The Deadly Influence of Formula in America, Part II

[Guest guest]

http://www.mercola.com/2003/dec/27/formula_influence.htm

 

 

The Deadly Influence of Formula in America, Part II

 

 

< [ Part II ]

By Dr. Linda Folden Palmer

First published on Natural Family Online

 

Birth-Weight and Pre-term Birth

 

Representing 16 percent of U.S. infant mortality totals, premature birth and low

birth-weight are the second leading diagnoses on death certificates of U.S.

infants. While prematurity may lay the foundation for difficulties in tiny

infants, the factors that actually take their lives include infection,

respiratory distress, unconfirmed necrotizing enterocolitis, circulatory

deficiency and diarrhea. These diagnoses are often detectable only with a

biopsy, so the listed cause in these cases is often simply prematurity. One

study that performed autopsies on a group of extremely low birth-weight infants

who had not survived found that infection was the actual primary cause of death

for half of the infants. Prematurity was the cause of death predominantly for

infants who weighed less than one pound.

 

Preemies in India who received only preemie formula were found to develop more

than twice as many infections as those who received some human milk. Another

Indian study on high-risk newborns found that those receiving human milk plus

formula suffered twice the infection rate of those receiving only pasteurized

human milk and triple the rate of those receiving only raw human milk. A

Columbian study found a nearly doubled death rate for low birth-weight infants

who were partially or completely formula fed. And a Malaysian study found a huge

difference in total infant survival among extremely low birth-weight babies who

received expressed breast milk as opposed to those who did not.

 

A U.S. study performed at George Washington University Hospital found 2.5 times

the number of infections among formula-fed infants in the intensive care unit

than among those receiving human milk. Another study at Georgetown University

Medical Center also found more than double the number of infections in very low

birth-weight infants not receiving human milk. A San Diego study found twice as

many infections in pre-term, formula-fed infants compared with infants who

received human milk.

 

As shown in many other studies, the extent and severity of infection among

pre-term and low birth-weight infants are generally greater in formula-fed

infants as well. One study gives a solid example for preemies, finding

respiratory infections among U.S. formula-fed preemies to run six times as many

days as those in their breastfed counterparts.

 

Pre-term Infant Illness and Death Rates (57-64)

Country Author YearRelative risk for illness or death, formula-fed pre-term and

low birth-weight infantsIndia

Narayanan 1980

2.25 times the infections for no breast milk as opposed to someIndiaNarayanan

1984

2 times the infections for formula plus pasteurized breast milk as pasteurized

breast milk alone, 3 times the infections as raw breast milk aloneMalaysiaBoo

2000

Many times the death rate for no breast milkColumbiaCharpak

2001

2 times the death rate for any amount of formula as for exclusive

breastfeedingUSAel-Mohandes

1997

2.5 times the infections USAHylander

1998

2 times the infections USASchanler

2001

2 times the infectionsUSABlaymore-Bier

2002

6 times the duration of upper respiratory infections

Exclusive feeding of raw breast milk is not always an option for premature

infants, although it is common in some hospitals with excellent support.

Sometimes, less-effective pasteurized breast milk is used and often fortifiers

are added. Several studies show decreased survival for infants fed milk with

added fortifiers as opposed to those fed unfortified milk, (65-68) but the

picture is complex and the choices of fortifiers vary greatly.

 

And finally, it is worth noting that the eye damage that can occur in very low

birth-weight infants, retinopathy of prematurity, occurs only half as often in

infants who receive some breast milk. (69) Even a disorder as apparently

unrelated to feeding methods as inguinal hernia has been discovered to occur

twice as often in artificially fed infants and even more frequently when

compared with infants who are exclusively breastfed.70

 

Congenital Abnormalities

 

Twenty percent of U.S. infant deaths are attributed to birth defects. The most

common potentially lethal birth defects include heart disorders, various

chromosomal or genetic defects and underdeveloped lungs. In terms of infant

formula’s impact, we have the least amount of statistical information in this

category. However, many factors suggest that formula-fed infants with congenital

abnormalities have smaller chances of survival than their breastfed

counterparts.

