The Deadly Influence of Formula in America, Part I

[Guest guest]

http://mercola.com/2003/dec/24/formula_influence.htm

 

The Deadly Influence of Formula in America, Part I

 

 

[ Part I,

By Dr. Linda Folden Palmer

First published on Natural Family Online

 

This groundbreaking analysis from noted author, health educator and advocate Dr.

Linda Folden Palmer is the first time a health expert has published an

examination of the available scientific research comparing the death rates of

formula-fed and breastfed babies. While the results hold no surprises for

breastfeeding educators and advocates, the study may prove to be a rude

awakening for the millions of Americans who have bought into the myth that

infant formula is a perfectly safe breast milk substitute.

 

Infant formula was designed to be a medical nutritional tool for babies who are

unable to breastfeed. Formula does not fully meet the nutritional and immunity

needs of infants, leaving their immune systems flailing. An infant’s immune

system has three aspects: her own immature, developing immune system; the small

component of immunities that passes through the placenta during natural

childbirth (and to a lesser degree with premature births and cesarean sections);

and the most valuable, living portion that is passed on through mother’s milk on

an ongoing basis. Remove any of these components and you take away a vital

support structure.

 

This brings us face to face with the safety and effectiveness of infant formula

as a breast milk substitute. Is formula actually as safe as we have been led to

believe? In fact, the answer is a resounding “no.” In fact, the use of infant

formula doubles the risk of infant death for American babies.

 

While the dangers of formula feeding aren’t something you’re likely to hear in

your doctor’s office, the conclusions can be derived through an examination of

the available scientific research on infant mortality in the United States and

across the world. There are studies showing artificial feeding’s impact on

overall infant death rates in both developing and undeveloped countries. While

studies offering comparative death rates are not available for industrialized

regions, there are numerous studies providing comparative occurrence rates for

many illnesses and disorders in the United States and other industrialized

nations. Many more reports are available extolling superior survival rates and

decreased illness rates among breastfed infants, but only those with solid

numbers are useful here. We can assemble the statistics from these studies to

build a firm picture of the ratio of infant deaths for U.S. formula-fed babies

against those who are breastfed.

 

The relative risks of formula

 

It is clear that feeding infants artificial formula instead of breastfeeding

increases their relative risk of death. A number of studies point to this fact.

Table 1 shows figures from two studies measuring infant mortality risks during

certain age ranges. A risk number of 3 in the chart represents three times the

risk of infant death for infants who are artificially fed.

 

While the numbers in the charts reflect any amount of breastfeeding during the

study period (and not necessarily exclusive breastfeeding), nearly all studies

mention that during the first six months, exclusive breastfeeding produces much

higher survival rates than partial breastfeeding. No studies refute this

assertion. Figures for each age range listed here do not include children who

died prior to reaching that age group. Figures reflect infants who received no

breast milk or had weaned prior to reaching the reported age group versus those

who received any breastfeeding through that age.

 

Table 1 clearly demonstrates that the disadvantages of formula are most

devastating in the earliest months. Significant disadvantages for formula

continue throughout the year-long study period.

 

Suggested Relative Risks for Infant Deaths

 

No Breastfeeding or Any Breastfeeding Ending Before Designated Age Ranges vs.

Breastfeeding Through Designated Age Ranges (1,2)

Country Author 0 to 2 Mo.3 to 5 Mo.6 to 11 Mo.MexicoPalloni1363Brazil, Pakistan

and Philippines (pooled)World Health Organization 0 to 2 Mo.2-3 Mo.4-5 Mo.6-8

Mo.9-11 Mo.642.521.5

A relative risk of 13 here means that a child who was not breastfed through the

time period has thirteen times the risk of dying during his first year as a

child who had received any breast milk through that period.

 

The studies cited in the next table compare no breastfeeding with 12 months of

breastfeeding, each deriving a relative risk of death over the full first year.

