ReportWire

Tag: breast milk

  • 3-MCPD in Refined Cooking Oils | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    There is another reason to avoid palm oil and question the authenticity of extra-virgin olive oil.

    The most commonly used vegetable oil in the world today is palm oil. Pick up any package of processed food in a box, bag, bottle, or jar, and the odds are it will have palm oil. Palm oil not only contains the primary cholesterol-raising saturated fat found mostly in meat and dairy, but concerns have been raised about its safety, given the finding that it may contain a potentially toxic chemical contaminant known as 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol, otherwise known as 3-MCPD, which is formed during the heat treatment involved in the refining of vegetable oils. So, these contaminants end up being “widespread in refined vegetable oils and fats and have been detected in vegetable fat-containing products, including infant formulas.”

    Although 3-MCPD has been found in all refined vegetable oils, some are worse than others. The lowest levels of the toxic contaminants were found in canola oil, and the highest levels were in palm oil. Based on the available data, this may result in “a significant amount of human exposure,” especially when used to deep-fry salty foods, like french fries. In fact, just five fries could blow through the tolerable daily intake set by the European Food Safety Authority. If you only eat such foods once in a while, it shouldn’t be a problem, but if you’re eating fries every day or so, this could definitely be a health concern.

    Because the daily upper limit is based on body weight, particularly high exposure values were calculated for infants who were on formula rather than breast milk, since formula is made from refined oils, which—according to the European Food Safety Authority—may present a health risk. Estimated U.S. infant exposures may be three to four times worse.

    If infants don’t get breast milk, “there is basically no alternative to industrially produced infant formula.” As such, the vegetable oil industry needs to find a way to reduce the levels of these contaminants. This is yet another reason that breastfeeding is best whenever possible.

    What can adults do to avoid exposure? Since these chemicals are created in the refining process of oils, what about sticking to unrefined oils? Refined oils have up to 32 times the 3-MCPD compared to their unrefined counterparts, but there is an exception: toasted sesame oil. Sesame oil is unrefined; manufacturers just squeeze the sesame seeds. But, because they are squeezing toasted sesame seeds, the 3-MCPD may have come pre-formed.

    Virgin oils are, by definition, unrefined. They haven’t been deodorized, the process by which most of the 3-MCPD is formed. In fact, that’s how you can discriminate between the various processing grades of olive oil. If your so-called extra virgin olive oil contains MCPD, then it must have been diluted with some refined olive oil. The ease of adulterating extra virgin olive oil, the difficulty of detection, the economic drivers, and the lack of control measures all contribute to extra virgin olive oil’s susceptibility to fraud. How widespread a problem is it?

    Researchers tested 88 bottles labeled as extra virgin olive oil and found that only 33 were found to be authentic. Does it help to stick to the top-selling imported brands of extra virgin olive oil? In that case, 73% of those samples failed. Only about one in four appeared to be genuine, and not a single brand had even half its samples pass the test, as you can see here and at 3:32 in my video 3-MCPD in Refined Cooking Oils.

    Doctor’s Note

    If you missed the previous post where I introduced 3-MCPD, see The Side Effects of 3-MCPD in Bragg’s Liquid Aminos.

    There is no substitute for human breast milk. We understand this may not be possible for adoptive families or those who use surrogates, though. In those cases, look for a nearby milk bank.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Despite H5N1 bird flu outbreaks in dairy cattle, raw milk enthusiasts are uncowed

    Despite H5N1 bird flu outbreaks in dairy cattle, raw milk enthusiasts are uncowed

    [ad_1]

    Government scientists are warning consumers to stay away from raw milk, citing research showing “high viral load” of avian influenza in samples collected from infected cows — as well as a disturbing cluster of dead barn cats who’d consumed contaminated raw milk.

    “We continue to strongly advise against the consumption of raw milk,” said Donald Prater, acting director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration.

    But raw milk enthusiasts are doubling down on the claimed benefits and safety of their favorite elixir, and say the government warnings are nothing more than “fearmongering.”

    Mark McAfee, founder of Fresno’s Raw Farm and the Raw Milk Institute, said his phone has been ringing off the hook with “customers asking for H5N1 milk because they want immunity from it.” (Bird flu has not been detected in California’s dairy herds.)

    Other raw milk drinkers, such as Peg Coleman, a medical microbiologist who runs Coleman Scientific Consulting, a Groton, N.Y.-based food safety consulting company, claimed the government’s warnings have no basis in reality.

    Coleman, who is an advisor to the Raw Milk Institute, has provided expert testimony on the benefits of the unpasteurized dairy product in courtrooms across the nation.

    “It’s a fear factor. It’s an opinion factor. It’s based on 19th century evidence. It’s absolutely ridiculous,” she said, citing research that shows healthy gut biomes and breast milk provide immune system benefits.

    The process of heating milk to a specific temperature for a specific period of time and then allowing it to rapidly chill is named for the French chemist and germ theory pioneer Louis Pasteur. Recently, the FDA reaffirmed the effectiveness of pasteurization in destroying Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) and other viruses, as well as harmful pathogenic bacteria and other microorganisms.

    Coleman, however, says the risk of illness are overblown.

    “This is all people’s opinions, their gut feelings, their ignorance,” she said. “I think that if there were a study done, and the microbiota of raw milk drinkers was tested, you might very well find a healthier gut microbiota that’s better able to withstand occasional challenges.”

    It’s a message that health officers and food safety experts say is dangerous and foolhardy, especially at a time when government investigators are scrambling to understand the extent of dairy herd outbreaks, and the potential for harm.

    “Deliberating consuming raw milk in the hope of becoming immune to avian influenza is playing Russian roulette with your health,” said Michael Payne, a researcher and outreach coordinator at the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security at UC Davis. “Deliberately trying to infect yourself with a known pathogen flies in the face of all medical knowledge and common sense.”

    He and other food safety experts say the safest way to consume dairy is to ingest only pasteurized milk products.

    “It’s been the gold standard for more than a century,” he said.

    The highly pathogenic avian influenza virus has been found in 36 herds in nine states, and detected in samples of commercially sold, pasteurized milk. Testing has shown those viral fragments to be inactive — neutralized by the pasteurization process.

    The live virus, on the other hand, has been detected in raw cow’s milk and colostrum — the nutrient rich milk expressed by mammals in the first days after giving birth — and a study that examined dead barn cats at bird-flu-infected dairies in Texas and Kansas suggests contaminated raw milk could be dangerous for other mammals, including humans.

    However, the researchers were unable to definitively show the cats acquired the virus via raw milk; it is possible they consumed diseased birds.

    It’s a point that Coleman has seized on — highlighting it as proof that the government’s caution regarding drinking raw milk is specious.

    “Show me that it infected the cats through the GI tract,” she said. “Otherwise, you are just … crying wolf trying to blame raw milk or saying … that raw milk is inherently dangerous, even when the scientific evidence does not support that opinion.”

    She noted that the cats’ symptoms were not gastrointestinal in nature. Instead, they developed depressed mental states, their bodies showed stiff movements, they lost coordination, produced discharge from their eyes and noses, and suffered blindness. More than half of the farms’ cats died. She said even if the cats had contracted the virus via the milk, it was likely a result of breathing in milk droplets rather than from consuming it.

    “Have you ever seen a cat eat?” asked Coleman. “It’s messy. If they got the disease from the milk, it’s probably because they breathed it in.”

    Eric Burrough, a professor and veterinary diagnostic pathologist at Iowa State University who led the cat study, acknowledged that there were things they were unable to control for and other things “we do not know”; the analysis was “diagnostic.”

