View From the Top > Letters

Milky Residue

TO THE EDITOR:

I was appalled by Susan Piperato’s article “Got Toxins?” [6/03 issue]. To imply that breast milk is toxic and carcinogenic is outrageously irresponsible. If breast milk is dangerous, why are breastfed kids healthier and smarter than kids fed only formula? Why do they have lower rates of cancer and chronic diseases? Commercial formula is made from the milk of factory-farmed cows raised on antibiotics and steroids with preservatives to extend shelf life—or genetically modified soy—with corn syrup, whey protein, oil, lactose, malto-dextrin, corn starch, carageenan, mono and diglycerides, and synthetic minerals and vitamins. That’s the available alternative. I am all for political endeavors to clean up food, air, and water but this takes time under the best of circumstances. Most commercial mega-farms are owned by corporations with little to gain from increased restrictions. Big business also obviously has friends in state and federal government.

Further, it is reckless to publish such an inflammatory piece without listing sources for the claims made. Who publishes Rachel’s Hazardous Waste News? From whom do they get their information? One of Piperato’s sources implies that the FDA routinely tests breast milk for pesticides. This is ridiculous. The American Academy of Pediatrics lists 175 articles and policy statements regarding breastfeeding on its Web site. Nicotine and psychotropic drugs are the only toxins mentioned. They also state that the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh any theoretical risks of artificially feeding when mothers have silicone breast implants or are taking all but a few medications.

Finally, Piperato states, “By breastfeeding, a woman activates her fat cells to produce milk.” This is incorrect. Fat cells store fat, which is a source of energy. Fat cells do not produce anything. Glandular cells of the mammary glands produce and secrete milk. They do not store anything. The author of such an irresponsible piece should at least get her facts straight. Errors like this one drain credibility from the entire piece.

—Susanrachel Condon, CNM CCE LMT, Modena

SUSAN PIPERATO REPLIES:

For the record: I breastfed my two boys, born in 1990 and 1993, for a combined total of nearly three years, despite several problems, including recurring mastitis.

I chose to write about breast milk contamination after interviewing Sarah Ruth van Gelder, editor of Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures, who told me that breast milk is now so contaminated that if it were sold commercially, it would be banned from supermarket shelves by the FDA. I quoted Ms. van Gelder’s statement in my May “Life in the Balance” column.

I also noted that despite its contamination, medical and environmental experts agree that breast milk is still best. Although several resources support Ms. van Gelder’s statement, including such feminist-approved texts on women’s health as Our Bodies, Ourselves for the New Century (which states in a section called “Breast Milk Contamination”: “The level of toxic contaminants in many American women’s breast milk is often reported to exceed the FDA’s ‘acceptable daily intake’ levels for other foods”), I chose to quote from an article published by Rachel’s Hazardous Waste News (AKA Rachel’s Environment and Health News; www.ejnet.org/rachel), a reputable clearinghouse for news and resources on environmental justice. None of my sources, or statements in my column, “impl[y] that the FDA routinely tests breast milk for pesticides” as Condon claims.

Condon seems to think that by pointing out that breast milk—like our own bodies—has been polluted I am advocating the use of infant formula. I clearly am not. Nowhere in my article do I suggest using formula as an alternative to breastfeeding; in fact, every resource I name promotes breastfeeding. (Again, for the record, I have been an anti-formula activist.)

Lastly, Condon accuses me of inaccuracy in stating that “a woman activates her fat cells to produce milk.” Yes, fat cells store energy, and no, fat cells in and of themselves do not “produce” anything, but as any breastfeeding mother knows, fat cells are vital to the production of breast milk. Our Bodies, Ourselves, for example, advises nursing mothers not to try to lose weight while breastfeeding because “the ten or so extra pounds you retained after birth will help your body sustain milk production during the first few months. In addition, sudden weight loss can be harmful: If your body is forced to mobilize its fat supplies, your milk may contain higher amounts of some of the potentially hazardous chemicals found in our environment and food supplies.”

Pants are Practical

TO THE EDITOR:

Just a couple of observations pertaining to the July issue: I am all for a self-sustainable mode of living such as the Walkers are pursuing, but I am curious as to why such a lifestyle necessitates sex-typed uniforms [“Living Laboratory” by Susan Piperato, 7/03]. Surely, from a strictly practical point of view, with all the activity such a lifestyle involves, wouldn’t pants be practical for all? So, is there more to this endeavor than is professed? Antiquated expectations and task assignment based on genitalia, etc? Also, I am proud that Ameribag is a small, local business that is succeeding [“In the Bag” by Mala Hoffman, 07/03]. However, what do the factory workers in Asia and Barbados who contribute so much to that success earn per hour? Are they unionized? I’d like to think the best, but I’d also like answers to points that were overlooked in the otherwise informative article. Thanks again for a thought-provoking issue.

—Cheryl A. Rice, Kingston

The Ballad of a Good Man

TO THE EDITOR:

It’s a shame. Felicia Hodges [“The Child Support System: Tangled Beyond Repair," 7/03] expressed only one side of the child support issue, the one side that is usually presented in any media vehicle: Bash the man. He is despicable. He runs, he hides, he ducks.

How about the other guy? How about the good man? The man that gives up personal goals, aspirations, to be as close to his children as possible. The one that maintains a visible and loving presence in his children’s lives. The one who hasn’t missed a payment in four or so years (since the beginning). The one who knows that his hard-earned money is going partially to his children’s needs but mostly for the entertainment of the mother. You get my drift.

It’s a shame Felicia chose only one side of the topic—then again, most people do, and it gives the good man a bad rap.

—Tom Allen, Woodstock