 

Suggested Relative Risks for Infant Deaths

 

No Breastfeeding vs. Any Breastfeeding for 12 Months (3-7)

 

Country Author Current Infant Mortality RateIMR During Period Study was

PerformedRelative Risk To Formula-Fed InfantsUnited States

7 Number we wish to findMalaysia

Habicht

19

30

> 2 *Mexico (from Table 1)

Palloni 24 38 10 *Philippines

Guilkey2831 > 5.5 China

Tu 27 36 > 3.0 Peru

Palloni38 100

2.5 Brazil, Pakistan, and Philippines, pooled (from Table 1)

WHO48 average 4.5 *IndiaSrivastava61106> 1.5

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

births, from 0 to 12 months of age. A relative risk of 5 here means that an

infant who receives formula statistically faces five times the risk of dying as

an infant who is partially or completely breastfed.

 

* These values are calculated from numbers provided in the studies, with

averages weighted by percentages of total deaths occurring in each age range.

More than two-thirds of deaths occur during the first month.

 

While the United States has a current infant mortality rate of 6.75 per

thousand, many countries have rates approaching 100, with 16 of 225 reporting

nations suffering well over 100 infant deaths for every 1,000 children born.(8)

The nations in the above table with lower infant mortality rates can thus be

seen as somewhat comparable to the United States.

 

Factors influencing high infant death rates include malnourished mothers, high

numbers of births per mother with short spacing between births, poor weaning

foods, the early use of cow’s milk, inadequate medical attention and supplies,

poor sanitation leading to high infection rates and a rapid spread of infectious

disease, and limited education about methods of limiting infection and the

spread of disease.

 

Why do U.S. babies die?

 

Below are the percentages and total numbers of U.S. infants who die from various

leading causes, according to the 1999 National Vital Statistics Reports. (9,10)

 

 

Total U.S. births in 1999:4,000,000Total U.S. infant deaths in 1999:

28,000

PercentCauseTotal20%Congenital abnormalities (birth defects)5,50016%Low birth

weight and premature birth

4,50010%Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

2,7008.5%Complications during pregnancy and birth

2,4006%Respiratory distress: lung collapse, influenza, pneumonia

1,7503%Accidents (unintentional injuries) 8502.5%Bacterial sepsis (infections)

7002.4%Circulatory system diseases 6501.4%Necrotizing enterocolitis

4001%Intestinal inflammations (diarrhea) 3000.3%Meningitis

1000.3%Cancer 100

Numbers account for 70 percent of total infant deaths

 

So how does formula play into these deaths? Let’s look at some of the common

causes of infant death and see what current research has to say on the

involvement of infant formula.

 

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

 

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) accounts for a full 10 percent of U.S.

infant deaths. Several studies performed in the United States and other

industrialized nations reveal increased risks of SIDS among babies who receive

formula instead of breast milk. In the table below, the 2002 Scandinavian study

takes into account variables thought to have affected the 2000 U.S. study,

finding even stronger risks associated with formula.

 

The most recent U.S. study (2003) takes advantage of the lessons from these

earlier studies to raise confidence in its final results. Its finding of five

times the risk of infant death from SIDS for formula-fed infants seems to be the

most powerful statistic yet.

 

Studies Demonstrating Relative Risks of Infant Death from SIDS

Formula-Fed vs. Breastfed (11-17)

Country Author Year of study publication Relative risk for SIDS, formula-fed

infantsUnited StatesHauck

2003

5ScandinaviaAlm20021.6 to 5.1United

StatesMcVea20002GermanySchellscheidt19977.7EnglandGilbert

19953.1United States

Klonoff-Cohen

1995

2.7New ZealandFord19932

A relative risk of 5 here means that an infant who receives formula

statistically faces five times the risk of dying from SIDS as an infant who is

breastfed.

 

Heart, Circulatory and Respiratory Failure

 

Premature infants and those with circulatory abnormalities often display one or

more warning signs of potential death, including inadequate oxygenation of the

blood, apnea (episodes where breathing stops) and high blood pressure. Studies

illustrate the dangers of formula for these infants. One study observed better

body temperature and superior oxygenation in pre-term infants receiving breast

milk. Formula-fed infants demonstrated many episodes of inadequate oxygenation

and some apnea, both of which were not seen among the breastfed infants. A

Scottish study found significantly better blood pressure among naturally fed

infants.