    But he and his team were able to show that the cats fed on contaminated raw milk with high concentrations of the virus and that the pattern of infection and death “does not align with random exposure to wild birds,” he said.

    As for Coleman and McAfee’s belief that stomach acid and a healthy gut biome would offer protection, he noted previous studies that showed cats eating wild birds did get the virus, suggesting those safeguards are not sufficient to protect mammals against bird flu.

    He said “there is also the possibility that virus could enter via the tonsils in the pharynx of the cats prior to ingestion in both the bird consumption and milk consumption scenarios.”

    In any case, said Payne, there’s enough concern out there right now that should give people pause about consuming dairy products that have not been pasteurized.

    Even Coleman acknowledged that toddlers and young children — who have been known to be messy eaters — might consume milk differently than adults. And if her messy eating theory has weight with the cats, “it’s something to think about” with children.

    So far, the virus does not seem to have evolved any genetic adaptations that would make it more amenable to pass between people.

    Only one person — a Texas dairy worker infected in March — has so far been reported to have acquired the disease from cattle. His symptoms were mild — just a moderate case of conjunctivitis, or pink eye, according to a case report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Local and state health departments have tested about 25 other people for the virus and monitored more than 100 for symptoms.

    This particular bird flu virus originated in China in 1996, but the clade — or subvariant, known as 2.3.4.4b — found in U.S. dairy cattle became dominant in 2020. It has since killed hundreds of millions of domestic and wild birds — and has been detected on every continent except Australia. It has also jumped to mammals, and is responsible for killing at least 48 different species, including elephant seals, dolphins and sea lions.

    Researchers now believe this clade of H5N1 virus was introduced by birds to cattle at one site in the Texas Panhandle, and then spread by cattle-to-cattle transmission as cows were moved between different farms. Evidence also shows that infections have spread from cattle to domestic poultry. And samples have been discovered in wastewater.

    There have been 887 confirmed cases of H5N1 human infection across 23 countries since 2003. Of those, 462 were fatal. It is unclear if there were more mild cases that went undetected, something that could potentially reduce the 52% fatality rate.

    However, epidemiologists say HPAI is dangerous — and potentially fatal. Considering the global, cross-species spread of illness, they are urging people to be cautious and avoid raw milk.

    [ad_2]

    Susanne Rust

    Source link

  • Baby-Food Pouches Are Unavoidable

    Baby-Food Pouches Are Unavoidable

    [ad_1]

    On Sunday evening, I fed a bowl of salmon, broccoli, and rice to my eight-month-old son. Or rather, I attempted to. The fish went flying; greens and grains splattered across the walls. Half an hour later, bedtime drew near, and he hadn’t eaten a thing. Exasperated, I handed him a baby-food pouch—and he inhaled every last drop of apple-raspberry-squash-carrot mush.

    For harried parents like myself, baby pouches are a lifeline. These disposable plastic packets are sort of like Capri-Suns filled with blends of pureed fruits and vegetables: A screw-top cap makes for easy slurping, potentially even making supervision unnecessary. The sheer ease of baby pouches has made them hyper-popular—and not just for parents with infants who can’t yet eat table food. They are commonly fed to toddlers; even adults sometimes eat baby pouches.

    But after my son slurped up all the goo and quickly went to sleep, I felt more guilty than relieved. Giving him a pouch felt like giving up, or taking a shortcut. No parent has the time or energy to make healthy, homemade food all the time, but that doesn’t stop Americans from still thinking “they need to try harder,” Susan Persky, a behavioral scientist at the NIH who has studied parental guilt, told me. That can leave parents stuck between a pouch and a hard place.

    Baby pouches have practically become their own food group. These shelf-stable time-savers debuted in 2008, and now come in a staggering range of blends: Gerber sells a carrot, apple, and coriander version; another, from Sprout Organics, contains sweet potato, white bean, and cinnamon. Containing basically just fruits and veggies, pouches are generally seen as a “healthy” option for kids. A 2019 report found that the product accounts for roughly a quarter of baby-food sales. Around the same time, a report on children attending day care showed that pouches are included in more than a quarter of lunch boxes, and some kids get more than half their lunchtime nutrition from them.

    But pouches should be just a “sometimes food,” Courtney Byrd-Williams, a professor at the University of Texas’s Houston School of Public Health, told me. When you stack up their drawbacks, relying on them can really start to feel dispiriting. Although pouches are generally produce-based, they tend to have less iron than fortified cereal does and more added sugars than jarred baby food. Excess sweetness may encourage kids to eat more than necessary and could promote a sweet tooth that could later contribute to diet-related chronic disease.

    If consumed in excess, pouches may also get in the way of kids learning how to eat real food. Unlike jarred baby food, which tends to contain a single vegetable or several, pouches usually include fruit to mask the bitter with the sweet. “If we’re only giving them pouches,” Byrd-Williams said, “are they learning to like the vegetable taste?” And because the purees are slurped, they don’t give infants the opportunity to practice chewing, potentially delaying development. In 2019, the German Society for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine went so far as to issue a statement against baby pouches, warning that eating them may delay eating with a spoon or fingers.

    And then, the scariest scenario: Earlier this month, the CDC reported that hundreds of kids may have lead poisoning from pouches containing contaminated applesauce. Perhaps more troubling, a recent analysis by Consumer Reports found that even certain pouches on the market that weren’t implicated in the contamination scandal also contain unusually high levels of lead.

    Naturally, these concerns can make parents anxious. Online, caregivers fret that their reliance on the products might leave their child malnourished. Some worry that their kid will never learn how to eat solid food or figure out how to chew. Pouches, to be clear, are hardly a terrible thing to feed your kid. They can be a reliable way to get fruits and vegetables into picky kids, offering a convenience that is unrivaled.

    But pouch guilt doesn’t stem entirely from health concerns. By making parenting easier, they also are a reminder of what expectations parents aren’t meeting. I wanted to be the kind of mom who would consistently make my son home-cooked food and persevere through a tough meal, but on Sunday, I was just too exhausted. Guilt is a fact of life for many parents. Virtually anything can trigger it: going to work, staying at home, spending too much time on your phone, not buying supersoft bamboo baby clothes. If parents can have unrealistic standards about it, it’s fair game. “There’s just a lot of guilt about what parents should be doing,” Byrd-Williams said.

    But feeding children is especially fraught. Parents are often told what they should feed their children—breast milk, fresh produce—but never how to do so; they’re left to figure that out on their own. About 80 percent of mothers and fathers experience guilt around feeding, Persky told me—about giving their kids sugary or ultra-processed foods or caving to requests for junk. Guilt might be an impetus for better food choices, but Persky said she has found the opposite: Parents who are made to feel guilty about the way they feed their kids end up choosing less healthy foods. “It’s hard to parent when you’re struggling with self-worth,” she said.

    Pouch guilt has less to do with the products themselves and more to do with what they represent: convenience, ease, a moment of respite. Asking for a break conflicts with the core expectations of American parenthood, particularly motherhood. At every turn, parents are pressured to do more for their kids; on social media, momfluencers tout home-cooked baby food and meticulously styled birthday parties. The American mentality is that the “moral and correct way to do things is to have infinite willpower,” Persky said, and in this worldview, “shortcuts seem like an inherently bad thing.” Raising children is supposed to be about hard work and self-sacrifice—about pureeing carrots at home instead of buying them in a plastic packet. But when parents are constantly short on time, sometimes the best they can do is scrape together as much as they can, one squeeze pouch after another.

