# breastfed babies sicker? Link to autism?



## uptowngirl (Jun 9, 2008)

I had a conversation with a labor and delivery nurse who said she is convinced (based purely on her work) that breast-fed babies have more allergies and illness than the formula fed babies she sees. She also noted the correlation in autism with the rise in breastfeeding from the early 80's until now. She did research in college that found that breastmilk is an 'unknown" and often contains toxins--or is deficient in nutrients. She said she is *not convinced* that breast is best in this day and time. Her nursing colleagues feel the same way but are afraid to speak out. wow. wow. I just listened....any comments from here? I didn't know where else to take this "question".....


----------



## goodcents (Dec 19, 2002)

well lots of people can say "i think this" and they can. but it doesn't mean it is true in the face of scientific research. and the science supports breastfeeding.

in terms of an "unknown" melamine in formula was surely an unknown for the parents that fed their children it.


----------



## PatioGardener (Aug 11, 2007)

Ask her about the randomized controlled trial that showed that breastfed babies were less likely to get sick that formula fed babies. The trial was called PROBIT. Also ask her why the WHO, the AAP, the CPS and every other professional body I can think of recommends exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months and then for breastfeeding continue until into and beyond the 2nd year of life.

Or ask her to show the evidence that she is basing this on, reminding her that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Sorry - don't mean to sound snarky at you - reading this story made me a little crazy.


----------



## ledzepplon (Jun 28, 2004)

That just sounds silly, especially the autism thing. I'd like to see some sources for her "research."


----------



## syd'smom (Sep 23, 2008)

reminding her that the plural of anecdote is not data.QUOTE said:


> That is an awesome line!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

i don't even know what to say. well i do but it wouldn't be very nice lol. it worries me that she could be spreading this crap to poor unsuspecting people. it also worries me that medical professionals can be this.. uh.. ill informed.


----------



## hollycat (Aug 13, 2008)

there are just starting to be studies on this, one at harvard i think. its obviously not the moms milk but the environmental stuff that could get concentrated in milk. one idea was even connected to vitamin d. in the meantime no one doing the studies suggests anyone should stop BF.

btw, as im sure most here know, there also ongoing studies looking for a link with formula feeding.


----------



## nameisrio (Aug 30, 2008)

How does a LD nurse have the ability to even know whether her bfed patients have more allergies/illness/autism - aren't most of them discharged from her care in just a few days???

From my hospital birth experience, I wouldn't trust the nurses to give bfeeding advice. Mine were not trained on it and gave dated advice like feed on each side for 15 min then stop. The best was when one nurse (who looked about 19) told me my latch looked great after I called her in because we were having so much trouble. We ended up working with a lactation consultant and OT for 2 mos. after that so it was obviously not "great"!


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

yeah when i was nursing in recovery the nurse told me i better not let him do that for comfort or he'll be doing it all the time. my aunt was there with me and looked at her like yeah lady what's your point. and then told me to ignore her. lol

but what kind of thing is that to say to some nursing their 30 minute old baby for THE FIRST TIME. cripes what was i going to do? be like ok kid thats enough no more comfort for your newborn little self your already out of the womb learn a little independence would ya? wth?


----------



## MissE (May 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nameisrio* 
How does a LD nurse have the ability to even know whether her bfed patients have more allergies/illness/autism - aren't most of them discharged from her care in just a few days???

From my hospital birth experience, I wouldn't trust the nurses to give bfeeding advice. Mine were not trained on it and gave dated advice like feed on each side for 15 min then stop. The best was when one nurse (who looked about 19) told me my latch looked great after I called her in because we were having so much trouble. We ended up working with a lactation consultant and OT for 2 mos. after that so it was obviously not "great"!

I totally agree on the first part.

The second part sounds like me. I never called a nurse for that reason but she wanted to help me with latching DD on after birth. DD had other things in mind like taking a little nap and just snuggling. The nurse seemed relieved when I told her that we are going to kangaroo for a little bit until DD is ready to nurse. She was gone in an instant, I guess she was rather clueless when it came to nursing.


----------



## tashantx (Sep 5, 2007)

hmmm...I live in a fairly polluted area (oilfields) of the country and my breastfed 16 month old son has only been ill once. I'm pretty sure it was from teething. I did do some elimination dieting in his first year but he seems to tolerate all foods and dosen't have any seasonal allergies or asthma (we live in one of the worst areas for asthma so I think I'd notice if he had breathing/respiratory problems) I know there are a ton of environmental toxins out there but using that as a reason to not breastfeed is rediculous. I mean the cows eat the grass from the polluted soil and last time I checked they breathe the same polluted air as us and are likely exposed to quite a bit more junk via hormones /antibiotics etc and the soybeans and corn for formula plus all the other crap in it are grown in the same soil we eat from....where in the heck does this come from??







