With all
the contamination, is breast milk still safe?
Dear John,
From what I've read in several places, you are an advocate of breast
feeding. How would you respond to claims (possibly funded by the
people who put out the formula?) that breast feeding can be dangerous
because of the contamination of the mothers' milk? (From the mother
eating meat? Living in the city? Ingesting pesticide-ridden foods
all her life?) What would you say to somebody who was scared to
breast feed her children?
Anonymous
Dear Anonymous,
You are right that I am an ardent advocate of breast feeding. But
I am sad to tell you that it is not just the formula companies who
are reporting how contaminated human mother’s breast milk can be
today.
Let me explain, first, why I am so strongly in favor of breast
feeding whenever possible, and then I’ll discuss the issue of contamination.
The food an infant receives is crucial because it is the source
of nourishment for this very fragile individual during the time
of peak brain development. If the brain does not receive adequate
nourishment at this time, and doesn't develop properly, the consequences
can be irreversible.
For the human infant, the evidence that breastfeeding is healthier
than formula feeding is overwhelming. Formula fed babies suffer
more pneumonia, middle-ear infections, ear infections, respiratory
infections, bacterial meningitis, neonatal septicemia, thrush, and
many viral illnesses, including polio and herpes simplex. Formula
fed babies run up to sixteen times the risk for influenza and spinal
meningitis than breastfed infants.
A recent study published in the British Medical Journal analyzed
the diets that had been given to 339 infants who had to be hospitalized
with gastroenteritis. Of the 339 sick infants, it turned out that
338 of them had been formula fed, while only one of them had been
breastfed.
Formula feeding in the very young infant is also associated with
hypocalcemia (which leads to tetany), dehydration, hypernatremia
(high sodium level in the body, associated with permanent brain
damage), and necrotising enterocolitis (an extremely serious inflammatory
bowel disease and often fatal condition seen almost exclusively
in artificially fed young infants.
Studies show that formula feeding is consistently associated with
the development in later life of immune system disorders, diabetes,
chronic liver diseases, ulcerative colitis, celia disease, Crohn's
disease, food allergies, obesity, coronary heart disease, and multiple
sclerosis.
In 1992, Lancet reported that I.Q.'s were found to be 8.3 points
higher for premature babies fed mother's milk compared to those
fed formulas.
A distressingly large number of infants in modern societies today
die suddenly in their sleep, of no discernible cause. This phenomena,
known as crib death, or sudden infant death syndrome, occurs twice
as often in infants who are formula fed than in those who are breastfed.
Unlike formulas, the composition of human mother's milk is not
static, nor is it dead. It changes from day to day in response to
the needs of the baby. It is part of a living process of communication
at the deepest biological level between mother and baby. It is an
expression of the mother's love and caring, and a reflection of
the deep symbiotic cooperation of the mother-child bond. A nursing
mother in close contact with her infant can make antibodies on demand
to pathogens that challenge the baby and transfer them in milk.
By a process known as diathelic immunity, breastmilk will come
to carry antibodies to infectious agents to which the infant is
exposed. Some researchers believe that dangerous bacteria that invade
the baby's body enter into his or her saliva, and from there (if
they are breast feed) are absorbed into the mother's breast where
they provoke the production of the needed antibodies, which the
baby then receives in the next feeding.
In the first few days after birth, breastmilk contains colostrum,
which carries immunoglobulins that greatly enhance the newborn's
immunity against disease. Babies deprived of colostrum have much
higher rates of all viral and bacterial infections.
The psychological and spiritual benefits of breastfeeding may be
even more profound than the physical ones. Some of the most important
work on infant-mother bonding has been done by Dr. John Kennell
at Rainbow Babies' and Childrens' Hospital in Cleveland. In one
long term study, he and his co-workers studied two groups of new
mothers. For one of the groups, hospital policies were changed slightly
to enable them better to bond with their babies. A summary of the
study in Smithsonian magazine reported:
"The Cleveland pediatricians found important differences between
the two groups of mothers and babies. A month after birth, when
they came back for a special office visit, the (bonded) mothers
stood closer to their infants, picked up their crying babies more...and
fondled their babies more. Interviews revealed they were more reluctant
to leave their infants with someone else. And they reported that
when they did go out, they found themselves constantly thinking
about the baby. A year later, they still were more attentive to
their babies... After two years, (they) talked differently to their
children,... used richer language constructions and more words,
especially descriptive adjectives. They issued fewer commands to
their children, but asked more questions. What is more, they continued
to speak to their children when other adults came into the room,
while the (other) mothers talked more to the adult interviewer."