 

Three U.S. studies are available examining feeding methods for infants with

early circulatory problems. One study reported that more than half of infants

with congenital heart disease lost oxygenation during bottle feedings, while

none did so while breastfeeding. Another study also dealing with heart disease

found infants’ growth to be significantly inferior and their hospitalizations to

be longer when they were fed formula. A third study of very low birth-weight

infants found twice as many episodes of inadequate oxygenation among formula-fed

infants as in those who received breast milk.

 

Heart and Circulatory Disease in Formula-Fed vs. Breastfed (18-22)

 

 

Country Author YearFindings for formula-fed infantsScotland

Wilson

1998Higher blood pressure TaiwanChen2000

Apnea and many episodes of oxygen desaturation (none among breastfed infants)

Inferior body temperature regulationUSA Bier1993

Double the episodes of oxygen desaturationUSACombs

1993

Less growth; longer hospital staysUSAMarino

1995

Oxygen desaturation during more than half of bottle feedings (none during

breastfeeding)

Necrotizing Enterocolitis

 

Necrotizing enterocolitis is a severe intestinal inflammatory disorder that

affects around 4 percent of low birth-weight babies and 1 percent of full-term

infants. About one-third of low birth-weight infants and 20 percent of full-term

infants who contract this disorder die. While necrotizing enterocolitis is

reported to be responsible for 1.4 percent of infant deaths, many more

unconfirmed cases are likely to be responsible for some portion of infant deaths

reported as caused by prematurity.

 

In the United Kingdom, it was discovered that confirmed cases of necrotizing

enterocolitis occurred in three times as many infants who received no breast

milk as in those who received both breast milk and formula. For infants who

exclusively received breast milk, necrotizing enterocolitis occurred six to 10

times less often than among wholly formula-fed infants.

 

Necrotizing Enterocolitis (23)

Country Author YearRelative risk of necrotizing enterocolitis, formula-fed

infantsUnited Kingdom Lucas 1990 6-10 times more often

Diarrhea

 

A World Health Organization (WHO) study revealed a risk of diarrhea for

formula-fed babies in developing nations averaging more than six times that of

breastfed babies. A summary article for industrialized nations demonstrated an

average of triple the risk of diarrhea for formula-fed babies. The risk in China

and Israel is reported as slightly less than triple (2.8); in Scotland, the risk

is five-fold; and a doubled risk is measured in Canada.

 

While one study noted nearly twice the risk of developing diarrhea for

artificially fed infants in Brazil, other studies have demonstrated that the

risk of actually dying from diarrhea was an astounding 14 to 15 times greater.

The latter studies demonstrated not only that the artificially fed infants

suffer higher rates of illness, but also that the severity and duration of their

illnesses are even greater when they do occur and result in proportionately more

deaths. This same assertion is demonstrated in a study from India, where

formula-fed infants suffer six times the death rate, once diarrhea occurs, as

breastfed infants with diarrhea.

 

Four separate studies in the United States all deduce a doubled risk of diarrhea

for formula-fed babies. The U.S. studies also reiterate the well-established

factor of greater severity and extent of illness once diarrhea does occur among

formula-fed babies. Death rates for formula-fed U.S. infants who get diarrhea

may be three times higher or more than their breastfed contemporaries.

 

The table below collates the reported risks of diarrhea for formula-fed infants

from many studies.

 

Diarrhea Risks for Formula-Fed vs. Breastfed (24-40)

Country Author YearRelative risk of diarrheal illness (or death), formula-fed

infantsIsrael

Palti19842.7 (during the first 5 months)Brazil

Victora

198914 times the death rateScotland

Howie

19905 (compared with infants with 3 months of breastfeeding)India

Sachdev

19916 times the death rate with diarrhea during the first 6 monthsCanada

Beaudry

19951.9Philippines

Yoon

19969 times the death rateMexico

Lopez-Alarcon

19974 to 6.3Industrialized nations, pooledGolding19973 (gastroenteritis and

diarrhea)ChinaFu2000

2.8 (during the first 4 months)6 developing nationsWHO20006 (during the first 6

months)ItalyGianino2002

3 (rotavirus, including increased severity)BrazilEscuder 200315 times the death

rate (during the first 6 months)2.2 times the death rate (from 4 to 11

months)BrazilVieira20031.8USADewey 19952 USAScariati 1997

1.8USAWright19982USARaisler19992 (during the first 6 months)

