saw this article

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-08-2003
saw this article
15
Wed, 09-17-2003 - 12:13pm
and thought of this debate

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/17/pollutants030917


e (with 2 ff babies ages 3months & 14 months)

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 09-17-2003 - 2:23pm
I'd be curious to know the amt. of the chemical found in the BM as well as how much of the chemical one has to be exposed to before it causes the learning disabilities. I think the article could have been a little more informative in those respects.

Janet

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-08-2003
Wed, 09-17-2003 - 7:01pm
i totally agree. still i thought that article and the link on the same page about the whale blubber were interesting to think about... pollution is a scary thing.

e

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-17-2003 - 7:17pm
i'm not sure what exactly you want to debate?

-should women in northern regions ff?

-do the benefits of bm outweigh the risks of ff when considering environmental factors?

-is this a valid study given that it provides little data (in the article)?

i have a few initial thoughts about things that are missing.

have they done tests to see how prevalent learning disorders are among ff inuit babies? have they done tests to see how much of these chemicals are found in the systems of both ff and bf babies? do they know how much of these chemicals are "bioavailable" in bm for consumption by inuit babies?

when i consider "environmental" factors in terms of bf, i always still find bm to be a better choice than ff. afterall, bm is a living organism and changes for baby's needs. its unclear if any "toxins" are bioavailable to nursed babies. also, if a mother's environment contains chemicals that reach her breast milks odds are that a baby living in the same environment will still be exposed to these chemicals too (even if they are ff'd).

personally, i just find ff too risky (but that's just my opinion) and i choose to bf my children (there are way TOO many benefits). my now 2 year old ds was bf'd for 17 mos, and i am currently nursing my 6 mos old dd.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 09-17-2003 - 8:36pm
You're right about pollution. It really makes one wonder how much we are benefitting from all this "advancement". Is it really worth the risks to our health?

J

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 09-18-2003 - 8:44am
Exactly!~Lisa
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 09-18-2003 - 7:27pm
I believe it has been proven that bm does have more pollutants than cow's milk. We are at the top of the food chain - we eat the polluted animals and the polluted plants. I believe that vegan mothers have the least amount of pollutants in their bm. However, they also have low amounts of dha.

However, the studies show the health benefits are with bm. I would guess that bm has properties that help the babies deal with the pollutants. Formula has pollutants also, and ff babies are probably exposed in their environment. It seems that formula having a lesser ability to help babies deal with the pollutants is a bigger negative than bm actually having higher levels.

Also, the biggest differences in bm and formula are shown with babies with health risks, such as premies. You would think those babies would be more susceptible to pollutants. Yet they benefit more from bm than healthy babies.

On the flip side, I have read of two studies that showed that the longer a child was bf, the more cavities they had. They theorized it was due to dioxin. However, it was two very small studies and their conclusion was theory. If anyone is interested in it, it is on the PP breast vs. formula debate board.

Sherry

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 09-19-2003 - 10:36pm
Also, while the total amount of pollutants transmitted through the placental barrier is lower than that which is transmitted via breastmilk, much less is required before an effect is seen on a foetus. Very often, the most polluted babies were polluted long before they even started bfing.

At least, like you say, BM includes "anti-pollution" factors. :-)

Fio.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-20-2003 - 9:19am
I am very interested in those studies. I ebf all four of my daughters for 2 years. They don't have problems with cavities. To me it seems that there would be more involved than just how a child is fed, like heredity. My dentist recently told me that he didn't recommend sealants for my 8 yo dd because he suspected she will never have a cavity because her teeth are so strong, she inherited my teeth;) Do you have a link to those studies?TIA, Lisa
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-10-2001
Sat, 09-20-2003 - 11:55am
The article seemed incomplete. It really didn't offer a lot of information, which makes me think it may have been premature to release information on this topic. It actually left me with many questions.

But I do think that a benefit to formula feeding is that you know EXACTLY what your baby is eating---it's written on the label.

Crystal SAHM to Alec(6) and Elise(5 mos next week)

Photobucket


Alexa

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 09-20-2003 - 12:32pm
That could be considered an "advantage" though personally I find it a disadvantage to know that the baby is NOT getting everything that is in breastmilk and we don't even know all that is in breastmilk but we keep gaining knowledge and it seems that all the new features we discover are all GOOD.

Fio.

Pages