The bonds of affection created between mother and child in breastfeeding
last throughout a lifetime. They express the most primary and essential
forms of human love. They feed both mother and child in countless
ways, lending meaning to the challenges each must face, and strengthening
each for all that is to follow. According to Dr. Kennell:
"The most powerful way to forge a strong bond between mother
and infant is through breastfeeding."
Isn’t it amazing that we have come to think of formula feeding
as an equivalent substitute breastfeeding? Could part of the problem
be that many of us have come to think that technology is more trustworthy
than our bodies? Could it be that formula feeding is another part
of the alienation from our physical selves and from the rest of
the natural world that cries out for healing? Is it another part
of the pattern that leads us to buy something for our children rather
than giving something of ourselves?
As the La Leche League reminds mothers: "Each time you snuggle
your hungry baby to your breast to nurse, you assure him or her
of your loving presence. Through breastfeeding, babies learn about
love and trust, warmth and security." (For all kinds of
support with breastfeeding issues, you can contact the La Leche
League at http://www.laleche.org).
At the same time, the issue of contaminated breast milk is very
real. We’ve known about this for some time. In 1962, Rachel Carson
wrote about insecticides in breast milk in her classic Silent
Spring. In 1976, a survey found that 99 percent of breast milk
sampled in the United States contained PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)
and in one-quarter of these samples, PCB concentrations were so
high that they exceeded the legal limit (2.5 parts per million)
for commercial formula. In other words, one out of every four US
mothers were producing milk for their newborns that was so contaminated
with PCBs it would have been illegal to bottle and sell it as a
food commodity.
How serious is this contamination of human breast milk? Sandra
Steingraber is a biologist and a poet. In her 1997 book Living
Downstream, she writes:
"A study of more than 800 nursing mothers in North Carolina
has uncovered three patterns that make this question an urgent
one. Researchers found that the concentration of organochlorine
chemicals in breast milk increased with the age of the mother,
increased with the amount of fish consumed, and decreased dramatically
over the course of lactation and with the number of children nursed.
The first trend indicates that our bodies are still amassing fat-soluble
contaminants faster than we can eliminate them. The second attests
to the ongoing contamination of our rivers, streams, and lakes.
The third fact is the most ominous one. Organochlorine contaminants
are not easily expunged from our tissues. Their sharp decline
in concentration over the course of breast-feeding, therefore,
represents the movement of accumulated toxins from mother to child.
It signifies that during the intimate act of nursing, a burden
of public poisons insect killers, electrical insulating fluids,
industrial solvents, and incinerator residues is shifted from
one generation into the tiny bodies of the next."
In another essay called "Why the Precautionary Principle?
A Meditation on Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and the Breasts of Mothers"
Dr. Steingraber sums up the situation with epic poignancy:
" Those of you who know me know that when I talk on these
topics I usually speak out of two identities: biologist and cancer
activist. My diagnosis with bladder cancer at age 20 makes more
urgent my scientific research. Conversely, my Ph.D. in ecology
informs my understanding of how and why I became a cancer patient
in the first place: bladder cancer is considered a quintessential
environmental disease. Links between environment and public health
became the topic of my third book, LIVING DOWNSTREAM, but since
I have been given the task of speaking about the effect of toxic
materials on future generations, I'm going to speak out of another
one of my identities -- that of a mother.
I'm a very new mother. I gave birth in September 1998 to my daughter
and first child. So, I'm going to speak very intimately and in
the present tense. You know it's a very powerful thing for a person
with a cancer history to have a child. It's a very long commitment
for those of us unaccustomed to looking far into the future. My
daughter's name is Faith.