Respiratory Illnesses

 

Numerous studies document higher numbers of respiratory infections among

formula-fed infants than among those who are breastfed. It is clear that

respiratory infections are at least triple in the United States for formula-fed

infants. The death rate is likely to be even higher, since some of these studies

note that both the severity and extent of respiratory illnesses are considerably

higher once they occur.

 

Respiratory Illness Risks for Formula-Fed vs. Breastfed (41-50)

Country Author YearRelative risk of respiratory illness (or death), formula-fed

infantsIsraelPalti

19843.7 (during the first 5 months)Brazil Victora19873.6 times deathItaly

Pisacane19944.5Mexico Lopez19972 to 8.5 (during the first 4 months)1.5 to 3

times as many days for each occurrenceScotland Wilson19981.9 (during the first 4

months)Brazil

Cesar199917 times hospitalization for pneumoniaUSAWright19982 (bronchitis)4

(pneumonia)USALevine19993.7 (pneumococcal disease, 2 to 11

months)USABlaymore-Bier20026 times as many days of upper respiratory infection

(during the first month)USABachrach

2003

3.5 (severe respiratory tract illnesses)

Cancer

 

A joint study between the United States and Canada on neuroblastoma, a common

childhood cancer, revealed a doubled risk for children who did not receive

breast milk for more than one year. This study is consistent with several other

childhood cancer studies in other nations, with results ranging from 1.45 to 4

times the risk for developing various common childhood cancers for formula-fed

babies.

 

Childhood Cancer Risks for Formula-fed vs. Breastfed (51-56)

 

Country Author YearFindings for formula feeding and cancer risksChina

Shu19951.5 (leukemia and lymphoma)UAE

Bener20012.8 (leukemia and lymphomas for no or less than 6 months breastfed

versus longer breastfeeding)France

Perrillat20022 (leukemia for breastfeeding over 6 months)U.S. & CanadaDaniels

2002

2 (neuroblastoma)

Continued Next Issue ...

[ Part I, Part II ] Next >>

 

 

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

 

Palloni et al., “The effects of breast-feeding and the pace of childbearing on

early childhood mortality in Mexico,” Bulletin of the Pan American Health

Organization (Mexico) 28, no.2 (Jun 1994): 93-111.

 

 

WHO Collaborative Study Team on the Role of Breastfeeding on the Prevention of

Infant Mortality, “Effect of breastfeeding on infant and child mortality due to

infectious diseases in less developed countries: a pooled analysis,” Lancet 355,

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

 

 

J.P. Habicht et al., “Does breastfeeding really save lives, or are apparent

benefits due to biases?” American Journal of Epidemiolofy 123, no. 2 (Feb 1986):

279–90.

 

 

D.K. Guilkey and R.T. Riphahn, “The determinants of child mortality in the

Phillipines: estimation of a structural model,” Journal of Development Economics

(US and Germany) 56, no. 2 (Aug 1998): 281-305.

 

 

P. Tu, “The effects of breastfeeding and birth spacing on child survival in

China,” Studies in Family Planning (China) 20, no. 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1989): 332-342.

 

 

Palloni and M. Tienda, “The effects of breastfeeding and pace of childbearing on

mortality at early ages,” Demography (US) 23, no. 1 (Feb 1986): 31-52.

 

 

S.P. Srivastava et al., “Mortality patterns in breast versus artificially fed

term babies in early infancy: a longitudinal study,” Indian Peadrics (India) 31,

no. 11 (Nov 1994): 1393-6.

 

 

The World Fact Book,

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

 

 

National Vital Statistics Report, 49, no. 11 (Oct 12, 2001): 1-12.

 

 

National Vital Statistics Report, 50, no. 16 (Sep 16, 2002): 1-12.