: Am I missing some logic here?? ETA I guess we are not sufficient to grow our infants anymore either who knows what unknowns are going on in our bodies...better get some incubators


----------



## sweetpeppers (Dec 19, 2007)

Breastfeeding is an unknown?? Um, it's been around as long as humans have. Formula is changing every year.


----------



## KD's Momma (Oct 24, 2004)

I think is bf was linked to autisum there would have been an abundance of autistic kids a long time ago - when all there was was bf. Now it's on the rise because of well - we all have our ideas about that but I don't think bf is one of them.

I am an OB/NICU nurse and am sad to say that in the many hosp that I have worked at I was in a wowfully small minority of nurses who even knew about bf and breastmilk. It's really sad the things that are out there for new moms, no wonder the bf rate is so low.


----------



## leerypolyp (Feb 22, 2005)

That's...insane, to put it generously.

There are tons of studies that contradict every single thing she said. The only study that's shown an effect from contaminants in breastmilk doesn't show any effect until the child is older than three.

And if there's an epidemic of nursing three-year-olds causing autism, well, smack my @$$ and call me Susan.


----------



## KD's Momma (Oct 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leerypolyp* 

And if there's an epidemic of nursing three-year-olds causing autism, well, smack my @$$ and call me Susan.
















:


----------



## KristyDi (Jun 5, 2007)

If she's an L&D nurse how does she know

1. Who keeps bfing after discharge
2. Who has allergies or autism since those are not generally diagnosed during the postpartum period.

Her conclusions are weak to say the least.


----------



## Unconventional1 (Apr 3, 2006)

I just posted a good article in the "question re: exclusivity of bf'ing" thread that has some interesting bfing info in it.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

When she said "based on my work" what she must have meant was "I've known some people who bf'ed and"...

Nurses aren't immune to personal bias. (or confirmation bias). $10 says she ff her own babe(s).


----------



## Phoenix_Rising (Jun 27, 2005)

Returning thread.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

There have been studies showing that moms who BF have a higher IQ on average than those who bottle feed. High IQ and autism tend to run in families, particularly high functioning forms of autism. So the link might be that.

There is also a timing correlate between the introduction of Rhogam and the spike in autism. This could be because Rh- negative women are more likely to carry autistic genes and, because of Rhogam, have contributed to the genepool at a previously unprecedented rate.


----------



## SpiderMum (Sep 13, 2008)

My nephew is autistic and hasn't had a drop of breastmilk in his life. People come up with some crazy stuff...but you'd think that a nurse would know better!


----------



## uptowngirl (Jun 9, 2008)

Thanks for returning the thread. I think this is a worthwhile discussion. Just to address a few things: She did breastfeed her first two. The third, she said she is not convinced it's better...and she introduced formula after 6 months. She is the first to admit that her "research" is in her head..just from seeing and hearing about her patients and their experiences. She is well aware of the studies. She has no bias against breastfeeding---and always believed it was better. She is careful not to pass along her thoughts to her patients (she's a very ethical person). Her dh is a physician and sees children in his practice.

As a pp mentioned, she is mostly concerned about toxins and medications in breastmilk. She is also concerned about the basic nutrition of new moms--many of which are anorexic or bulemic....or just have a poor diet--and think their milk is still superior. She is particularly concerned about the number of women who are on anti-depressants or birth control pills and are nursing. She says it "breaks her heart to think that so many moms believe that it's better to give breastmilk tainted with drugs that infants cannot process, than to give them formula, and take the drugs she needs, herself." (this is pretty much a direct quote). I'm just passing along the info in the discussion....not saying this is good, bad, crazy or indifferent. I breastfed and supplemented----so I have no personal bias in this argument. My kids are healthy.

I do think she has a point--that we as moms reject what the AAP tells us about a LOT of things--but we believe them when they tell us that breast is best "no matter what." This, is what she's saying, is worth looking into. I think that rather than calling her ignorant and ill informed, it would be good for us to recognize that she is an educated mother, with about 20 years of medical experience---just posing questions that she thinks can benefit us. Certainly we want the truth---if the environment is poisoning our milk and thus our babies, then this is something we need to know.


