from http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/formula.asp

"Formula itself may have contaminants introduced in the manufacturing process. In the past, recalls have been ordered because of contamination with substances such as broken glass, fragments of metal and salmonella and other bacteria. The fungal toxin aflatoxin has also been detected in some commercial formulas. Although detected levels were very low, this toxin is known to cause cancer and is not present in breast milk. Infant formulas also may contain excessive levels of metals, including aluminum, manganese, cadmium and lead. Soy formulas are a particular concern due to very high levels of plant-derived estrogens (phytoestrogens) in soy products. In fact, the concentrations of phytoestrogens detected in the blood of infants fed soy formula were 13,000 to 22,000 times greater than the concentrations of natural estrogens."

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2002/NEW00849.html

Note that this single recall affected 1.5 *million* cans of formula.

Bullet dodged.

But, please don't tell me this is "safer".

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/4/833

Note that the FDA and the CDC remind consumers that formula is not a sterile product, and is vulnerable to contamination at several points long the process from cow to bottle.

This isn't about a woman choosing to breast feed or formula feed. (Look at any of my posts about any breast feeding issue: never once have I said that formula-feeding moms are "bad" or "inferior." Because I don't believe that to be true: I know plenty of great moms who formula fed, my own included). But, just because formula feeding moms aren't inferior moms, that doesn't mean that breast milk isn't a superior *food* to formula. There's just no logical way to refute that. (And, no, that doesn't mean that moms who breast feed are "superior" or "better" moms either.)

This particlular discussion is about speculating that breast feeding is inherently unsafe due to toxins and estrogens and esters and phytoestrogens that the mother ingests and passes on to her baby through her breast milk. And then further speculating that formula feeding is safer because these contaminents don't exist in infant formula.

It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Even with the contaminents in breast milk, breast-fed children are given protections against diseases and toxic responses that formula-fed babies don't get. And I question the motives of those who continue to rail against the "dangers" of breast-feeding, particularly those who so not support their argument with any sound evidence of harm.

because that's simply not true.

I read on report from the WHO that estimates formula kills 1.5 million babies per year, world-wide.

Now, most of that is in third world countries where access to clean water and bottles is a major factor in those deaths. So, that statistics kin of hyperbolic when thinking about feeding babies in the West (not less *accurate*, mind you, but less relevant to our lifespans in America.)

But.

Formula-fed babies do tend to be more obese adults than their breast-fed counterparts (go reference some of the links I've already posted). Given all the health complicatons that can arise from obesity ... your off-the-cuff number of 5 years may not be far off the mark.

And.

Though lynx thinks it's a unicorn, there is ample evidence that breastfed babies have significantly lower risk of developing certain (not all) cancers, including leukemia and lymphoma:

(Oh, here's another damned link):

http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/SearchablePages/2000Newsletters/Newsletter058J.html

The above link also details an accidental discovery where breast milk in a lab appears to have destroyed cancer cells. I'm not going to say "Breast milk cures cancer." But, i think further study should be done on that post-haste. (And I'm willing to be money that the cancer-killing milk was not 100% free of toxins, estrogens and oher contaminents!)

And.

Breastfeeding mothers have a reduced rate of breast and ovarian cancer.

So, again, 5 years may be a guess, but it's not bad. Unless we're talking about childhood cancers, which shorten the lifespan considerably.

And.

Lower rates of asthma and allergies in breastfed babies (according to this study in the British Medical Journal, 25% greater risk of asthma in formula-fed babies):

http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/non_breast_milk_in_infancy_increases_asthma_risk.htm

which can also shorten the lifespan (though I'd hesitate to say "5 years").

So, calling breast milk "marginally" better than formula is hardly accurate. Even though a very powerful industry would have you believe it.

As I stated in a much earler post, I'm not sisputing the harm estrogens can do to babies and adults. But your "evidence" against breast feeding is about babies in utero!

Apple, meet orange.

So, instead of wasting everyone's time about the mythical superior safety of infant formula over breast milk, start fighting to get the estrogen, the phytoestrogean n the esters out of the food supply!