I'm also learning what all parents must learn, which is a new
kind of love. It's a love that's more than an emotion or a feeling.
It's a deep physical craving like hunger or thirst. It's the realization
that you would lay down your life for this eight-pound person
without a second thought. You would pick up arms for them. You
would empty your bank account. It's love without boundaries and
were this kind of love directed at another adult, it would be
considered totally inappropriate. A kind of fatal attraction.
Maybe, when directed at babies, we should call this "natal attraction."
I say this to remind us all what is at stake. If we would die
or kill for our children, wouldn't we do anything within our power
to keep toxics out of their food supply? Especially if we knew,
in fact, there were alternatives to these toxics?
Of all human food, breast milk is now the most contaminated.
Because it is one rung up on the food chain higher than the foods
we adults eat, the trace amounts of toxic residues carried into
mothers' bodies become even more concentrated in the milk their
breasts produce. To be specific, it's about 10 to 100 times more
contaminated with dioxins than the next highest level of stuff
on the human food chain, which are animal-derived fats in dairy,
meat, eggs, and fish. This is why a breast-fed infant receives
its so-called "safe" lifetime limit of dioxin in the first six
months of drinking breast milk. Study after study also shows that
the concentration of carcinogens in human breast milk declines
steadily as nursing continues. Thus the protective effect of breast
feeding on the mother appears to be a direct result of downloading
a lifelong burden of carcinogens from her breasts into the tiny
body of her infant.
When it comes to the production, use, and disposal of PVC [polyvinyl
chloride plastic], the breasts of breast-feeding mothers are the
tailpipe. Representatives from the vinyl industry emphasize how
common a material PVC is, and they are correct. It is found in
medical products, toys, food packaging, and vinyl siding. What
they don't say is that sooner or later all of these products are
tossed into the trash, and here in New England, we tend to shovel
our trash into incinerators. Incinerators are de facto laboratories
for dioxin manufacture, and PVC is the main ingredient in this
process. The dioxin created by the burning of PVC drifts from
the stacks of these incinerators, attaches to dust particles in
the atmosphere, and eventually sifts down to Earth as either dry
deposition or in rain drops. This deposition then coats crops
and other plants, which are eaten by cows, chickens, and hogs.
Or, alternatively, it's rained into rivers and lakes and insinuates
itself into the flesh of fish. As a breast-feeding mother, I take
these molecules into my body and distill them in my breast tissue.
This is done through a process through which fat globules from
throughout my whole body are mobilized and carried into the breast
lobes, where, under the direction of a pituitary hormone called
prolactin, they are made into human milk. Then, under the direction
of another pituitary hormone called oxytocin, this milk springs
from the grape-like lobes and flows down long tubules into the
nipple, which is a kind of sieve, and into the back of the throat
of the breast-feeding infant. My daughter.
So, this, then, is the connection. This milk, my milk, contains
dioxins from old vinyl siding, discarded window blinds, junked
toys, and used I.V. bags. Plastic parts of buildings that were
burned down accidentally are also housed in my breasts. These
are indisputable facts. They are facts that we scientists are
not arguing about. What we do spend a lot of time debating is
what exactly are the health effects on the generation of children
that my daughter belongs to. We don't know with certainty because
these kids have not reached the age at which a lot of diseases
possibly linked to dioxin exposure would manifest themselves.
Unlike mice and rats, we have long generational times. We do know
with certainty that childhood cancers are on the rise, and indeed
they are rising faster than adult cancers. We don't have any official
explanation for that yet.
Let me tell you something else I've learned about breast feeding.
It's an ecstatic experience. The same hormone (oxytocin) that
allows milk to flow from the back of the chest wall into the nipple
also controls female orgasm. This so-called let-down reflex makes
the breast feel very warm and full and fizzy, as if it were a
shaken-up Coke bottle. That's not unpleasant. Moreover, the mouths
of infants -- their gums, tongues, and palates -- are perfectly
designed to receive this milk. A newborn's mouth and a woman's
nipple are like partners in a tango. The most expensive breast
pump -- and I have a $500 one -- can only extract about half of
the volume that a newborn baby can because such machines cannot
possibly imitate the intimate and exquisite tonguing, sucking,
and gumming motion that infants use to extract milk from the nipple,
which is not unpleasant either.
