Is Breastmilk Toxic? - Cause for concern or unfounded hype?

Right now, I am still happily breastfeeding my third child who has just turned one (which brings me up to just over seven years of constant lactation and/or pregnancy). The other day, I came across an article in an online journal. The woman writing it discussed her fears about global pollution and how it was affecting her decision to breastfeed, not to mention gestate. She was so distressed by the presence of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in breastmilk, in our fatty tissues, and in our environment, that she seriously considered formula feeding. ; That was until she had a conversation with her obstetrician, who calmed her fears and convinced her that despite what she’d read, breast was really still best. Hers wasn’t the first article I’d read on this subject but I’d always wondered why there didn’t seem to be reciprocal research about what might be in formula. After all, formula is not created in sterile laboratories off planet - is it? All the mainstream articles that I’ve read, backed up by research from around the world, seem to conclude: think twice before you breastfeed because your milk contains environmental pollutants like heavy metals, dioxins and organochlorines. This may sound to many people like “the world’s polluted which means you are too so if you care about your baby you won’t try and poison them with this contaminated food source”. Needless to say, I’m not too impressed that my baby’s nutritional source is being used as the veritable “canary in the mine” or as a barometer of environmental purity. I wanted my intuition - that breast really is best, to be backed up, so I started hunting down the information and found some surprising things.

Why does breastmilk have pollutants in it anyway?
There has been a systematic and unconscious poisoning of our planet for the last couple of centuries, which has accelerated in the last fifty years. Our breastmilk contains fat and this is where these poisons accumulate in our bodies. ; The only time we release them is when we produce breastmilk. It’s the same for all mammals. POPs “bioaccumulate”, that is, they enter the food chain at the lowest level and are slowly concentrated the further up you go. ; People with diets high in marine animal fats, like the Inuit (and animals like polar bears), have the highest concentrations of these contaminants in their breastmilk.

Many of these POPs are not created intentionally but are instead are by products of daily industrial output. POPs migrate globally and have no national borders so it has taken international cooperation to get governments and industry to start phasing them out. In May 2001 the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants was signed by 122 nations but needed those countries (or at least 50 of them) to ratify it internally in order for it to be passed into international law. Understanding that these pollutants are air and water borne, means that it’s important that not just our country ceases production and use, but so do our neighbours. Interestingly Australia, PNG, NZ, Nauru, Micronesia, Singapore, Kiribati and Fiji have all ratified the treaty but Indonesia and Malaysia whilst signatories, have yet to ratify it just like the USA. All of these countries’ governments are facing intense lobbying from chemical companies whose businesses will suffer if the treaty is passed into international law (www.pops.int/).

What does formula have in it?
Nowhere on the tins of formula does it say “organically produced from POP free cow’s milk” and while searching the indefatigable internet for more information I came across the “ask Dr Gina” section on the Natural Resources Defence Council (www.nrdc.org) website which had the following question and answer.

Q: Does formula feeding avoid the hazards associated with environmental toxins in the food chain?
A: Absolutely not. Feeding a baby infant formula does not mean the child is protected from chemicals in the environment, in large measure because the formula is diluted with water. That makes water pollution a potential problem, even if the water is sold in a bottle. We've also seen reports of contamination of infant formula with toxic metals, bacteria and other environmental toxins. So, no, formula feeding won't keep your baby free of toxins. Indeed, because breast milk helps children fight disease and infection, switching to formula will probably make your baby more vulnerable.

I also discovered the Australian Breastfeeding Association ;website ( www.naba.breastfeeding.org/images/Recalls.pdf ; which contained a formula recall list which included why the batches were recalled. Here is discussed how obacter contamination, metal particles and PVC pieces among other things had been discovered AFTER formula tins had been placed on supermarket shelves.

On all of the formula company websites that I examined, there was no reference to POPs, nor could I find any concern that the cow’s milk, soy or elemental formula ingredients might need to be subjected to the same examination as human breastmilk. Until the products are tested it’s really like comparing apples with oranges. There is simply no evidence that formula will protect your baby from the POPs which are all pervasive and indeed that choosing formula over breastmilk can compromise your child’s long term immunity and health. This isn’t meant to frighten mothers who have to formula feed because there are other things you can do to strengthen an immune system. ; Itt was however, reassuring for at least this breastfeeding mother, that my milk will provide benefits that far outweigh any toxic POP load I might be passing onto my children through my milk.

What the research says
According to Theo Colborne in her book 'Our Stolen Future' (1996) “during breast-feeding, infants are exposed to higher concentrations of persistent chemicals than at any subsequent time in their lives.1 Six months of breastfeeding that should confer good health and a great start in life, gives babies in the USA and Europe the maximum recommended lifetime dose of dioxins, which like DDT and PCBs accumulates through the food chain. The daily load of PCBs passed on in breast milk in the USA and Europe is five times the allowable daily level of PCBs set by international health standards for a 150 pound adult.”

This sounded really scary. So I read on. Research in the United States from the 1990s showed that “although chemical exposures before birth have been shown to have adverse effects, exposures through breastfeeding have not been shown to cause harm”.2 In 2002 the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action and the International POPs Elimination Network made a joint statement that they shared a common concern “toxic chemicals are contaminating our children…we recognise the need to promote breastfeeding while we work towards ending the contamination of our communities”3 ; The excellent American publication Mothering Magazine was a terrific resource but the articles also left me feeling fairly despondent.