    [ad_2]

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • Yikes! Mother Goes Viral For Seeking Advice After Her Father-In-Law Unknowingly Drank Her Breast Milk

    Yikes! Mother Goes Viral For Seeking Advice After Her Father-In-Law Unknowingly Drank Her Breast Milk

    [ad_1]

    A mother on Reddit is going viral after seeking advice following a mishap with her breast milk.

    RELATED: Reese Witherspoon Responds To Fans Concerned She Consumed “Dirty” Snow In Viral TikTok (Video)

    Here’s What Happened With The Mother & Her Breast Milk

    On Wednesday, January 24, Reddit user @Admirable_Medicine71 took to the platform to share a discussion under a forum. The forum is titled “AITA,” which stands for “Am I the a**h**e?” and serves as a space for users to share real-life scenarios and ask fellow users if they’re “in the wrong,” per Golf Digest.

    In the forum, the mother explained that one of her children is fifteen months old. However, she is still nursing him and uses her breastmilk in his cereal and other recipes she makes for him.

    The mother shared that her in-laws are currently staying with her and her family.

    One day, she put her son and his high chair, fed him cereal, and “left him to his own devices.” Additionally, she explained that her father-in-law was also in the kitchen.

    When she returns, she finds her father-in-law finishing her son’s cereal.

    “I laughed a little but went along with my morning,” she continued.

    When she and her in-laws all sat down, her father-in-law commented on the milk in her son’s cereal “tasting weird.” He then asked if she noticed that the milk tasted off.

    “I then told him that he had breastmilk in his, our milk isn’t off,” she wrote.

    More Details On The Father-In-Law’s Reaction

    From there, the mother shared that her father-in-law looked like he was going to “keel over and vomit.” He then asked her why she watched him drink the milk without telling him it was her breast milk.

    The woman’s mother-in-law also agreed and explained how her husband usually “finishes’ everyones meals.”

    Additionally, the mother-in-law agreed that the woman should have been more forthcoming.

    “I do agree that I should have at least told him when he was eating but tbh I thought he saw me tip it from the bottle,” the woman went on to explain. ”

    My husband is on damage control and has agreed with all of us. He understands all povs etc.”

    Ultimately, the woman asked Reddit users, “aita for not telling them I make his cereal with breast milk?”

    Reddit Users Weigh In

    The woman’s post elicited thousands of responses from Reddit users. Some also believed that the woman should have been forthcoming with her father-in-law.

    Reddit user @Confident-Try20 wrote, “You’re not the AH for feeding your child but you are the AH because you saw FIL eating it and LAUGHED instead of saying something… You thought it was amusing….”

    While Reddit user @dishonestgandalf added, “Yeah, YTA. You didn’t have any obligation to warn him in advance or anything, but when you saw him eating it, you should have said something immediately.”

    While others disagreed.

    Reddit user @PanicAtTheGaslight wrote, “Nah, maybe FIL should stop eating other people’s food without asking. Serves him right.”

    While Reddit user @ILANAKBALL added, “Honestly who walks around someone’s house just finishing other people’s meals. Like it’s a freaking baby, get your own cereal lol. Also- a little breast milk isn’t gonna hurt him, it’s fine”

    Some Reddit users, such as @RubixRube, shared mixed opinions.

    “You should have told him immediately when you saw him eating your sons meal that he had breastmilk in the cereal. But also, what full grown adult just helps them to any and all food they just see laying around, especially a baby’s??”

    Roomies, what do you think about the mother’s viral mishap?

    RELATED: Whew! 26-Year-Old Goes Viral After Opening Up About Constantly Being Mistaken For An Older Age (WATCH)

    [ad_2]

    Jadriena Solomon

    Source link

  • Say No to Fish for Five Years Before Pregnancy  | NutritionFacts.org

    Say No to Fish for Five Years Before Pregnancy  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Advisories telling pregnant women to cut down on fish consumption may be too late for certain persistent pollutants. 

    If you intentionally expose people to mercury by feeding them fish (like tuna) for 14 weeks, the level of mercury in their bloodstream goes up, as you can see in the graph below and at 0:14 in my video Avoiding Fish for Five Years Before Pregnancy. As soon as they stop eating fish, it drops back down such that they can detox by half in about 100 days. (So, the half-life of total mercury in our blood is approximately 100 days.) Even if you eat a lot of fish, within a few months of stopping, you can clear much of the mercury out of your blood. But what about your brain? 

    The results from modeling studies are all over the place, providing “some extreme estimates (69 days vs. 22 years).” When put to the test, though, autopsy findings suggest the half-life may be even longer still at 27.4 years. Once mercury gets in our brains, it can be decades before our body can get rid of even half of it. So, better than detoxing is not “toxing” in the first place. 

    That’s the problem with advisories that tell pregnant women to cut down on fish intake. For pollutants with long half-lives, such as PCBs and dioxins, “temporary fish advisory-related decreases in daily contaminant intake will not necessarily translate to appreciable decreases in maternal POP [persistent organic pollutant] body burdens,” which help determine the dose the baby gets. 

    Consider this: As you can see in the graph below and at 1:32 in my video, an infant may be exposed to a tumor-promoting pollutant called PCB 153 if their mom ate fish. But if mom ate only half the fish or no fish at all for one year, levels wouldn’t budge much. A substantial drop in infant exposure levels may only be seen if the mom had cut out all fish for five years before getting pregnant. That is the “fish consumption caveat.” “[T]he only scenarios that produced a significant impact on children’s exposures required mothers to eliminate fish from their diets for 5 years before their children were conceived. The model predicted that substituting produce for fish would reduce prenatal and breastfeeding exposures by 37% each and subsequent childhood exposures by 23%.” So, “a complete ban on fish consumption may be preferable to targeted, life stage–based fish consumption advisories…” 

    If you are going to eat fish, though, which is less polluted—wild-caught or farmed fish? In a recent study, researchers measured the levels of pesticides, such as DDT, PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and toxic elements, such as mercury and lead, in a large sample of farmed and wild-caught seafood. In general, they found that farmed fish were worse. Think of the suspect as farmed and dangerous. The measured levels of most organic and many inorganic pollutants were higher in the farmed seafood products and, consequently, so were the intake levels for the consumer if such products were consumed. For example, as you can see in the graphs below and at 3:09 in my video, there was significantly more contamination by polycyclic hydrocarbons, persistent pesticides, and PCBs in all of the farmed fish samples, including the salmon and seabass (though it didn’t seem to matter for crayfish), and the wild-caught mussels were actually worse. If you split adult and child consumers into those only eating farmed seafood or only eating wild-caught seafood, the level of pollutant exposure was significantly worse with the farmed seafood.  

    Overall, the researchers, who were Spanish, investigated a total of 59 pollutants and toxic elements. They concluded: “Taking all these data as a whole, and based on the rates of consumption of fish and seafood of the Spanish population, our results indicate that a theoretical consumer who chose to consume only aquaculture [farmed] products would be exposed to levels of pollutants investigated about twice higher than if this theoretical consumer had chosen only products from extractive fisheries [wild-caught fish].” So, when it comes to pollutants, you could eat twice the amount of fish if you stuck to wild-caught. That’s easier said than done, though. Mislabeling rates for fish and other seafood in the United States are between 30 and 38 percent, so the average fraud rate is around one in three.  

    In my previous video on this topic, How Long to Detox from Fish Before Pregnancy, I mentioned a study that suggests detoxing from fish for one year to lower mercury levels, but other pollutants take longer to leave our system. 