----------



## 3pink1blue (Jun 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptowngirl* 
As a pp mentioned, she is mostly concerned about toxins and medications in breastmilk.

Certainly we want the truth---if the environment is poisoning our milk and thus our babies, then this is something we need to know.

Um, maybe its just me, but, uh, isn't formula made of cow's milk (mostly?) And, uh, isn't cow's milk... cow _breastmilk_?

All i can say is, ew-freakin-ew. Cows are freaking _disgusting_. The water they drink is as polluted as ours, only it has the added benefit of cow poo in it. The food they eat is far more contaminated than ours, with hormones and antibiotics. (Well I guess ours is too, theirs is just more concentrated.) most dairy cows _do not_ eat grass. They eat a specific ration of grains plus additives, to ensure a uniform taste and color to their milk.

If someone truly thinks formula is better based on toxins, they need help. Seriously.

[And for the record, two of my four babies have been formula fed. One of those FF babies is on the autism spectrum.]


----------



## leerypolyp (Feb 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptowngirl* 
As a pp mentioned, she is mostly concerned about toxins and medications in breastmilk. She is also concerned about the basic nutrition of new moms--many of which are anorexic or bulemic....or just have a poor diet--and think their milk is still superior.

First of all, is this something specific to her practice wherein "many (new moms) are anorexic or bulemic"? Or is she speaking generally? Because if it's the latter, then...no.

Second, there are studies showing that:


> Lactation performance must become compromised when undernutrition is sufficiently severe, but it appears that this must be in famine or near famine conditions."
> 
> In general, reductions in the quality of breast milk, in breast milk production levels, and reductions in infant growth have been difficult to find even among malnourished women who breast feed for long periods.


So there goes that argument. I'm a little suspicious when anyone starts talking about breastmilk being "deficient in nutrients," as well. Case in point, iron -- breastmilk has less iron in it, mg for mg, than formula. BUT the iron in breastmilk is far more assimilable, and so the baby absorbs a lot more of it.

Quote:

She is particularly concerned about the number of women who are on anti-depressants or birth control pills and are nursing. She says it "breaks her heart to think that so many moms believe that it's better to give breastmilk tainted with drugs that infants cannot process, than to give them formula, and take the drugs she needs, herself."
Has she ever looked at a copy of Hale's? Again, in most cases there is plenty of evidence that it's preferable to take the drug and breastfeed rather than to formula feed. There are very rare exceptions, but certainly not most anti-depressants or birth control.

Quote:

I do think she has a point--that we as moms reject what the AAP tells us about a LOT of things--but we believe them when they tell us that breast is best "no matter what." This, is what she's saying, is worth looking into. I think that rather than calling her ignorant and ill informed, it would be good for us to recognize that she is an educated mother, with about 20 years of medical experience---just posing questions that she thinks can benefit us. Certainly we want the truth---if the environment is poisoning our milk and thus our babies, then this is something we need to know.
But it's not just the AAP saying this. It's the WHO, it's LLL, it's pretty much any health organization you can think of, and it is all based on a _wealth_ of evidence. It is being looked into; it has been looked into. This isn't like vaccines where many major studies are suspect because of who's funding them; nobody stands to make any money when mothers breastfeed, so I think we can take the multitude of studies seriously. When most of us reject what the AAP is saying, it's on the basis of questionable studies (like the anti-cosleeping studies funded by mattress manufacturers).

There are certain chemicals that are getting into our milk, and that problem needs to be addressed (think flame retardants, phthalates, PCBs, and the like -- Sandra Steingraber has written a lot about all this) but unless you are Inuit and live on a diet of seal fat, human breastmilk is still preferable to formula.

(And by the way, a lot of that stuff gets into formula as well. Cows live in the world. And, oh, hey, what about all that BPA in the bottles?)

The idea that women are blindly accepting that "breast is best" is offensive to me. There is a heck of a lot of science behind that statement.


----------



## PatioGardener (Aug 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leerypolyp* 
unless you are Inuit and live on a diet of seal fat, human breastmilk is still preferable to formula.

Hi Leerypolyp,
Do you mind giving references/articles etc for studies or opinions that discourage the Inuit from breastfeeding? Anything would be useful (can be editorial etc.). I need to read more about this. Thanks!