 

While death certificates often list the initial abnormality as the cause of

death, infection is actually the final factor in many of these deaths. We have

already seen how drastically infection rates and deaths are reduced by

breastfeeding. It is clear that the youngest and weakest infants are the ones

who are most strongly endangered by infant formula’s inadequacies.

 

Studies suggest that formula-fed infants suffer inferior blood oxygenation and

higher blood pressure as well as more episodes of apnea (cessation of breathing

for a short time) than their breastfed counterparts. While no studies compare

the actual survival of such infants in the United States, it is obvious that

some proportion of babies with congenital heart abnormalities is being seriously

disadvantaged by formula feedings. Artificially fed infants with heart defects

requiring surgery are less likely to live until their surgery and less likely to

recover from surgery’s challenges.

 

A wide variety of common birth defects have been shown to have better survival

rates among breastfed infants, although the actual figures are not available.

Most birth defects have not been specifically studied in this regard. The

background information, nonetheless, is striking.

 

For example, infants born with phenylketonuria (PKU), a defect in handling a

certain protein in the diet, need specialized supplementation with breast milk

in order to prevent mental retardation and other difficulties. Yet a study

demonstrated that infants who had been breastfed before being diagnosed with PKU

fared far better than those who had been fed on formula. (71) The greatest

complications for infants with cystic fibrosis are lung infection, decreased

oxygenation and malnutrition--all of which are recognized to be complicated by

formula feeding. (72) The negative impact of formula on neurological development

has been demonstrated in healthy infants. (73-76) One study that quantified the

effect reported double the amount of neurological “non-normality” in formula-fed

infants. (77) It is reasonable to assume that neurological damage or problems

stemming from birth disorders can be exacerbated by artificial feeding.

 

Clearly, feeding choice may have a significant impact on the survival of infants

born with various defects, although there is not enough information available to

render an actual ratio of survival.

 

Complications of Pregnancy and Birth

 

Complications of pregnancy and birth produce a wide range of injuries and

problems for babies. Some certainly pose no hope of survival. Infection,

insufficient neurological recovery and inadequate oxygenation lead to many

infant deaths. Artificial feeding certainly has some degree of impact on

mortality in these cases. Based on a lack of further detailed evidence, we will

apply a very modest number to figures for increased risk of death for

formula-fed infants in this category.

 

Accidents

 

It seems logical that accidents happen equally among artificially and naturally

fed infants. Figures bear this out. One paper actually measured accidental

injuries between breast- and formula-fed infants, finding an equal number in

both.78

 

Examining the numbers

 

So now we are left to examine artificial feeding’s actual impact on all American

babies. First, we note that there should be a relationship dictating that if

rates for a certain disease are doubled by formula feeding, for instance, then

death rates for that disease may also be somewhere in the neighborhood of

doubled when compared with rates for breastfed infants. In fact, the evidence

suggests that the death rates would be even higher. While formula feeding may

result in twice as many episodes of a certain illness, a great number of studies

demonstrate that each of these episodes are also longer and more severe. This

would suggest that the rate of death among artificially fed infants from various

causes would actually be higher than the rates that the various illnesses occur.

 

The reported percentages of U.S. infants dying from each cause include a certain

number of infants who were breastfed and a portion who were formula-fed. Because

formula feeding’s impact is much more or less influential in some disorders than

others, we need to weigh each category accordingly. (This exercise will account

for the assumption that a lower proportion of infants who died from congenital

abnormalities, for instance, were formula-fed infants than the proportion who

died from SIDS.) Because two-thirds of all infants die in the first month, and

because exclusive breastfeeding runs about 50 percent during the first month,

this number can be used in the calculations to help weigh the greater or lesser

impact of breastfeeding for each cause.