    For optimum brain development, consider a pollutant-free source of omega-3 fatty acids. Check out Should Vegan Women Supplement with DHA during Pregnancy?. 

    Aside from pollutants, there are other reasons we may want to avoid excessive amounts of animal protein. See Flashback Friday: The Effect of Animal Protein on Stress Hormones, Testosterone, and Pregnancy.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Certain proteins in breast milk found to be essential for a baby’s healthy gut

    Certain proteins in breast milk found to be essential for a baby’s healthy gut

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — More than 320 million years of mammalian evolution has adapted breast milk to meet all the physiological needs of babies: it contains not only nutrients, but also hormones, antimicrobials, digestive enzymes, and growth factors. Furthermore, many of the proteins in breast milk, for example casein and milk fat globule membrane proteins, aren’t just sources of energy and molecular building blocks, but also directly stimulate immunity, at least under preclinical conditions.

    Likewise, the gut microbiome, composed of bacteria, archaea, and fungi, plays a vital role in the regulation of the immune system. This raises the possibility that the immune-boosting function of breast milk proteins might be two-pronged: not only by stimulating the immune system directly, but also indirectly, by regulating the abundance of gut microbes which in turn impact immunity. 

    Now, a study by Chinese researchers in Frontiers in Microbiology finds the first evidence for the latter, roundabout, immunity-regulating function of breast milk proteins. The authors showed that variation in the protein composition of breast milk between mothers explains much of the variation in the abundance of key beneficial microbes in the gut of their babies, suggesting a regulatory role of these proteins on the immune function of the gut microbiome in humans. 

    “Here we show that the concentration of certain proteins in human breast milk predicts the abundance of specific gut microorganisms in infants, which are known to be important necessary for health,” said joint senior author Dr Ignatius Man-Yau Szeto from the Yili Maternal and Infant Nutrition Institute in Beijing. “These findings suggest that maternal proteins play a role in the early immune and metabolic development of immunity of babies.”

    Szeto and colleagues studied the association between the protein composition of 23 Chinese mothers – measured by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry – and the diversity and abundance of beneficial gut microbes in the stools of their infants, determined through rRNA sequencing and quantitative real-time PCR.

    Focus on nine proteins

    “We focused on nine milk proteins, including osteopontin, lactalbumin, and κ-casein, because these were recently found to benefit the early development of infants. Their function and mechanisms haven’t yet been fully discovered, so we wanted to examine their potential role in regulating the microbiome of infants,” said co-senior author Dr Ai Zhao from Tsinghua University.

    The concentration of proteins in breast milk was 1.6% at 42 days after delivery, and 1.2% at three months after delivery. The most abundant proteins were casein, α-lactalbumin, and lactoferrin. Except for immunoglobulin A (an antibody important for the immune function of mucous membranes), the concentration of all studied proteins decreased from 42 days to three months post-partum. The gut microbiome of the babies was mainly composed of the bacterial genera BifidobacteriumEscherichiaStreptococcus, and Enterobacter.

    Link to probiotics

    The researchers found the strongest associations between the concentrations of breast milk proteins and two beneficial bacteria that were relatively rare within the gut microbiome of the babies: Clostridium butyricum and Parabacteroides distasonis, both used as probiotics for humans and domestic animals.

    For example, variation in the concentration of κ-casein in mother’s milk explained much of the variation in abundance of C. butyricum in the gut of their babies, while variation in the concentration of osteopontin explained much of the variation in abundance of P. distasonis. The first of these bacteria is known to regulate gut homeostasis and combat inflammatory bowel disease. The second, to counter diabetes, colorectal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease.

    “The results of this study suggest that specific proteins in breast milk can influence the abundance of certain gut microbes in infants, playing an important role in early immune and metabolic development,” concluded the authors.

    The authors cautioned that further studies are necessary.

    “Our findings are based on correlations, which are not enough to establish a direct causal effect. Future cohort studies and clinical trials, where breast milk or formula is fortified with functional proteins are needed to prove this,” said Szeto.

    ###                                                                                                

     

    For editors / news media:

     

    Please link to the open access original research article “Functional proteins in breast milk and their correlation with the development of the infant gut microbiota: A study of mother-infant pairs” in Frontiers in Microbiology in your reporting: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1239501/full

     

    [ad_2]

    Frontiers

    Source link

  • Yes, You Can Donate Your Extra Breast Milk And You Should. Here’s Why.

    Yes, You Can Donate Your Extra Breast Milk And You Should. Here’s Why.

    [ad_1]

    When Elisabeth Anderson-Sierra was pregnant with her first child, her breasts began leaking at around 12 to 14 weeks. Since it was her first pregnancy, she chalked it up to hormones, figuring this was just another weird thing a body does when growing a baby.

    The leaking not only persisted, but increased. Her midwives reassured her that leaking is normal. When she complained of discomfort, they recommended she use a hand pump to relieve the pressure.

    By the time she reached the halfway mark in her pregnancy (20 weeks), she was pumping and storing 20-30 ounces per day — enough to exclusively feed an infant. When she explained the situation to her medical providers, “they thought I meant milliliters,” Anderson-Sierra told HuffPost.

    It wasn’t until one of her midwives came to her home for a post-birth checkup that they realized how much milk she had been “leaking.” When the midwife asked how breastfeeding was going, Anderson-Sierra proudly showed her the full freezer. Then she showed her the extra freezer out in the garage, also filled with bags of her frozen milk.

    Anderson-Sierra was referred to specialists and checked for conditions that can influence milk production, such as a tumor in the pituitary gland. Her pituitary gland was enlarged, and her prolactin (a hormone necessary for milk production) was high, but no other causes of her condition or threats to her health were found. The diagnosis? Hyperlactation syndrome, which means exactly what the name suggests: She was simply producing an unbelievable amount of milk.

    Doctors told her that after a few months, her pituitary gland would likely shrink back down to its normal size and her milk production would regulate.

    Nine years later, Anderson-Sierra is a mother of three ― an 8-year-old, a 6-year-old and a 9-month-old ― and holds the world record for the largest donation of breast milk by an individual. She has been producing milk continuously this entire time, simply by pumping as often as she needs to to relieve her discomfort. In addition to nursing her baby, Anderson-Sierra pumps five times a day. She uses a portable, hands-free pump that allows her to express milk while going about her daily activities.

    “I haven’t gotten a day off since I was pregnant with my first,” she said.

    This unforeseeable turn of events has turned Anderson-Sierra into a bit of a celebrity. She is an advocate for milk donation, as well as a spokesperson for the pump she uses.

    A frequent blood donor before she became pregnant, Anderson-Sierra was happy to oblige when her midwifery clinic suggested she could donate some of her milk for new moms who needed to supplement. She is proud of the thousands of ounces she has donated to a milk bank serving primarily premature infants (whose birthing parents often have a difficult time producing milk, and who are particularly vulnerable to an intestinal infection that a breast milk diet can help prevent).

    But her condition is exceedingly rare, and is accompanied by significant downsides. In addition to the incessant discomfort and the need to pump, Anderson-Sierra believes her high prolactin levels may have led to the several miscarriages she’s experienced. (Some research shows there can be a link between the two.) She’s also had multiple bouts of mastitis, a painful infection of the breast tissue, and at one point was hospitalized for it.

    Where holistic remedies are concerned, Anderson-Sierra has done “every single thing under the sun that you can typically do to dry up supply.” She has tried taking medications that can be used off-label as prolactin blockers, but she stopped due to side effects like severe headaches, heart palpitations and tremors. More recently, she and her doctors have discussed performing a mastectomy to remove the breast where she has had recurring mastitis.