----------



## uptowngirl (Jun 9, 2008)

Regarding the seal fat thing, she may be referring to the mercury level in those waters, that is stored in the fat of seals. I think I read something about this.
Seriously, though. I am not trying to spread some sort of voodoo rumor....not do I work for Enfamil or anything. I'm presenting an honest question/issue. I would hope that breastfeeding moms are confident enough in their decision to address this without being snarky.


----------



## leerypolyp (Feb 22, 2005)

Here are some quick google hits:

American Indian Quarterly

a journal link

NY Times magazine

It's certainly not a cut-and-dry situation, but it is one case in which even very pro-breastfeeding experts are uncertain how to proceed.
I recommend Sandra Steingraber -- she writes really well on the topic of contaminants in breastmilk.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:

Her dh is a physician and sees children in his practice.
I wonder if he sees more bf'd middle/upper class kids who's parents bring stuff up, which results in a referral and dx, in contrast to ff "working poor" families, who are less likely to be bothered by things that could be considered subtle signs of autism?

Either way, to form a solid opinion, one needs to eliminate as many biases as possible when comparing two groups. Which is what science is good for.

It is vaguely plausible that something in the human environment concentrates in human breastmilk and results in a higher rate of something being diagnosed as "autism"...but it's just baseless speculation without actual scientific research. And anecdotal experience isn't worth much.
I mean, fwiw, all the autistic kids I know were ff. But I'm not going to say ff causes autism. Speculation by an MD or RN isn't worth more than speculation by one of us.


----------



## leerypolyp (Feb 22, 2005)

It's not mercury, it's PCBs and PDBEs and all fat-soluble toxins, which includes most pesticides (well, it's mercury too). Marine life has a way of concentrating all those toxins we dump into our oceans, and then at the top of the food chain is...the nursing baby.

I hope you're not referring to me when you say snarky, or suggesting that my own personal decisions factor into this argument (and that my judgment is thereby clouded).
I'm presenting the opposition to this person's argument, and frankly, I have a lot more scientific backup. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no study that has turned up even a hint of breastfed babies being sicker or more likely to be autistic than their formula-fed counterparts. Not one.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no study that has turned up even a hint of breastfed babies being sicker *or more likely to be autistic* than their formula-fed counterparts. Not one.
Has the autism part ever been studied, though?


----------



## uptowngirl (Jun 9, 2008)

No--wasn't referring to any individual being snarky--just the overall tone. No one is saying breast ISN'T best---just that we should be asking some questions. To dismiss it as "ridiculous" is really...well...ridiculous.









I found this article www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/envpoll.asp and it refers to the Stockholm convention---something that the Bush administration rejected that would have protected American women just as they have in Europe. Apparently we have something like 1000 times more concentrated pollutants in our breastmilk than they do. Here's another source: http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewSc...hecteretal.htm


----------



## leerypolyp (Feb 22, 2005)

Yes, it has:

International Breastfeeding Journal
"The results of this preliminary study indicate that children who were not breastfed or were fed infant formula without docosahexaenoic acid/arachidonic acid supplementation were significantly more likely to have autistic disorder."

Pediatrics
*[this is a quote from an unrelated study, but you can get the citations for both studies mentioned if you follow the link]*

"Two studies have compared breastfeeding rates among children with and without autism; 1 reported no difference,50 and another found that children with autism were weaned earlier than controls.51"

So generally what they're finding is no effect, or inhibitory effect linked to EFAs in breastmilk and enriched formula.


----------



## leerypolyp (Feb 22, 2005)

Yeah, it drives me CRAZY what's allowed here. I mean you can do some stuff to prevent some exposure, like buying furniture without certain flame retardants and not using most perfumed beauty products, but that stuff is in everything, everywhere.

We are in total agreement on that point!


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leerypolyp* 
Yes, it has:

International Breastfeeding Journal
"The results of this preliminary study indicate that children who were not breastfed or were fed infant formula without docosahexaenoic acid/arachidonic acid supplementation were significantly more likely to have autistic disorder."

Pediatrics
*[this is a quote from an unrelated study, but you can get the citations for both studies mentioned if you follow the link]*

"Two studies have compared breastfeeding rates among children with and without autism; 1 reported no difference,50 and another found that children with autism were weaned earlier than controls.51"

So generally what they're finding is no effect, or inhibitory effect linked to EFAs in breastmilk and enriched formula.

Well, there ya' go.

That means a lot more than the anecdote-based speculation of an RN.