 

2001 U.S. Breastfeeding Rates (79,80)

 

 

Study Hospital Initiation4 Months6 Months12 Mo.Any BF ExclusiveAny BF

ExclusiveAny BF ExclusiveAnyRoss/Abbott Labs69.5%46.2% 32.5%

17.2%

National Immunization Survey 65.1%59%35%24%27%7.9%12.3%

An overall risk rate of infant death for formula-fed infants has been selected

conservatively based on the available information presented in this paper for

each cause of death in the table below. Assuming that 50 percent of the total

infants born were breastfed, we can calculate formula-fed and breastfed infant

death rates and totals for each cause.

 

Because one-third of the deaths actually occurred as the percentage of infants

breastfeeding was dropping to a much smaller number, the use of 50 percent

throughout the calculations keeps the resultant finding very conservative.

Although the literature reiterates time and again how the extent, severity and

frequency of disease is greater in formula-fed infants, I have only taken this

factor into account in an extremely conservative manner in instances where the

literature provides solid numerical examples. In other instances where this

aspect is not clearly demonstrated, I have not used this factor at all. Again,

this effort keeps the final quotient conservative. Finally, the ratios from many

studies used are for full formula feeding versus any amount of breastfeeding.

Some of these ratios would be much higher if formula feeding were compared to

exclusive breastfeeding. This factor again keeps our final conclusion

conservative.

 

Here’s the math

 

There are 4,000,000 births annually in the United States. Using 50 percent as

the number of infants who have actually been breastfed, the number of infants

breastfed (B) equals 2,000,000. The number of formula-fed (F) infants also

equals 2,000,000.

 

B = F = 2,000,000

R = Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) for each cause

RB = IMR for breastfed

RF = IMR for formula fed

Rel = Estimated Relative Risk for formula feeding versus breastfeeding, for each

cause

 

RFF + RBB = Total Number of Deaths for that cause = TND

 

RF = Rel x RB

 

RF x 2,000,000 + RB x 2,000,000 = TND

 

Rel x RB x 2,000,000 + RB x 2,000,000 = TND

 

RB = __________TND___________

Rel x 2,000,000 + 2,000,000

 

RB x 4,000,000 = Number Deaths if all B

 

 

Let's apply this formula to congenital abnormalities. Clearly, feeding's impact

in this category could be significant, but there is not enough solid statistical

evidence to say for sure. If we modestly assume a 50 percent higher death rate

for the 50 percent of formula-fed infants, the number of breastfed infants who

died would be 2,200. The number of formula-fed who died would be 3,300. If all

of the infants had actually been breastfed, then the total number of deaths

would be 4,400--a savings of 1,100 lives.

 

The relative risk for formula feeding in other categories was much more clearly

defined by the studies. Conservative but appropriate rates were selected, as

seen in the table below.

 

Calculating Formula's Final Impact

 

Cause of deathActual U.S. infant deaths (1999)Relative risk for formula-fed

infantsEstimated IMR for breastfed babiesDeaths if all were breastfedDeaths if

all were formula-fedLives saved if all were breastfedCongenital

abnormality5,5001.51.1

4400

6600

1100Prematurity4,5002.5.643

2570

6430

1930SIDS2,7004.0.27

1080

4320

1620Complications of pregnancy & birth2,4001.25.533

2135

2670

270Respiratory distress & infections1,7504.0.175

700

2800

1050Accidents8501.0.213

850

850

0Bacterial infection7003.0.087

350

1050

350Circulatory problems6501.5.13

520

780

130Necrotizing enterocolitis4008.0.02290

710

310Diarrhea3002.5.043170

430

130Meningitis1003.0.01455

170

45Cancer1002.0.02

8016020SUBTOTALS19,9502.0753.2513,00026,9706,955All

other8,05021.66,44012,8801,160TOTALS28,00024.718,66537,335

IMR 9.49,335

Infant Mortality Rates (IMR) is the number of infant deaths per 1,000 live

births, from 0 to 12 months of age.

 

Based on the current U.S. infant death rate of 6.75 and an average breastfeeding

rate of 50 percent, the American infant mortality rate would climb to 9.4 if all

infants were formula-fed and would drop to 4.7 if all were breastfed. Twenty-two

nations with high rates of breastfeeding have infant mortality rates below 5,

while the U.S. ranks higher in infant death than 41 other nations. (81) Clearly,

lower rates for the United States are a possibility.