What was a little frustrating at first was only finding studies pertaining to the United States and Europe but a quick e-mail to the incomparable Lactation Resource Centre led me to several studies done in Australia over the last four years. The most recent being an analysis of results from a small sample of 173 women across Australia in 2002/2003. The study’s aim was to “investigate the levels of dioxin-like compounds in pooled human milk samples”. It found that “consistent with worldwide trends, the levels of dioxin-like compounds have decreased over a ten-year period from 1993 – 2003 by approximately 60%”. The study went on to comment that “breast milk is the best food for babies (and further it) may contain low levels of dioxins because of its fat content, but all babies are exposed to dioxins even if they are not breastfed”. And finally, to really cement my peace of mind “several studies around the world in areas where dioxin levels are known to be high have still shown that breastfed babies are healthier than those fed infant formula”4

What the researchers say
Sandra Steingraber, a professor of biology, published a book in 2002 titled “Having Faith” and as part of her book tour took her new born son with her and breastfed him as she lectured about the “ongoing adulteration of human breastmilk with chemical contaminants” 5. ; ; ;Not because she was an exhibitionist but because she wanted to get the message out that despite the long term poisoning of our environment and ourselves with fat soluble pollutants breast is still by a long yard the best nourishment our children can have. Every other researcher, government website, article that I have read has concluded with the same message. Breast is best. What has also been a common thread is that the levels of POPs in breastmilk should serve as a wake up call that the “presence of toxic chemicals in breast milk compromises its integrity and infringes on a child’s right to enjoy safe food and security of person – rights that are sanctified by the United Nations”6

What can you do?
It all depends on whether you feel you need to do anything. What we need to realise is that the contaminants are not just in breast milk, they’re in our bodies, in everyone’s bodies and that it is crucial to reduce the chemical burden on all of our bodies. Just because breast milk has these nasties in it doesn’t mean that switching to formula is going to prevent those same POPs entering your child’s system. Human breastmilk is species specific, formula is a fifty to sixty year old experiment that is adequate but not ideal. Breast milk is used to calculate the chemical burden but it also contains precious nourishment and antibodies that anything manufactured is hard pressed to even remotely mimic. It is a living thing that changes constantly according to each infant’s needs and I believe it is my children’s birthright. Not just to be fed breastmilk but also to have it uncontaminated.

The results of the breast milk studies here in Australia have shown that the levels of POP residues in breast milk have dropped as their use has been reduced in the environment. So by accordingly reducing your own body’s chemical burden you will be reducing the amount of POPs which your body can pass onto your infant. Reducing your animal fat (including dairy) intake or ensuring that those products you want to eat, whole cow’s milk, cheese, meat, chicken for example, are organically produced is one way of limiting POPs in your system. You can also minimise your day to day contact with POPs by avoiding using them on your garden or around your home. There are several green housekeeping and gardening guides available which offer alternatives to the products lining the supermarket and home & garden centre shelves. You can reassure yourself by joining a group like Australian Breastfeeding Association, Natural Parenting or Joyous Birth and discover a breastfeeding friendly world where a sense of humour gets most of us through most things. Finally you could also consider activism, from little things like writing a letter, lobbying government and industry to continue decreasing the creation and release of these contaminants into our environment or joining one of the non profit groups that are working on this issue. The clearest message came from an article by Christine Gross-Loh, “All the studies that demonstrated the benefits of breastfeeding – the myriad of ways it protects mother and baby – were done on contaminated breastmilk. There are many safeguards built into mother’s milk that are yet unknown”.7

Some of the POPs currently in our environment

DDT came into use in the 1940s and was used in agriculture and the domestic environment to control insect pests. It has been banned in Australia since 1987.

Chlordane was used to control termites in buildings and houses, ants, borers, lawn beetles and black beetles and worms.

Dieldrin was used against locusts, argentine ants; to protect electricity poles and telephone cables; as a termite treatment in farms, industrial premises, buildings, houses, fences and sheds.

Aldrin was used as a pre-planting soil treatment for crops such as sugar cane; for ant control; subterranean termite control; to protect power poles from termites; for farm, industrial and domestic control of fleas, flies, lice and mites.

Heptachlor was used similarly to Chlordane. It was also used as a soil treatment in crops to control funnel ants, the grubs of grey-black beetle in sugar cane areas and banana beetle borer in banana plantations.

Hexachlorobenzene was used as a seed fungicide. It is now banned in Australia.

Chlorinated chlorophenols such as pentachlorophenol have been widely used in Australia to protect softwood timber from decay.

(taken from ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES IN AUSTRALIAN BREAST MILK: ASSOCIATION FOR SENSITIVITY, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & ALLERGIES (ASEHA QLD) [ which form part of the 12 POPs initially targeted by the Stockholm Convention and UNEP: Aldrin, Chlordane, Dieldrin, DDT, Endrin, Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene, Mirex, Toxaphene, PCBs, Dioxins, Furans.]

Author - Kris Campbell
Kris Erskine Campbell lives, loves and dreams with her minstrel Gordon and three jolly jesters Dara, Kell and Fern in the foothills of Mt Wellington in Tasmania. Celebrations add sparkles to her life.

---

<< Previous Introducing Solids Food to your Baby | Back to Breastfeeding | Next >> Mastitis €“ How could I have Mastitis?