----------



## uptowngirl (Jun 9, 2008)

That is a good study. Her concerns were not all related to autism, though. She was more concerned about allergies and illness--and long term health, than autism. I think we really do, as women, need to be concerned about the environmental effect on our milk (as well as our breast health). If you get a chance, follow the links I provided. It would benefit us to become angry at the people who choose not to stop these pollutants/toxins/drugs/etc---than to be angry at each other--or formula feeders.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:

That is a good study. Her concerns were not all related to autism, though. She was more concerned about allergies and illness--and long term health, than autism.
Breastfeeding is protective against allergies and illness, too, though. That's also been studied.

I agree with your point about environmental toxins, though.


----------



## PatioGardener (Aug 11, 2007)

Thanks to all who posted links/articles/references!


----------



## MonkeysRUs (Jun 1, 2007)

I agree that it good to be aware of the fact that environmental toxins have been found in breastmilk, however those toxins are everywhere, and formula certainly isn't immune. The milk that the formula is made from likely contains the same toxins, and there is further risk of contamination during the manufacturing process, not to mention the risks of the BPA that is in the lining of many cans of formula, and many of the bottles that are being used to feed the formula. The DHA and ARA that are added to formula are extracted from algae using the toxin hexane (see http://www.cornucopia.org/replacing-...ormula-report/ for more info). Formula recalls are common for things such as missing nutrients, contaminants in the formula etc.
Breastmilk is an irreplacable part of a baby's immune system. Babies who are not breastfed are by definition immunocompromised. Breastmilk interacts with a baby's physiology to allow that baby to reach their maximum genetic potential. Scientists are still unraveling the many ways that breastmilk interacts with a child's physiology, and there are components in breastmilk that haven't even been identified yet. Why would I want to formula feed and expose my child to known toxins while at the same time depriving my child of part of their immune system (breastmilk) which may have protective effects against some of those toxins just because there may also be contaminants in my own milk? The contaminants are everywhere, we can't escape them, and the formula industry is a huge contributor to the pollution of our environment.

The link below has more info about environmental contaminants and breastfeeding:

http://www.kellymom.com/health/chemi...taminants.html


----------



## milkybean (Mar 19, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *syd'smom* 

Quote:

reminding her that the plural of anecdote is not data.
That is an awesome line!









I wonder if she would appreciate my "data" about the competence/knowledge of nurses based on the ones I've dealt with!







(and I know some amazing nurses IRL, I just never seem to have them around when needed).

That is an awesome line, and I have had the same basic experience (except for the lovely nurse at the kid's hospital ER up the road from us) with nurses, including my stepmom, a NICU nurse.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetpeppers* 
Breastfeeding is an unknown?? Um, it's been around as long as humans have. Formula is changing every year.

It's been around since before humans...since the very first mammals showed up!









Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 

There is also a timing correlate between the introduction of Rhogam and the spike in autism. This could be because Rh- negative women are more likely to carry autistic genes and, because of Rhogam, have contributed to the genepool at a previously unprecedented rate.

Interesting!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptowngirl* 
She is particularly concerned about the number of women who are on anti-depressants or birth control pills and are nursing. She says it "breaks her heart to think that so many moms believe that it's better to give breastmilk tainted with drugs that infants cannot process, than to give them formula, and take the drugs she needs, herself." (this is pretty much a direct quote).

I get sad about *anyone* taking medicines for anything, but gosh, the metabolites of all those medicines are in our water. I sit in direct view of Commencement Bay in the Puget Sound area, and the sheer levels of caffeine they've found out in the Sound astonish me! It's not like the water one mixed formula with is pure from medicine residue....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *3pink1blue* 
Um, maybe its just me, but, uh, isn't formula made of cow's milk (mostly?) And, uh, isn't cow's milk... cow _breastmilk_?

All i can say is, ew-freakin-ew. Cows are freaking _disgusting_. The water they drink is as polluted as ours, only it has the added benefit of cow poo in it. The food they eat is far more contaminated than ours, with hormones and antibiotics. (Well I guess ours is too, theirs is just more concentrated.) most dairy cows _do not_ eat grass. They eat a specific ration of grains plus additives, to ensure a uniform taste and color to their milk.











Oh gosh how much do I dislike cows? I grew up around them and they are nasty nasty beasts. Although I admit addiction to dairy iced lattes, the whole cow thing grosses me out!

And yes, I'd imagine that any indirect environmental contamination from human breastmilk would be found in cow breastmilk, er, uddermilk, as well!


----------