 

The ugly truth about formula

 

From the above statistics, we see that formula feeding costs American babies

more than four additional lives per thousand. The final relative risk for

formula feeding comes out to 2--that’s double the risk of death for American

infants who are fed with formula, compared with babies who are fed naturally.

 

A multitude of studies demonstrate that when breastfeeding is accompanied by

formula supplementation, illness and death rates are much closer to those of

babies who are fully formula-fed. Studies also reveal conclusively that the

longer breastfeeding lasts, the greater the measurable difference in illness and

death rates.

 

Answering the detractors

 

Criticisms are often spread about studies that find increased illness and death

rates associated with formula feeding. For just this reason, each later study

aggressively attempts to take into account any factors that have been purported

as distorting previous study outcomes. These research papers address as many

aspects as possible, from maternal education, to smoking, to income level, to

day care usage and many more possibilities. The results continue to reveal the

risks of formula feeding.

 

It’s commonly said that formula feeding does not risk lives in industrialized

nations where education and medical advances prevent increased deaths. The

evidence is quite to the contrary. Some insist that the blame for the United

States’ relatively high infant death rate lies with underprivileged communities.

Again, it has been shown that elevated death rates among U.S. blacks cannot be

attributed to poverty. Hispanic Americans rank similarly to African-American

populations for socio-economic factors, but they match non-Hispanic whites in

their lower infant mortality rates. The difference is not socio-economic;

rather, it’s in rates of formula use versus breastfeeding. (82-84)

 

A New York study sought to establish the connection between education, income

and infant survival. It concluded strongly that the number of illnesses is

increased by two to three times in formula-fed babies regardless of

socioeconomic status or level of parental education. (85) A later study in

Israel confirmed the effects of formula feeding across all classes and education

levels. (86) The most recent analysis of this issue, again performed in the

United States, reiterated that higher illness rates among formula-fed or

formula-supplemented infants “did not differ among income groups.” (87)

 

And beyond the first year

 

While the extent of breast milk’s health protection declines with age, a great

number of studies demonstrate the continued survival advantage of breastfeeding

through the second year and beyond. A World Health Organization study of

less-developed countries found a doubled risk of death in the second year of

life for those weaned prematurely or never receiving breast milk. (88) A study

in The Netherlands found a strong correlation between the extent of

breastfeeding and the number of illnesses in children. Significant protection

from breastfeeding was noted during the first three years of life. (89) Other

studies show a sizeable increase in illnesses throughout all of childhood for

those who were never breastfed or prematurely weaned. (90-92) In fact, an

increased risk of death throughout life has been well documented for people who

were formula-fed. Higher blood pressure, more heart disease, obesity, diabetes

and artery disease, a nearly doubled rate of Crohn’s disease and tripled

rates of celiac disease have all been associated with early formula feeding.

(93-105)

 

What your doctor doesn’t tell you

 

Pediatricians spend much time frightening parents with 1 in 100,000 risks from

vaccine-preventable diseases when parents question the utility and safety of

vaccines. “Would you want to risk the life of your child?” they demand. Yet

these very same professionals offer formula samples with the other hand--when

the magnitude of health risks associated with the use of formula is 500 times

greater.

 

Parenting is all about making choices and weighing risks and benefits. Many

parents need to make the riskier choice of formula feeding in order to balance

other factors that benefit the family. Yet some parents who have lost their

children, possibly based on pediatric advice condoning or encouraging

formula-feeding, would surely wish that they had been informed of the very real

risks related to using formula.

<< Previous [ Part I, Part II ]

 

 

Dr. Linda Folden Palmer consults and lectures on natural infant health, optimal

child nutrition and attachment parenting. After running a successful

chiropractic practice focused on nutrition and women's health for more than a

decade, Linda's life became transformed eight years ago by the birth of her son.