    While the experience has been a burden in many ways, Anderson-Sierra says it’s been “humbling” to be able to donate milk. She has found it especially meaningful to give her milk to local families and build relationships with them. “Some of our kids have grown up together,” she said.

    Parents help other parents in informal milk sharing arrangements.

    At the other end of the spectrum are parents who struggle to produce enough milk to feed their babies. Breastfeeding advocates are quick to note that while many people worry about having low milk supply, few of them actually have it. (There isn’t a lot of data, but some studies suggest 10% to 15% of lactating parents are affected.)

    There are a number of reasons a person might experience insufficient milk supply ― some more treatable than others. When an infant needs some extra nutrition for a few days or weeks while a parent builds up their supply, or on a more permanent basis, they are usually fed infant formula, which is clean, safe and (usually) readily available.

    But in recent years, social media has expanded the prevalence of informal milk sharing arrangements, like the ones Anderson-Sierra had with her midwifery clinic and local families. Facebook groups such as Human Milk 4 Human Babies facilitate these relationships. A person who’s looking for milk or has milk to donate can post in the group to find a donor or donee. (Selling milk is prohibited by these groups, but it does sometimes occur in other online forums.)

    A typical donor is someone who has accumulated a modest stash of breast milk in their home freezer that they don’t foresee their own baby using, and they’d prefer to give it to someone who needs it, rather than throwing away something they worked so hard to collect.

    Informal milk-sharing arrangements can take place online, but they also come into being organically when one parent reaches out to help another.

    This was the case for Amanda Freeman, who used donor milk to some extent to feed each of her three children. Her first baby was given donor milk in the hospital. Freeman told HuffPost she was “sent home with instructions to supplement with formula, but I didn’t want to do that. I was crying about this to a work associate and she offered me the milk in her freezer.”

    “Then she told me about human milk sharing,” Freeman said. “I found a donor on Facebook and she was local to me and donated milk to my baby and several others for the next nine months.”

    Joanna Gagne, a mom in Ohio, was led to donor milk by her midwife. When her son struggled to gain weight early on, Gagne tried pumping, taking supplements and eating foods known to boost milk supply, but nothing worked.

    She personally wanted another option aside from supplementing with formula.

    “My midwife knew my concerns and reached out to some ladies who had birthed around the same time I did,” Gagne told HuffPost.

    Just hours after first discussing the possibility of donor milk with her midwife, “I cried with relief while I gave my son his first bottle of donor milk,” Gagne said. ’I knew he would be OK, and that our breastfeeding efforts were not over.”

    Gagne’s baby received milk from four different moms over the next several months.

    “It gave me a whole new outlook on the phrase ‘It takes a village to raise a child,’” she said. “I’m so grateful to these women who spent hours pumping while caring for their own babies so that my son could benefit from their milk.”

    Parents who adopt or use surrogates also sometimes look for donor milk to feed their babies.

    There are some challenges to hunting down donor milk for your child when you’re doing so informally (not purchasing milk from a milk bank). Demand is generally much greater than supply, so finding a donor in the first place can be tricky. You also need to be comfortable with a certain level of risk, taking donors at their word when you discuss things like the age of the milk and any medications they take.

    Because breast milk can transmit viruses, and milk collection and storage introduce the possibility of bacterial contamination, the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend the use of milk procured via informal milk sharing.

    But for some families, the benefits of donor milk outweigh these challenges and risks.

    Rosalie Kmiec is a mother of three. Her youngest child, Goldie, was born with a heart condition and required surgery early on for a gastrointestinal issue.

    “The fancy German formula that I spent so much time researching caused her gas and discomfort. She cried and struggled to finish bottles. My husband encouraged me to seek out donors and now she is thriving,” Kmiec told HuffPost. “She is growing so quickly that her doctors think she is big enough to get her open heart surgery repair next month.”

    “Without donor milk I’m not sure that she would be thriving and gaining so well due to her GI condition,” she added. “Goldie just turned 3 months old, and I hope to keep her on donor milk for as long as possible.”

    Milk banks collect donor milk and prepare it for use by preterm infants.

    Donations to milk banks typically involve more restrictions. The milk is pasteurized and tends to be given via doctor’s prescription to premature infants residing in hospital NICUs, although it can also be purchased by individual families.

    There are 32 milk banks that are members of the Human Milk Banking Association of North America. Mother’s Milk Bank in California is one of them. The bank accepts donations that consist of at least 100 ounces of milk “up to 6 months from the day of expression,” according to their website. They have sent milk to 80% of the NICUs in California, as well as others out of state.

    Donors working with Mother’s Milk Bank complete a screening questionnaire, share information about their health history and lifestyle and submit to blood testing. All fees for bloodwork and shipping costs are covered by the milk bank.

    Mya Morenzoni and her daughter, Aria. Aria was born at 27 weeks and received a milk fortifier made with donated human milk during her NICU stay.

    Mya Morenzoni’s daughter, Aria, received a milk fortifier, a nutritional supplement providing extra calories, during her NICU stay after her birth at 27 weeks. Morenzoni felt lucky to be able to produce colostrum, or early breast milk, to give her daughter while she stayed in the NICU. She was also grateful for the availability of a milk fortifier made from donor milk. (Other fortifiers use a cow’s milk base, like infant formula is made from.)

    “As a nurse I knew a lot about breast milk and its benefits and so I was glad that I was able to get her that, but then I knew that with her coming so much earlier, of course, being an incubator and all of those factors, she needed additional calories, and so I was really glad that she was able to have the fortifier,” Morenzoni told HuffPost.

    She’s grateful to the women who donated the milk that was made into the fortifier her daughter received.

    “We especially appreciate the moms that have extra and are willing to share. It’s just a special superpower that they have,” she said, calling milk donation “one gift that literally keeps on giving and benefiting so many other lives.”

    How to find donor milk if you’re in need.

    If your baby was born preterm and is in the NICU, or has another medical condition, speak to your doctor about the possibility of receiving donor milk from a milk bank. They may be able to write a prescription for the milk.

    You can find a milk bank in the directory of the Human Milk Banking Association of North America.

    If you have a healthy, full-term baby for whom you wish to purchase donor milk from a milk bank, contact the bank directly. Some banks will limit the amount of milk you can purchase without a prescription, or not allow any purchase without one. At the Mother’s Milk Bank in California, the limit is 40 ounces. The Northwest Mothers Milk Bank does not allow anyone to purchase milk without a prescription. The New York Milk Bank sells donor milk to families for $4.90 an ounce, to offset the costs of processing and preparing the milk. Note that HMBANA milk banks are nonprofits, and donors are not paid for their milk.

    If you are looking for donor milk via an informal arrangement, you might start by asking local midwives or posting a request on local parent groups. You can find local milk sharing groups via Human Milk 4 Human Babies.

    In 2017, the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine published a paper suggesting guidelines for screening potential milk donors for healthy, full-term infants via informal milk sharing. They suggest that donors:

    • be in good health
    • be only on medications compatible with breastfeeding
    • test negative for HIV, hepatitis B, and HTLV-1 (in high-prevalence areas)
    • not be at risk for HIV, or have had a partner at risk for HIV in the previous year
    • not smoke
    • not use marijuana or illegal drugs
    • drink no more than approximately one alcoholic beverage per day (they suggest the following as limits: 1.5 ounces of hard liquor/spirits, 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 10 ounces of wine coolers)

    The paper discourages purchasing human milk or accepting anonymous donations.