 

 

F.R. Hauck et al., “Sleep environment and the risk of Sudden Infant Death

Syndrome in an urban population: the Chicago infant mortality study,” Pediatrics

(US) 111, no. 5 (May 2003): 1207-1214.

 

 

B. Alm et al., “Breastfeeding and the sudden infant death syndrome in

Scandinavia, 1992-1995,” Archives of Disease in Childhood (Sweden) 86

(2002:400-402.

 

 

K.L. McVea et al., “The role of breastfeeding in sudden infant death syndrome,”

Journal of Human Lactation (US) 16, no. 1 (Feb 2000): 13-20.

 

 

J. Schellscheidt et al., “Epidemiological features of sudden infant death after

a German intervention campaign in 1992,” Eur J Pediatr (Germany) 156, no. 8 (Aug

1997): 655–60.

 

 

R.E. Gilbert, “Bottle feeding and the sudden infant death syndrome,” British

Medical Journal (England) 310, no. 6972 (Jan 14, 1995): 88-90.

 

 

H.S. Klonoff-Cohen et al., “The effect of passive smoking and tobacco exposure

through breast milk on sudden infant death syndrome,” JAMA (US) 273, no. 10 (Mar

1995): 795–8.

 

 

R.P. Ford et al., “Breastfeeding and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome,”

International Journal of Epidemiology (New Zealand) 22, no. 5 (Oct. 1993):

885-90.

 

 

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.

 

 

C.H. Chen et al., “The effect of breast- and bottle-feeding on oxygen saturation

and body temperature in preterm infants,” Journal of Human Lactation (Taiwan)

16, no. 1 (Feb 2000): 21-7.

 

 

J.B. Bier et al., “Breast-feeding of very low birth weight infants,” Journal of

Pediatrics (Rhode Island, USA) 123, no. 5 (Nov 1993): 773-8.

 

 

V.L. Combs and B.L. Marina, “A comparison of growth patterns in breast and

bottle-fed infants with congenital heart disease,” Pediatric Nursing (USA) 19,

no. 2 (Mar-Apr 1993):175-9.

 

 

B.L. Marino et al., “Oxygen saturations during breast and bottle feedings in

infants with congenital heart disease,” Journal of Pediatric Nursing (USA) 10,

no. 6 (Dec 1995): 360-4.

 

 

A. Lucas and T.J. Cole, “Breast milk and neonatal necrotising enterocolitis,”

Lancet (UK) 336, no. 8730 (Dec 22-29, 1990): 1519-23.

 

 

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.

 

 

C.G. Victora et al., “Infant feeding and deaths due to diarrhea. A case-control

study,” American Journal of Epidemiology (Brazil) 129, no. 5 (May 1989): 1032-41

 

 

P.W. Howie et al., “Protective effect of breast feeding against infection,”

British Medical Journal (Scotland) 300, no. 6716 (Jan 6, 1990): 11-6.

 

 

H.P. Sachdev et al., “Does breastfeeding influence mortality in children

hospitalized with diarrhoea?” Journal of Tropical Pediatrics (India) 37, no. 6

(Dec 1991): 275-9.

 

 

M. Beaudry et al., “Relation between infant feeding and infections during the

first six months of life,” Journal of Pediatrics (Canada) 126, no. 2 (Feb 1995):

191-7.

 

 

P.W. Yoon, “Effect of not breastfeeding on the risk of diarrheal and respiratory

mortality in children under 2 years of age in Metro Cebu, The Philippines,”

American Journal of Epidemiology (Philippines) 143, no. 11 (Jun 1996): 1142-8.

 

 

M. Lopez-Alarcon et al., “Breast-feeding lowers the frequency and duration of

acute respiratory infection and diarrhea in infants under six months of age,” J

Nutr (Mexico) 127, no. 3 (Mar 1997): 436–43.

 

 

J. Golding et al, “Gastroenteritis, diarrhoea and breast feeding,” Early Human

Development (England) 49, suppl. (Oct 29, 1997): S83-103

 

 

Z. Fu et al., “Exclusive breastfeeding and growth of infants under 4 months in

China,” Wei Sheng Yan Jiu (Center for Public Health Information, Chinese Academy

of Preventive Medicine) 29, no. 5 (Sep 2000): 275-8.