Her research into his particular health challenges led her to write Baby

Matters: What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Caring for Your Baby.

Extensively documented, this healthy parenting book presents the scientific

evidence behind attachment parenting practices, supporting baby's immune system,

preventing colic and sparing drug usage. You can visit Linda's Web site at

www.babyreference.com.

 

 

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

It is good to see that attention is being given to the importance of

breastfeeding. Breastfeeding your newborn is the best way to give her all the

nutrients she needs to develop into a strong, healthy child.

 

 

 

I encourage every mother who is able to breastfeed her newborn. However, there

are cases when a woman may be unable to breastfeed for physical reasons. In

these cases, it’s important to recognize that ALL soy formula is worse than

worthless for human infants and is nearly guaranteed to cause problems down the

road. What are some of the problems associated with soy formula? Well, for

starters it:

 

Will adversely affect hormone levels, as it has been associated with reduced

testosterone levels

Will impair thyroid function through isoflavones present in the formula

Increases the risk of behavioral problems

Will expose infants to up to 2,000 times higher estrogen content

Has potentially high concentrations of aluminum and manganese

 

Soy formula is generally given to infants who aren't breastfeeding and have

trouble taking regular cow-milk-based infant formulas. While I am no fan of

these formulas either, they tend to be safer than soy formula. However, the

cow-milk-based formulas are derived from pasteurized milk. If you haven't heard

by now pasteurized milk is not good for you or your baby.

 

 

 

Fortunately, you can use raw milk to produce a terrific infant formula, but,

again, remember that breast milk is ALWAYS best.

Related Articles:

If You Have to Use Baby Formula You Need to Know These Fat Facts

 

Soy Formula Kills Three Babies

 

Breastfeeding Ads Challenged by Formula Companies

Infant Formulas Deficient in Important Amino Acids Like Taurine

Fish Fat in Infant Formula Cuts Heart Disease in Later Life

 

‘Controlled Crying’ Technique May Harm Infants

 

 

References

I Narayanan et al., " Partial supplementation with expressed breast milk for

prevention of infection in low birth weight infants, " Lancet (India) 2 (1980):

561-3.

Narayanan et al., " Randomised controlled trial of effect of raw and holder

pasteurized human milk and of formula supplements on incidence of neonatal

infection, " Lancet (India) 2, no. 8412 (Nov 17, 1984): 1111-3.

N.Y. Boo et al., " The role of expressed breastmilk and continuous positive

airway pressure as predictors of survival in extremely low birthweight infants, "

Journal of Tropical Pediatrics (Malaysia) 46, no. 1 (Feb 2000): 15-20.

N. Charpak et al., " A randomized, controlled trial of kangaroo mother care:

results of follow-up at 1 year of corrected age, " Pediatrics (Columbia) 108, no.

5 (Nov 2001): 1072-9.

A.E. el-Mohandes et al., " Use of human milk in the intensive care nursery

decreases the incidence of nosocomial sepsis, " Journal of Perinatology

(Washington, DC) 17, no. 2 (Mar-Apr 1997): 130-4.

M.A. Hylander et al., " Human milk feedings and infection among very low birth

weight infants, " Pediatrics (Washington, DC) 102, no. 3 (Sep 1998): E38.

J. Schanler et al., " Feeding strategies for premature infants: Beneficial

outcomes of feeding fortified human milk versus preterm formula, " Pediatrics

(USA) 103, no. 6 (June 1999): 1150-1157.

M.D. Blaymore Bier et al., " Human milk reduced outpatient upper respiratory

symptoms in premature infants during their first year of life, " Journal of

Perinatology (Providence, USA) 22, no. 5 (Jul/Aug 2002): 354-359.

S. Awasthi et al., " Is high protein milk beneficial for SGA-terms? " Indian

Pediatr 26, no. 1 (Jan 1989): 45-51.

G. Boehm et al., " [Protein utilization by premature infants with a birth

weight less than 1,500 g during nutrition with MANSAN or breast milk protein], "

Kinderarztl Prax (German) 59, no. 1-2 (Jan-Feb 1991): 26-30.