    In addition, you will want to know when the milk was pumped and how it has been stored. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that “within 6 months is best, up to 12 months is acceptable.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Zero Lead Is an Impossible Ask for American Parents

    Zero Lead Is an Impossible Ask for American Parents

    [ad_1]

    Over the past eight months, I’ve spent a mind-boggling amount of time and money trying to keep an invisible poison at bay. It started at my daughter’s 12-month checkup, when her pediatrician told me she had a concerning amount of lead in her blood. The pediatrician explained that, at high levels, lead can irreversibly damage children’s nervous system, brain, and other organs, and that, at lower levels, it’s associated with learning disabilities, behavior problems, and other developmental delays. On the drive home, I looked at my baby in her car seat and cried.

    The pediatrician told me that we needed to get my daughter’s lead level down. But when I began to try to find out where it was coming from, I learned that lead can be found in any number of places: baby food, house paint, breast milk, toys, cumin powder. And it’s potent. A small amount of lead dust—equal to one sweetener packet—would make an entire football field “hazardous” by the EPA’s standards.

    My husband and I spent nearly $12,000 removing highly contaminated soil from our backyard, replacing old windows, and sealing an old claw-foot bathtub. We mopped the floors at night, obsessively washed our daughter’s hands, and made sure to feed her plenty of iron, calcium, and vitamin C, which are thought to help limit the body’s absorption of lead. Four months later, when we went back to the pediatrician, her lead levels had sunk from 3.9 micrograms per deciliter of blood to 2.2 mcg/dL. That was better, but still far from zero. And according to the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the Mayo Clinic, zero is the only safe amount of lead.

    We’re one of thousands of families who have gone through that ordeal this year. At least 300,000 American children have blood lead levels above 3.5 mcg/dL, the CDC’s so-called reference value. But parents are largely left on their own to get lead out of their kids’ lives. Families who can afford an abundance of caution can sink tens of thousands of dollars into the project. And they still might never hit zero.

    When Suz Garrett learned that her 1-year-old son, Orrin, had four micrograms of lead in every deciliter of his blood, she and her husband waited for guidance from their doctor or the county health department, but none came. So they sent Orrin to stay with family while they repainted their 19th-century Richmond, Virginia, house and covered the open soil with mulch. Band-Aids like these are cost-effective, but every time you pry open an old window, or your dog tracks in dirt from the neighbors’ yard, invisible specks of lead dust can build up again.

    For nearly a year, the Garretts cleaned religiously. Orrin’s blood levels are still detectable—currently, he’s at 2.1 mcg/dL. Garrett and her husband are fed up. In a few months they’re moving to a new house, one they took out a $200,000 construction loan to renovate. “We ended up gutting it so we would know there’s no lead paint,” Garrett said.

    A few years ago, children like Orrin Garrett and my daughter wouldn’t have been a cause for concern. Until 2012, children were identified as having a blood lead “level of concern” at 10 mcg/dL or more. But for the past decade, the CDC has used a reference value to identify children who have more lead in their blood than most others. The reference number is based on statistics, not health outcomes. When most children tested below 5 mcg/dL, the reference level was five. Today, it is 3.5.

    The reference level has trended down along with lead exposure, which has dropped by 95 percent since the 1970s thanks to policies that removed lead from gasoline, paint, plumbing, and food. But confusion and concern about what classifies as lead poisoning has risen.

    Scientists and public-health officials still can’t say exactly how low lead exposure needs to be to prevent damage for any individual child. When Kim Dietrich, an epidemiologist and a developmental neuropsychologist, started his career in the ’70s, the general consensus was that levels above 40 to 60 micrograms took a significant toll on the developing brain. But work by Dietrich and others showed that harm can be caused at much lower levels. In the early 2000s, pooled data from seven large studies from around the world, including one Dietrich conducted in Cincinnati, showed that an increase in children’s blood-lead concentration from 2.4 to just 10 mcg/dL corresponded with a four-point drop in their IQ. That’s a scary prospect. But, Dietrich told me, “it’s very important not to confuse findings from these large population-level studies with individual impacts.”

    Discerning the effect of low lead levels—below about 10 mcg/dL—on cognitive health is an extremely complicated issue. “If you’ve got a blood alcohol content of 0.2, you’re likely to be horribly dangerous behind the wheel no matter who you are. Lead is a little bit different. Your child’s two might be worse than my child’s 10,” Gabriel Filippelli, a biogeochemist who studies lead exposure in urban environments, told me. Part of the variation in outcomes could be the result of factors we still don’t understand, like a child’s genetic makeup.

    Policing low levels of lead exposure in children costs parents both financially and emotionally. Mary Jean Brown, the former chief of the CDC’s Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, told me that concerned parents should be careful not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. “Most children will not exhibit any symptoms when they have blood levels of 5 or 10 micrograms per deciliter,” she told me. But “if the mother or someone else says, ‘Johnny’s not like everybody else,’ pretty soon, Johnny isn’t like everybody else.”

    This type of anxiety is familiar to Tanisha Bowman, a health-care worker in Pittsburgh who has spent nearly three years trying to lower her daughter’s blood lead levels. They initially peaked at 20 mcg/dL, and have ranged from two to six over the past year. “There was never anything wrong with her. She was always measuring four to six months ahead,” Bowman said. But it was impossible not to read scary headlines about lead and assume they applied to her daughter. When she had tantrums around the age of 2, Bowman started wondering if she had ADHD, which is sometimes associated with lead exposure. “I will never know what impact, if any, this had on her. And nobody will ever be able to tell me,” she said. (Bowman’s daughter has had no diagnosis related to lead.)

    In the absence of a specific, outcome-based number to help parents decide when to worry, a mantra has emerged among doctors, reporters, and health institutions: There is no safe level of lead. Filippelli said that he’s used the catchphrase, but it’s a bit misleading. “There is no valid research source to support the ‘No amount of lead exposure is safe’ idea, beyond that fact that to avoid the potential of harm, you should avoid exposure,” he explained in an email.

    As well intentioned as the guidance might be, avoiding all exposure is an impossible quest. Tricia Gasek, a mother of three who lives in New Jersey, tried desperately to locate the source of lead in her children’s blood. She spent $1,000 hiring a “lead detective” to test her home with an XRF device and getting consultations with experts, plus another $600 replacing leaded lights on the front door. Ultimately, she learned that she also had elevated levels and concluded that the lead in her son’s blood was coming from her breast milk—possibly, her doctors thought, from exposure she had as a child. The process was exhausting. “It’s just crazy. Why am I the one figuring all this out?” she says.

    Parents simply can’t get to zero without help. Lead is invisible and pervasive. Although the Flint, Michigan, water crisis and recent product recalls have raised awareness about lead leaching from corroding pipes and hiding inside baby food, the biggest sources of exposure for children are the spaces where they live and play: inside houses and apartments with old, degrading paint and yards with contaminated soil. For many, there is no easy escape. Lead contamination is most common in low-income neighborhoods, which means Black and Hispanic kids are disproportionately affected.

    Many local health departments, including the one where I live, offer home visits to help identify sources of lead, but in many cases only when levels are above 10 mcg/dL. So the majority of children with elevated lead levels receive little or no assistance at all, and families have to play detective, social worker, and home remodeler all at once.

