best nutrition for infants. If a mom decides not to breast-feed, there should be no guilt or fear that her baby is not getting the best nutrition," said Gail Wood, spokeswoman for Mead Johnson Nutritionals, maker of Enfamil Lipil.
Breast milk, a complex substance that scientists are slowly coming to understand, contains the perfect formula of fat, sugar, water and protein for the vast majority of infants in their first months. Many babies digest it more easily than formula, and breast milk contains antibodies to protect infants from bacteria and viruses and to help them fight off infection and disease. Studies show that infants who have received mothers milk have higher scores measuring visual acuity and cognitive development, including IQ, said Paula Meier, director for clinical research and lactation at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center.
"Artificial formulas can never duplicate breast milk, a comment that every formula company packages into its materials," Meier said. "However, one formula may have advantages over another.
"It becomes a breast-feeding issue when the general public is made to feel that the new formulas are closer to breast milk and that infants can receive the same benefits as if they had breast-fed," Meier said. "This is not the case. Human milk has so many interdependent biochemical systems -- many of which catalyze each other, have multiple functions and change over the weeks and months of lactation according to infant needs."
While breast-feeding is best, many mothers choose not to breast-feed, are unable to or want something to supplement it. Some pediatricians say this group of women should have the health and developmental benefits of the two fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and for arachidonic acid (AA).
Whether or not they really work when added to formula is still a matter of intense debate and study. Even the precise amount of DHA and AA that should be added to formula is uncertain. The two major U.S. baby formula companies, Mead Johnson and Ross Products, a division of Abbott Laboratories, use different amounts in their products.
So far, the evidence has shown that premature babies benefited from the enhanced formula more than full-term babies. During the last trimester of pregnancy through the first two years of age, tremendous amounts of DHA and AA are deposited in the brain and the retina of the eye. A baby born prematurely is missing many of the benefits of the nutrients.
"The science is certain. It works," said Susan Carlson, a professor of nutrition at the University of Kansas, who has been studying long-chain fatty acids in infants for two decades. In 1982 she published a paper that showed babies fed formula had lower levels of DHA in their blood than babies fed human milk. Since then her work has mainly shown the formula benefited premature infants. "In the meantime, scientists are doing more research defining the optimal level. Unfortunately that is not at all clear."
Frank Greer, a professor of pediatrics and nutritional sciences at the University of Wisconsin Medical School, said the long-term benefits are "very questionable and remain to be proven. Information is especially lacking for infants who are initially breast-fed" and then switched to the formula.
Before approving the formulas last year, the Food and Drug Administration debated for five years whether to permit the addition of DHA and AA because of differing views on how much should be added and on the possible sources of the fatty acids. The DHA amounts in breast milk differ according to the mother's diet and even geography. Meanwhile, initial sources of DHA from fish oil turned out to contain other fats that hindered babies' physical growth.
But a small biotechnology company, Martek Biosciences, which sells products from microalgae, came up with a DHA and AA blend made from purified algae and fungi.
In 2001 the FDA gave DHA and AA approval as Generally Recognized as Safe. By February of 2002, Mead Johnson launched Enfamil Lipil, the first U.S. infant formula to contain Martek's oils. In April, Ross Products followed with Similac Advance. Of the two products, Mead Johnson's Lipil has the higher level of the two fatty acids. Both products are more expensive than regular formula.
Now, a committee of the Institute of Medicine, through the Food and Nutrition Board, is conducting a 24-month study of the safety procedures for evaluating the new ingredients, according to Paula Trump, senior program officer and director of the study. The board also wants to get formula companies more involved in tracking adverse effects of the product.
"Formula is a food, but it's a special kind because it's an infant's sole source of nutrition," said Dr. Richard J. Deckelbaum, director of the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia University and chair of the Institute of Medicine committee. "By the age of 1, the majority have had infant formula even if they're breast-fed. So it's a major responsibility to make sure the product is safe."
Dr. Timothy Wall, a Naperville, Ill., pediatrician, said he always recommends breast-feeding.
"But of course, some choose not to, so I do recommend the enriched formulas," said Wall, a member of the executive committee of the Illinois Chapter of the American Association of Pediatrics. "My overall advice to parents is use it if you can afford the difference in price, but don't be afraid of ill-effects. But if you really want to improve your baby's intellect in a more certain way, while enhancing their immune system, consider breast-feeding."
Oh, yuck.
Quote:"We're advocates for the best nutrition for infants. If a mom decides not to breast-feed, there should be no guilt or fear that her baby is not getting the best nutrition," said Gail Wood, spokeswoman for Mead Johnson Nutritionals, maker of Enfamil Lipil.
It's not, like, the difference between using a sling and a stroller. It's a HUGE difference, and while I understand that some people CAN'T breastfeed, this whole "choice" thing gets me riled up, especially in terms of the $$ involved. Breastmilk -- free. Formula -- $$. And the formula companies are really yucky about how they go grubbing for that money.
Anyway. Off-topic, a bit.
I totally agree, littlek, re OB/GYN.
In terms of theories, I liked the one about submission the best -- it would make sense to me that it started that way (yes as an offshoot of bowing/ prostrating) and no was the natural opposite (up/down vs. side-to-side.)
So micro-algae folks are working with formula. Great. Didja know there are certain mutant strains of blue-green algae that produce a particularly potent neurotoxin? They quietly closed Green Lake in Seattle last year because of its emergence, though they didn't really inform the general public of why it had been closed. The countermeasures the algae industry takes against inclusion of said mutant strains (the mutation is, for whatever reason, a common one; prokaryotic genomes are very slippery things) are fairly meager.
But that's wayyyyyy off-topic.