R. Quan et al., " The effect of nutritional additives on anti-infective

factors in human milk, " Clin Pediatr (Phila) 33, no. 6 (Jun 1994): 325-8.

A. Lucas et al., " Randomized outcome trial of human milk fortification and

developmental outcome in preterm infants, " Am J Clin Nutr (England) 64, no. 2

(Aug 1996): 142-51.

M.A. Hylander et al., " Association of human milk feedings with a reduction in

retinopathy of prematurity among very low birthweight infants, " Journal of

Perinatology 21, no. 6 (Sep 2001): 356-62.

A. Pisacane et al., " Breast-feeding and inguinal hernia, " Journal of

Pediatrics (Italy) 127, no. 1 (Jul 1995): 109-11.

E. Riva et al., " Early breastfeeding is linked to higher intelligence

quotient scores in dietary treated phenylketonuric children, " Acta Paediatrica

(Italy) 85, no. 1 (Jan 1996): 56-8.

Borowitz et al., " Consensus report on nutrition for pediatric patients with

cystic fibrosis, " Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (USA) 35, no. 3 (Sep

2002): 246-59.

E. Riva et al., " Early breastfeeding is linked to higher intelligence

quotient scores in dietary treated phenylketonuric children, " Acta Paediatrica

(Italy) 85, no. 1 (Jan 1996): 56-8.

J.W. Anderson et al., " Breast-feeding and cognitive development: a

meta-analysis, " American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (USA) 70, no. 4 (Oct

1999): 525-35.

W.H. Oddy et al., " Breast feeding and cognitive development in childhood: a

prospective birth cohort study, " Paediatric Perinatal Epidemiology (Australia)

17, no. 1 (Jan 2003): 81-90.

M.R. Rao et al., " Effect of breastfeeding on cognitive development of infants

born small for gestational age, " Acta Paediatrica (USA) 91, no. 3 (2002):267-74.

C.I. Lanting et al., " Neurological differences between 9-year-old children

fed breast-milk or formula-milk as babies, " Lancet (Netherlands) 344, no. 8933

(Nov 12, 1994): 1319-22.

A.L. Wright et al., " Increasing breastfeeding rates to reduce infant illness

at the community level, " Pediatrics (Tucson, USA) 101, no. 5 (May 1998): 837-44.

A.S. Ryan et al., " Breastfeeding continues to increase into the new

millennium, " Ross Products Division of Abbott Laboratories (US) 110, no. 6 (Dec

2002): 1103-9.

L.R. Zhao et al., " Prevalence of breastfeeding in the United States: the 2001

National Immunization Survey, " Pediatrics (US) 111, no. 5, part 2 (May 2003):

1198-201.

The World Fact Book,

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

R. Li et al., " Prevalence of breastfeeding in the United States: the 2001

National Immunization Survey " Pediatrics (USA) 111, no 5., part 2 (May 2003):

1198-201.

R. Li and L. Grummer-Strawn, " Racial and ethnic disparities in breastfeeding

among United States infants: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination

Survey, 1988-1994, " Birth (USA) 29, no. 4 (Dec 2002): 251-7.

R. Li et al., " Prevalence of breastfeeding in the United States: the 2001

National Immunization Survey " Pediatrics (USA) 111, no 5., part 2 (May 2003):

1198-201.

R. Forst et al., " The decision to breastfeed in the United States: does race

matter? " Pediatrics (USA) 108, no. 2 (Aug 2001): 291-6.

A.S. Cunningham, " Morbidity in breast-fed and artificially fed infants, "

Journal of Pediatrics (New York) 90, no. 5 (May 1977): 726-9.

H. Palti et al., " Episodes of illness in breast-fed and bottle-fed infants in

Jerusalem, " Israel Journal of Medical Science (Israel) 20, no. 5 (May 1984):

395-9.

J. Raisler et al., " Breast-feeding and infant illness: a dose-response

relationship? " Am J Public Health (Ann Arbor) 89, no. 1 (Jan 1999): 25-30.