Through this ecstatic dance, the breast-fed infant receives not
just calories, but antibodies. Indeed the immune system is developed
through the process of breast feeding, which is why breast-fed
infants have fewer bouts of infectious diseases than bottle-fed
babies. In fact, the milk produced in the first few days after
birth is almost all immunological in function. This early milk
is not white at all but clear and sticky and is called colostrum.
Then, from colostrum you move to what's called transitional milk,
which is very fatty and looks like liquid butter. Presumably then,
transitional milk is even more contaminated than mature milk,
which comes in at about two weeks post-partum. Interestingly,
breast milk is so completely digested that the feces of breast-fed
babies doesn't even smell bad. It has the odor of warm yogurt
and the color of French mustard. By contrast, the excretions of
babies fed on formula are notoriously unpleasant.
What is the price for the many benefits of breast milk? We don't
yet know. However, one recent Dutch study found that schoolchildren
who were breast fed as babies had three times the level of PCBs
in their blood as compared to children who had been exclusively
formula fed. PCBs are probably carcinogens. Why should there be
any price for breast feeding? It should be a zero-risk activity.
If there was ever a need to invoke the Precautionary Principle
--the idea that we must protect human life from possible toxic
danger well in advance of scientific proof about that danger --it
is here, deep inside the chest walls of nursing mothers where
capillaries carry fat globules into the milk-producing lobes of
the mammary gland. Not only do we know little about the long-term
health effects of dioxin and PCB exposure in newborns, we haven't
even identified all the thousands of constituent elements in breast
milk that these contaminants might act on. For example, in 1997
researchers described 130 different sugars unique to human milk.
Called oligosaccharides, these sugars are not digested but function
instead to protect the infant from infection by binding tightly
to intestinal pathogens. Additionally, they appear to serve as
a source of sialic acid, which is essential to brain development.
Most recently, Swedish researchers discovered powerful anti-cancer
proteins in breast milk. Activated by stomach acids, they appear
to enhance cell suicide in defective cells, which is one way our
own bodies protect us from developing cancer.[3]
So, this is my conclusion. Breast feeding is a sacred act. It
is a holy thing. To talk about breast feeding versus bottle feeding,
to weigh the known risks of infectious diseases against the possible
risks of childhood or adult cancers is an obscene argument. Those
of us who are advocates for women and children and those of us
who are parents of any kind need to become advocates for uncontaminated
breast milk. A woman's body is the first environment. If there
are toxic materials from PVC in the breasts of women, then it
becomes our moral imperative to solve the problem. If alternatives
to PVC exist, then it becomes morally imperative that we embrace
the alternatives and make them a reality."
It is important to note that even in our contaminated world there
are ways a woman can minimize the risk to her young. Many studies
have shown direct correlations between the amount of animal fat
in a woman’s diet, and the level of contamination in her breastmilk.
The less meat, butter, eggs, cheese, milk, poultry and fish in a
woman’s diet, the fewer toxins will be found in the milk that flows
from her breast to her young.
When the EPA analyzed the breast milk of vegetarian women, they
discovered the levels of pesticides in their milk to be far lower
than the U.S. average. A study published in the New England Journal
of Medicine made a similar comparison, and found: "The
highest levels of contamination in the breast milk of the vegetarians
was lower than the lowest level of contamination (in) non-vegetarian
women… The mean vegetarian levels were only one or two percent as
high as the average levels in the United States.
This is a tremendously important statistic. If the breast milk
of the average vegetarian nursing mother in the United States contains
only one or two percent of the pesticide and toxic contamination
as that found in the national average, there is enormous protection
for our young to be gained from moving in a vegetarian direction.
Women, and even little girls, who think they may wish to have and
breastfeed a baby in the future would do well to realize that the
diet they eat today will greatly affect the health of their young.
Most of the toxic chemicals they ingest today will be stored in
their tissues until released in their milk. It is extremely important
that young women know that by eating wisely today, they will be
creating better breast milk for their babies tomorrow.