    This is paradoxical, because the problem of low-level lead exposure cannot be solved by focusing on one child or one home at a time. My family’s efforts helped lower our daughter’s lead levels slightly, but they did nothing to address the more widespread problem of lead in our neighborhood, to which she and all the other children nearby are still exposed. Instead of having every lead-exposed family play whack-a-mole in their own home, Filippelli says that if he were appointed czar of lead, he would do a national analysis of high-risk neighborhoods and households, perform targeted testing to confirm hazards, and remediate at scale. There would have to be coordination between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency, and such programs could cost up to $1 trillion and take a decade. But, he says, we could significantly reduce lead exposure across the board. The trickle-down effects of half a million children becoming smarter, healthier adults would reach everyone, even if we can’t say exactly how much smarter or healthier they’d be.

    For now, my family is still navigating this maze on our own. I’m trying to think of low-level lead exposure as a risk factor—like air pollution and forever chemicals—instead of a diagnosis. Meanwhile, my daughter is doing just fine. As a family, we’ll continue to avoid what lead we can; we’ve decided to spend a whopping $25,000 to repaint the chipping exterior of our house. But we’re still going to let our kid play at the park and climb the walls. After all, there’s no stopping her.

    [ad_2]

    Lauren Silverman

    Source link

  • A Radical Idea to Split Parenting Equally

    A Radical Idea to Split Parenting Equally

    [ad_1]

    While her wife was pregnant with their son, Aimee MacDonald took an unusual step of preparing her own body for the baby’s arrival. First she began taking hormones, and then for six weeks straight, she pumped her breasts day and night every two to three hours. This process tricked her body into a pregnant and then postpartum state so she could make breast milk. By the time the couple’s son arrived, she was pumping 27 ounces a day—enough to feed a baby—all without actually getting pregnant or giving birth.

    And so, after a 38-hour labor and emergency C-section, MacDonald’s wife could do what many mothers who just gave birth might desperately want to but cannot: rest, sleep, and recover from surgery. Meanwhile, MacDonald tried nursing their baby. She held him to her breast, and he latched right away. Over the next 15 months, the two mothers co-nursed their son, switching back and forth, trading feedings in the middle of the night. MacDonald had breastfed her older daughter the usual way—as in, by herself—a decade earlier, and she remembered the bone-deep exhaustion. She did not want that for her wife. Inducing lactation meant they could share in the ups and the downs of breastfeeding together.

    MacDonald, who lives in a small town in Nova Scotia, had never met anyone who had tried this before. People she told were routinely shocked to learn that induced lactation—making milk without pregnancy—is biologically possible. They had so many questions: Was it safe? Did she have side effects? How did it even work? But when she described how she and her wife shared nursing duties, many women told her, “I wish I had had that.”

    Induced lactation wasn’t initially developed for co-nursing. Mothers who wanted to breastfeed their adoptive babies were the first to experiment with hormones and pumping. But over time, the few experts who specialize in induced lactation told me, that has given way to more queer couples who want to share or swap nursing duties. Early in her career, Alyssa Schnell, a lactation consultant in St. Louis who herself breastfed her adopted daughter 17 years ago, found that when she suggested to same-sex couples that the non-birthing partner might try nursing, “they would be horrified.” The idea that a woman would nurse a baby she did not give birth to—common in the era of wet nurses—had become strange in our era of off-the-shelf formula. Now parents are coming to her asking to induce lactation, and more of them are interested in co-nursing.

    About a quarter of all babies in the U.S. are breastfed exclusively for six months; more than half are breastfed at least some of the time. The statistics don’t say by whom, but that’s because they don’t need to. We can assume it’s virtually always their birthing mother. Even with the help of formula, the pressure around or preference for breastfeeding means that, in many families, the work of feeding falls disproportionately on one parent. But induced lactation decouples breastfeeding from birth. By manipulating biology, parents who co-nurse are testing the limits of just how equal a relationship can truly be.


    Breastfeeding is hard work, even when it’s “natural.” Adding induced lactation is harder work still. MacDonald was putting herself on a newborn schedule weeks before her baby was even born. She pumped at home. She pumped at work. She even pumped while her wife was in labor, because skipping sessions can cause milk supply to drop. As Diane Spatz, a lactation expert at the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, puts it, “You have to start pumping like a wild person.”

    MacDonald followed a version of the Newman-Goldfarb protocol, named after a pediatrician and an adoptive mother who documented and shared the process in 2000. In addition to pumping, the protocol includes birth control, which causes a surge of progesterone and estrogen akin to pregnancy hormones, and a drug called domperidone, which boosts the milk hormone prolactin. Together they biochemically prime the body for milk production. It’s unusual, Schnell told me, for a woman inducing lactation to make enough milk to feed a baby all on her own—unless she’s breastfed before, like MacDonald had—but it’s also unusual to make no milk at all.

    In the U.S., getting domperidone can be a challenge. Though the drug is widely available in Canada, Australia, and Europe, the FDA has banned it in the United States, citing the risk of abnormal heart rhythms and even death. But these heart problems have shown up only in the elderly, foreign experts have noted, and Australian scientists concluded in a 2019 review that domperidone is safe for lactation, as long as women are screened for heart conditions. But in the U.S., parents usually aren’t taking it under the supervision of a doctor. They might buy pills with a prescription at a Canadian pharmacy or surreptitiously order the drug online through overseas pharmacies. “There was a brief moment when you could only buy it in Bitcoin,” says Lauren Vallone, whose partner, Robin Berryman, induced lactation so that they could co-nurse their daughter, who was born in 2020.

    Inducing lactation felt like a DIY project to Vallone and Berryman. As a queer couple trying to start a family, though, they were also used to doing things a different way. They eventually reached out to Schnell for guidance, but they also swapped tips in a Facebook support group that had a wealth of anecdotal advice. Not that most doctors would have been helpful. Even the idea that one can breastfeed without having been pregnant isn’t widely known, Spatz told me. “Nurses are surprised about that,” she said. “Physicians don’t know that.”

    Vallone and Berryman planned to divide nursing duties 50/50, but they didn’t know exactly what that would look like. Would they trade off every other feeding? Would one nurse while the other pumped? What about when one parent went back to work? “There’s stories of people who have induced lactation, but then there’s no, like, ‘Well, what does your day look like?’” Vallone told me. They had no script to follow, so they could write their own. They envisioned giving themselves equal roles from the start, much like how many same-sex couples share a more equal division of labor, because they do not come in with the gender baggage of a heterosexual relationship.

    What Vallone and Berryman did not want was to lapse into the roles that they watched their friends fall into, where the birthing parent becomes the breastfeeding parent becomes the default parent. The arrival of a new baby is a delicate time in any relationship—for many reasons, but in no small part because it disrupts whatever division of labor was previously agreed upon. Here is a tiny helpless human, along with a mountain of new tasks necessary to keep them alive. If the baby is breastfed, now a large share of that labor can be done by only one parent. In her case against breastfeeding in The Atlantic in 2009, Hanna Rosin described how that initial inequality persists and festers over the years: “She alone fed the child, so she naturally knows better how to comfort the child, so she is the better judge to pick a school for the child and the better nurse when the child is sick, and so on.” But what if—under very specific circumstances at least—breastfeeding did not fall solely on one parent? What if instead of parenthood starting off on unequal footing, it could be perfectly equal from the very beginning?


    For a while, Vallone and Berryman did trade off feedings, and both continued to pump, because they worried that their milk supplies would drop. They tracked every ounce in a shared spreadsheet. (This careful data logging actually allowed Schnell to write a case study about the couple.) The pumping eventually became too much—they couldn’t sleep if they were pumping!—but they have kept co-nursing for two years now.