 

 

WHO Collaborative Study Team on the Role of Breastfeeding on the Prevention of

Infant Mortality, “Effect of breastfeeding on infant and child mortality due to

infectious diseases in less developed countries: a pooled analysis,” Lancet 355,

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

 

 

P. Gianino et al., “Incidence of nosocomial rotavirus infections, symptomatic

and asymptomatic, in breast-fed and non-breast-fed infants,” Journal Of Hospital

Infection (Italy) 50, no. 1 (Jan 2002): 13-7.

 

 

M.M. Escuder et al., “Impace estimates of breastfeeding over infant mortality,”

Rev Saude Publica (Brazil) 37, no. 3 (Jun 2003): 319-25.

 

 

G.O. Vieira et al., “Child feeding and diarrhea morbidity,” Journal of

Pediatrics (Brazil) 79, no. 5 (Sep-Oct 2003): 449-54.

 

 

K.G. Dewey et al., “Differences in morbidity between breast-fed and formula-fed

infants,” Journal of Pediatrics (Davis, USA) 126, no. 5, pt. 1 (May 1995):

696-702.

 

 

P.D. Scariati et al., “A longitudinal analysis of infant morbidity and the

extent of breastfeeding in the United States,” Pediatrics (USA) 99, no. 6 (Jun

1997): E5.

 

 

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.

 

 

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

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

 

 

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.

 

 

C.G. Victora et al., “Evidence for protection by breast-feeding against infant

deaths from infectious diseases in Brazil,” Lancet (Brazil) 2, no. 8554 (Aug

1987): 319-22.

 

 

Pisacane et al., “Breastfeeding and acute lower respiratory infection,” Acta

Paediatr (Italy) 83, no. 7 (Jul 1994): 714-8.

 

 

M. Lopez-Alarcon et al., “Breast-feeding lowers the frequency and duration of

acute respiratory infection and diarrhea in infants under six months of age,” J

Nutr (Mexico) 127, no. 3 (Mar 1997): 436–43.

 

 

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.

 

 

J.A. Cesar et al., “Impact of breast feeding on admission for pneumonia during

postneonatal period in Brazil: nested case-control study,” British Medical

Journal (Brazil) 318, no. 7194 (May 1999): 1316-20.

 

 

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

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

 

 

48. O.S. Levine et al., “Risk factors for invasive pneumococcal disease in

children: a population-based case-control study in North America,” Pediatrics

(USA) 103, no. 3 (Mar 1999): E28.

 

 

49. 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.

 

 

V.R. Bachrach et al., “Breastfeeding and the risk of hospitalization for

respiratory disease in infancy: a meta-analysis,” Archives of Pediatric

Adolescent Medicine (USA) 157, no. 3 (Mar 157): 237-43.

 

 

X.O.Shu et al., “Infant breastfeeding and the risk of childhood lymphoma and

leukaemia,” International Journal of Epidemiology (China) 24, no. 1 (Feb 1995):

27-32.

 

 

Bener et al., “Longer breast-feeding and protection against childhood leukaemia

and lymphomas,” European Journal of Cancer (UAE) 37, no. 2 (Jan 2001): 234-8.

 

 

F. Perrillat et al., “Day-care, early common infections and childhood acute

leukaemia: a multicentre French case-control study,” British Journal of Cancer

(France) 86, no. 7 (Apr 8, 2002): 1064-9.

 

 

J.L. Daniels et al., “Breastfeeding and neuroblastoma, USA and Canada,” Cancer

Causes and Control (USA, Canada) 13, no. 5 (Jun 2002): 401-5.

 

 

G.P. Mathur et al., “Breastfeeding and childhood cancer,” Indian Pediatrics

(India) 30, no. 5 (May 1993): 651-7.

 

 

M.K. Davis, “Review of the evidence for an association between infant feeding

and childhood cancer,” International Journal of Cancer (USA) 11, supp. (1998):

29–33.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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