Breastfeeding and Contaminants
Nancy Mohrbacher
From: NEW BEGINNINGS, Vol. 2 No. 5, Sept-Oct 1986, pp. 128-130
Ed. Note: We provide
articles from our publications from previous years for reference for our Leaders
and members. Readers are cautioned to remember that research and medical information
change over time.
Is breastfeeding hazardous
to babies' health? This was the allegation earlier this year when the
US press published stories about two environmental contaminants--heptachlor
and dioxin--that were reported to be present at dangerous levels in
breast milk. These reports shook the confidence of many nursing mothers,
some of whom weaned their babies unnecessarily since these dangers later
proved to be exaggerated.
Heptachlor and dioxin are
man-made chemical compounds that are not biodegradable, that is, they
cannot be broken down by natural processes. These compounds are fat
soluble; when they are ingested by a living organism they settle in
the fatty tissue and are not easily metabolized and excreted. When a
mother's body mobilizes fat stores for energy to make milk, small amounts
of these contaminants enter her milk.
In early March of this year
it was discovered that cow's milk and other milk products contaminated
with the pesticide heptachlor were being sold in eight of the United
States: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, and Texas.
Heptachlor, a suspected carcinogen,
was banned in 1983 by the United States government for use on food crops.
However, manufacturers were allowed to sell existing stores for crops
not planned for consumption. According to the news reports, contaminated
corn mash, a byproduct of the process used to make gasohol, was sold
to dairy farmers as feed for their cattle. The cows ate the contaminated
mash and the heptachlor was excreted into their milk at levels above
legal limits.
Once the contamination was
discovered, the tainted milk and other dairy products were removed from
grocery store shelves. In addition, federal agencies quarantined and
investigated the dairy farms in question. Pregnant and nursing mothers
in the affected areas were cautioned to avoid milk and milk products
until they were judged to be within the prescribed federal guidelines.
As the investigation proceeded, however, uncertainty grew as to how
long the dairy cattle had been fed the heptachlor-contaminated grain.
Because the companies had kept such poor records it was impossible to
confirm, but it seemed likely that contaminated feed had been distributed
to dairy farms for more than a year.
Meanwhile emotions ran high,
especially in Arkansas where ten percent of the dairies were affected
and the Public Health Department would not clarify the extent of the
health risks. The media highlighted possible dangers to the nursing
baby before tests determined how much heptachlor was being excreted
into breast milk and before safe levels had been defined. Early in the
controversy a group of obstetricians at the University of Arkansas for
Medical Sciences issued an advisory, warning all breastfeeding mothers
to immediately stop nursing their babies, irrespective of whether or
not they had drunk the contaminated milk. The press reports of safe
levels of heptachlor in breast milk kept changing and at first there
were no available facilities for testing breast milk. Eventually one
private lab in Arkansas offered to test breast milk for heptachlor at
no charge.
No doubt many nursing mothers
weaned their babies during the scare. Hundreds more called their local
LLL Leaders. La Leche League International also received many letters
and phone calls. As one mother from northwest Arkansas wrote: "I enjoy
nursing (four-month-old) Sean. I would like to continue, but not at
the expense of his health."
La Leche League International
contacted the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, but because
the problem fell within the responsibilities of the states, this federal
agency could issue no public recommendations. Other government agencies,
such as the Federal Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency, claimed that because the levels of heptachlor reported were
not a cause for concern they would make no statement. To determine the
specific dangers to nursing mothers and babies, LLLI staff consulted
members of the Professional Advisory Board and other knowledgeable scientists.
These experts agreed that the levels of heptachlor that had been reported
in breast milk were below the levels that were considered to be harmful.
Spurred on by their recommendations, LLLI issued a press release stating
that because of the undeniable benefits of breastfeeding and the lack
of evidence to date, weaning was not advisable. Proper procedures were
given for collecting breast milk for testing and guidelines were offered
to help pinpoint mothers whose babies might be at higher risk.
The final resolution of the
controversy came more than a month after the news of the contamination
broke when the Centers for Disease Control issued a report containing
the results of tests done on families who lived on the contaminated
dairy farms. These families were at greatest risk because they had administered
the contaminated feed, lived around it, and drunk the milk from the
cows. None of the people who were most directly exposed showed any of
the physical effects that large doses of heptachlor can produce, such
as liver impairment. And the levels of heptachlor in their blood were
only modestly higher than what would be expected from exposure to "background
levels" of heptachlor, that is, levels that are present in the general
environment. Only five percent of the farm families had levels higher
than this. On the basis of these tests it was concluded that the general
population was not at risk and no further testing of breast milk was
needed. The report termed the risks to the nursing baby "negligible."
Just when the furor over
heptachlor began to die down, dioxin contamination became the center
of attention. The controversy began not with an accident or mishap but
with a research paper presented at a meeting of the American Chemical
Society on April 15. Dr. Arnold Schecter, a New York physician and researcher
in the field of environmental contamination, asserted in his paper that
a baby breastfed for one year would receive eighteen times the recommended
lifetime dose of the toxic herbicide dioxin from his mother's milk.
The press, in covering the event, overlooked the details of the presentation
and focused on this one point, reporting the hypothesis as if it were
an established fact, which it was not. Dr. Schecter's hypothesis was
based on his analysis of fatty tissue samples taken from women during
autopsies. He had not tested breast milk for dioxin, nor had he examined
babies or children for evidence of dioxin toxicity. He had simply estimated
possible levels of dioxin in breast milk based on the amount of dioxin
he found in the tissue samples.
This time the response from
national health organizations was immediate. Within the day the Centers
for Disease Control issued a statement pointing out the errors and inconsistencies
of the press reports and disputing Dr. Schecter's conclusions. The statement
said that safe levels of dioxin had never been established for humans.
It also pointed out that "substitutes for human milk are not entirely
free of these compounds and may have higher metal levels" and added
that "the amount of these chemicals present in human milk does not make
a significant contribution to the overall lifetime exposure in humans."
LLLI was advised by a representative
of the Centers for Disease Control that this statement was about to
be released. LLLI staff members reviewed this information with the Professional
Advisory Board and prepared a press release, again affirming the value
of breast milk, advising against weaning, and offering suggestions for
ways women can minimize their exposure to environmental contaminants.
A short time later the American Academy of Pediatrics also issued a
statement concurring with those made by LLLI and the Centers for Disease
Control.
It is true that environmental
contaminants are present everywhere and are also present, in low levels,
in breast milk, Naturally every mother wants to ensure that her baby
grows up in the safest and healthiest environment. The issue is complex,
and oversimplified information in the popular press often creates a
lot of worry for nursing mothers. Studies are continuing, but it seems
certain that the known benefits of breast milk for babies far outweigh
the risks of contamination. LLLI's Information Sheet, Environmental
contaminants in Breast Milk, contains information on this issue that
can be used in evaluating individual circumstances.
If and when such alarming
reports appear in the press in the future, mothers can count on LLLI
to investigate the situation, consult with authorities, and inform our
members about any documented, confirmed dangers. Meanwhile, experts
from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the US Centers for Disease
Control, and LLLI's Professional Advisory Board agree that mothers can
continue to enjoy breastfeeding their babies and know that its benefits
have withstood the test of time.
Editor's note: Special
thanks to Julie Stock, the LLLI staff person who served as contact person
on these issues and who contributed significantly to this article.
Last updated Monday, September 11, 2006 by njb.
Page last edited Sun Oct 14 09:31:58 UTC 2007.