    From the early days, they saw that nursing not only nourished their baby but also soothed her when she cried, made her sleepy when she was tired but fussy. So the work of not just feeding but all-round caregiving fell on them more equally. In the morning, they could alternate one person waking up early with the baby, the other sleeping in. At night, one parent could go out with friends without racing home for bedtime or pumping a bottle of breast milk for the other to feed. Because they could each provide everything their baby wanted, they were also each freer. Breastfeeding simultaneously deepened their relationships with their baby and allowed them a life outside of that. “You really get a sense of how radical it is to have caretaking split so evenly,” Vallone said. The couple is now trying for their second child, which Berryman plans to carry. They plan to co-nurse again.

    Vallone and Berryman did, however, run into an unexpected obstacle to their co-nursing: their baby. She at one point refused to nurse on Vallone, the birthing parent, and wanted to nurse only on Berryman. Any parent is probably familiar with how babies can develop seemingly arbitrary preferences: breast over bottle, left breast over right breast, even. As they get older, toddlers, too, go through periods of wanting only one parent or another to feed, clothe, bathe, or comfort them. In this case—as in many cases—Vallone and Berryman had to be deliberate about returning to a more even state. At its most intense, Berryman would sleep away from the baby in another room; it got better over time, but it also sometimes got worse. Equality did not come easily even with two nursing parents, which perhaps isn’t surprising. The advent of formula did not magically render all marriages equal. Vallone and Berryman still had to work toward keeping their co-nursing relationship as balanced as possible. Dividing work is also, well, work.

    Not all couples who induce lactation end up splitting breastfeeding evenly. Some are not able to, and some don’t even want to. For example, one parent might choose to carry the baby while the other takes on breastfeeding. Some of the women I spoke with were primarily motivated to induce lactation to pass along their antibodies in breast milk, or to physically bond with a baby they did not carry. Even for those who never made more than a few of the roughly 25 ounces a baby typically needs every day, being able to comfort nurse—when a baby sucks more for soothing than for nourishment—was meaningful. They could nurse their baby to sleep or calm them when upset. It brought the parents closer together too: Although inducing lactation is not equivalent to pregnancy, both parents felt like their bodies were preparing for a baby together. And later, they could troubleshoot a bad latch or clogged duct together. Breastfeeding can be an isolating experience when one parent is attached to a baby eight times a day and the other looks on a bit helplessly; co-nursing made it less so.

    Because induced lactation has flown under the radar of mainstream science for so long, a lot remains unknown. A couple of small studies suggest that the protein and sugar content of induced breast milk is in the normal range, but detailed experiments into, for example, the mix of antibodies have never been done. And why are some women inducing lactation able to produce more than others? Schnell has noticed that those who have struggled with infertility or hormonal balances usually make less milk. She has worked with trans women, too, who are able to make milk, though usually not in large amounts. Men, theoretically, could lactate as well; early studies into domperidone actually noted this as a side effect. There are anecdotal reports of men breastfeeding infants, but there’s virtually no research into the phenomenon.

    One mother I interviewed, Morgan Lage, told me that her experience inducing lactation to breastfeed her daughter inspired her to train as a lactation consultant, and she hopes now to fill in some of the many unknowns. The Newman-Goldfarb protocol is widely used as the template for anyone attempting induced lactation, but no one has rigorously studied the optimal time to initiate pumping or birth control. Lage started pumping earlier than the protocol suggested, and she wonders if that’s why she was able to have a full milk supply despite never having breastfed before. She loved nursing her daughter. She loved feeling “just as important and needed” in the fleeting, precious period of infancy.

    I know what Lage means about feeling needed, though perhaps because I breastfed solo—as most mothers do—I did not always love it. Still, I remember staring at my baby’s eyelashes and toes, marveling at how nearly every molecule in her body came from mine. We did supplement with formula, too, in part because we wanted my husband to be involved in her feeding. Although the bottle satisfied her hunger, it did not always satisfy some primal need for comfort. During her most inconsolable nights, my husband would spend hours trying to soothe her with every trick in the book, only for her to fall quiet and asleep the minute I nursed her. This frustrated us both. To be needed this way was a burden and a joy. I was sorry, for both of us, that we could not share it.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

  • Legal action can be taken against companies selling ‘mother’s milk’ under dairy license: Govt

    Legal action can be taken against companies selling ‘mother’s milk’ under dairy license: Govt

    [ad_1]

    The government has taken a tough stand against the sale of “mother’s milk” or breast milk under a dairy license. Besides this, orders have also been given to cancel the license of any company selling similar products in the name of milk or dairy products and take legal action if needed. 

    Legal action can be taken against food business operators or FBOs selling breast milk as sanctioned under the FSS Act 2006. 

    In July this year, the government had cancelled the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) license of Neolacta Lifesciences Private Limited (NLPL) for selling “mother’s milk” while having a dairy license. The government has made it clear that sale of mother’s milk will not be allowed in India. 

    Neolacta was established in 2016 and was originally licensed in the dairy products category from FSSAI Karnataka. Citing this, the FSSAI officials said sale of mother’s milk is not allowed in India. ‘

    During the crackdown on Neolacta, officials also confiscated the stock of the banned material. Later, the company was asked to withdraw its products from the market. 

    Company has said that the donated breast milk is used for premature or sick babies. ”Optimal human milk-based nutrition plays a vital role in supporting “intact survival” of premature babies and also helps babies whose mothers have difficulty feeding them owing to reasons such as sickness, medical contraindications, inadequate lactation, surrogacy/IVF and many more,” Neolacta’s website read. Neolacta charges Rs 4,500 for 300 ml frozen breast milk.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Microplastics Found in Human Breast Milk

    Microplastics Found in Human Breast Milk

    [ad_1]

    Oct. 10, 2022 – Microplastics have been detected in human breast milk for the first time, according to a new study published in Polymers.

    While more studies are needed, the researchers said, they said they were worried about the potential health effects on babies.

    “The proof of microplastics’ presence in breast milk increases our great concern for the extremely vulnerable population of infants,” Valentina Notarstefano, PhD, one of the study authors at the Universita Politecnica della Marche in Italy, told The Guardian.

    “It will be crucial to assess ways to reduce exposure to these contaminants during pregnancy and lactation,” she said. “But it must be stressed that the advantages of breastfeeding are much greater than the disadvantages caused by the presence of polluting microplastics.”

    The research team analyzed breast milk samples from 34 healthy mothers, which were taken a week after giving birth in Rome. Microplastics were detected in 26 of the samples, or 76%.

    The researchers recorded how much food and drink the mothers consumed that used plastic packaging as well as their use of personal hygiene products with plastic. But they found no link with the presence of microplastics in breast milk, which suggests that the widespread presence of microplastics in the environment “makes human exposure inevitable,” the study authors wrote.

    The research team also found microplastics in human placentas in 2020, The Guardian reported. Other studies have found microplastics in human blood, cow’s milk, and polypropylene bottles that are often used to bottle-feed babies. Although previous studies have noted the toxic effects of microplastics in human cell lines, lab animals, and marine wildlife, the effects in living humans are still unknown.

    In the latest study, the researchers found microplastics were made up of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride, which are found in plastic packaging. The team couldn’t analyze particles that were smaller than 2 microns, but they said even smaller plastic particles were likely present in the breast milk.

    The research team couldn’t identify the risk factors linked to microplastics in breast milk. But Notarstefano advised pregnant women to pay attention to the food and drinks they consume in plastic packaging, clothes made with synthetic fabrics, and cosmetics that contain microplastics. 

    “Studies like ours must not reduce breastfeeding of children, but instead, raise public awareness to pressure politicians to promote laws that reduce pollution,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link