" Effect of breastfeeding on infant and child mortality due to infectious

diseases in less developed countries: a pooled analysis. WHO Collaborative Study

Team on the Role of Breastfeeding on the Prevention of Infant Mortality " Lancet

355, no. 9202 (Feb 2000): 451-5.

C. van den Bogaard et al., " The relationship between breast-feeding and early

childhood morbidity in a general population, " Fam Med (Netherlands) 23, no. 7

(Oct-Sep 1991): 510-5.

A.C. Wilson et al., " Relation of infant diet to childhood health: seven year

follow up of cohort of children in Dundee infant feeding study, " BMJ (Scotland)

316, no. 7124 (Jan 1998): 21-5.

S.A. Silfverdal et al., " Protective effect of breastfeeding: an ecologic

study of Haemophilus influenzae meningitis nd breastfeeding in a Swedish

population, " Int J Epidemiol (Sweden) 28, no. 1 (Feb 1999): 152-6.

L.A. Hanson, " Human milk and host defence: immediate and long-term effects, "

Acta Paediatrica (Sweden) 88, no. 430 suppl. (Aug 1999): 42-6.

A.C. Wilson et al., " Relation of infant diet to childhood health: seven year

follow up of cohort of children in Dundee infant feeding study, " BMJ (Scotland)

316, no. 7124 (Jan 1998): 21-5.

A.C. Ravelli et al., " Infant feeding and adult glucose tolerance, lipid

profile, blood pressure, and obesity, " Archives of Disease in Childhood (UK) 82

(March 2000): 248-52.

S.B. Roberts, " Prevention of hypertension in adulthood by breastfeeding? "

Lancet (USA) 357, no. 9254 (Feb 10, 2001): 413-9.

C.H. Fall et al., " Relation of infant feeding to adult serum cholesterol

concentrations and death from ischaemic heart disease, " British Medical Journal

(UK) 304, no. 6830 (March 28, 1992): 801-5.

von Kries et al., " Breast feeding and obesity: cross sectional study, "

British Medical Journal (Germany) 319, no. 7203 (July 17, 1999): 147-50.

R.B. Elliott et al., " Type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus and cow

milk: casein variant consumption, " Diabetologia (New Zealand) 42, no. 3 (Mar

1999): 292-6.

S.G. Gimeno and J.M. deSouza, " IDDM and milk consumption: A case-control

study in Sao Paulo, Brazil, " Diabetes Care (Brazil) 20, no. 8 (Aug 1997):

1256-60.

J. Karjalainen et al., " A bovine albumin peptide as a possible trigger of

insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, " N Engl J Med (Canada) 327, no. 5 (Jul 30,

1992): 302-7.

T. Saukkonen et al., " Significance of cow's milk protein antibodies as risk

factor for childhood IDDM: interactions with dietary cow's milk intake and

HLA-DQB1 genotype. Childhood Diabetes in Finland Study Group, " Diabetologia

(Finland) 41, no. 1 (Jan 1998): 72-8.

S.M. Virtanen et al., " Diet, cow's milk protein antibodies and the risk of

IDDM in Finnish children. Childhood Diabetes in Finland Study Group, "

Diabetologia (Finland) 37, no. 4 (Apr 1994): 381-7.

P. Vähäsalo et al., " Relation between antibodies to islet cell antigens,

other autoantigens, and cow's milk proteins in diabetic children and unaffected

siblings as the clinical manifestation of IDDM, " Autoimmunity (Finland) 23, no.

3 (1996): 165-74.

G. Corrao et al., " Risk of inflammatory bowel disease attributable to

smoking, oral contraception and breastfeeding in Italy: a nationwide

case-control study, " International Journal of Epidemiology (Italy) 27, no. 3

(Jun 1998): 397-404.

Rigas et al., " Breast-feeding and maternal smoking in the etiology of Crohn's

disease and ulcerative colitis in childhood, " Annals of Epidemiology (New York)

3, no. 4 (Jul 1993): 387-92.

 

 

 

 

 

Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square