Is Breastmilk Causing Autism?

[...] the little study that explored a possible link between breastfeeding and autism? Scientists are adding to the list: they say pesticides showing up [...]

Cate - You come off like a huge jerk with that last comment. I take it you were trying to be funny, but it sure doesn’t read that way. Rather, it reinforces the (mostly false) stereotype that the “breast is best” brigade is judgmental, sanctimonious and mean. Get off it.

Gotta agree with Chiken. I’d go read your article myself, but why give a jerk the page views? Yeesh. Your comment did more damage than anything Jeanne wrote. You do a disservice to your cause.

Here’s the thing– we live in a very contaminated world. It is a sad and outrageous state of affirs that breastmilk, supposedly the most “pure” and perfect food for the most vulerable among is, is full of PCBs and other toxins. However, so are the cow’s milk and soybeans from which most artificial baby milks are made, not to mention the potential for artificial baby milk to be contaminated in the factory, to leach chemicals from its packaging, or to be contaminated by non-hygenic preparation methods. Maternal breastmilk is the biological norm, and is it the food that babies’ bodies expect to receive. There are many biological protective factors in breastmilk that just can’t be duplicated in a lab (immunoglobulins and antibodies specific to the maternal-child dyad, composition changes in fat and nutrient concentration of breastmilk relative to the age of the nursing child, flavor changes depending on maternal diet, etc). I am not anti-formula, or militant in my lactivism, but I strongly believe that for most (not all) babies, in most places, breastmilk is far superior to any other food for optimum health and development.

“I’ve been waiting for this news to come out?” You’ve been waiting for a new study to report a disadvantage to breastfeeding? Your “BWA HA HA” approach to writing is disturbing at best, and offensive at worst. You accuse pro-breastfeeding movements as resorting to “skullguggary”, but there you are - clearly on the opposite side of the fence - throwing your own stones. Well, congratulations on your new stone. I hope your aim is as inaccurate as your reporting.

The issue isn’t breastmilk vs. formula (…AGAIN), it’s that the study was reported quietly or the results suppressed or the study’s authors wanted to be more circumspect about reporting the results (if the item is to be believed- I don’t have time to click through the links). I’m a breastfeeding mom and this study isn’t going to stop me, though I don’t think formula is poison (any more than my breastmilk apparently is). What I don’t appreciate is not being given all the facts and being allowed to make my own choices. I think that’s where the problem is, and where the pro-breastfeeding voices lose a little credibility for me. If in fact the people who did the study were concerned about releasing this information, well, how about treating me like a grown up able to make my own choices about what is best for my kids?

I agree w lauren who thinks it odd that this post would be prefaced with “I’ve been waiting for this news to come out” and with Cate the ECP writer. There’s no crime in calling out sloppy journalism, which was was the blog post was. And the comment “the ‘breast is best’ folks have lost all common sense” is just silly, too. Breast IS best. Yes, yes, yes, there are always some who can’t or won’t and they shouldn’t get judged, but don’t delude yourself about how newborns were meant to be fed.

This is not an issue about which is better…it’s about addressing a very real medical problem…autism. I’m thrilled that the scientist are doing this study. I also would like them to study formula and autism as well. Just because some people don’t agree with anything that makes breastmilk sound less than perfect…does not mean we shouldn’t address it. Finding the causes of autism is much more important than offending any particular group.

Besides my “mean” comment before (which, yes, was tongue-in-cheek, as I’ve ready plenty of anti-BF tripe on this site), did anyone actually read the ECP blog? No, I didn’t want to write the post, but I did. I read his article AND study fully, and posted on it. And the researcher himself states numerous times that “breastfeeding is a good thing”. Though I absolutely agree with him, I relied on HIS words in an interview. I didn’t even fully quote him because for many readers at ECP, it’s beating a dead horse. They know it, they get it.
Interesting that my post on ECP has “lost all common sense” when my report is much more accurate to the actual article than this mess is. I stand by my statement that your reading of both my blog and the original study and interview must have been pretty poor. But yes, the last part of my comment was snarky. I thought that’s what babble was about, from all the other posts I’ve seen here.
Did I like the study? No. But I felt it was important to post, just like the post I did last week about a British study that said that ff mothers don’t get enough support. I might breastfeed, but I want ff to get the support to do it properly!
So don’t go attacking the “breastfeeding lobby” if you’re not sure of that particular writer’s actual history.
(BTW: I ended up supplementing with my older son. Completely honest about that in various BFing blogs, as many readers would attest. I mean, those who actually thoroughly read.)

RE: the opening sentence. I wasn’t waiting for someone to cast stones at breastfeeding . . . I was waiting for someone to finally key into the fact that breastmilk is also full of toxins. That’s the horror to me here, that people aren’t doing anything to REDUCE the amount of chemicals in a woman’s (or a man’s) body.

In our 24-7 world of never ending news cycles, if we acted on every SINGLE ANIMAL study that came up, when it was reported on, we’d drive ourselves crazy and do harm in the process. I believe that is why the researcher is tempering his message. This happens all the time with scientific studies, like when they find people taking vitamin C get cancer or something, then they find out that that segment of the population were smokers, and the whole thing gets spun out of proportion into some urban myth. That’s not to say that there are not seeds of something here with regard to chemicals in breastmilk and a connection to neurological disorders. HOWEVER, the appropriate takeaway at this point would not be for most mothers to stop breastfeeding and for all those looking for excuses not to to shout “hooray” or for the formula companies to capitalize on the data…

Funny because last time I checked breast milk contains omega three fatty acids like DHA known to prevent disease like autism. Plus, also last time I checked, cows are also mammals and probably also have similar exposure to environmental toxins and similar amounts in their milk. Also formula often contains high fructose corn syrup which a recent study shows probably contains environmental mercury which also could cause autism or developmental delays. Breastfeeding is the best. Get over it already!

I really can not believe that this blog lets you write for them. Because of your one sided comments I am considering discontinuing my subscription. Get over yourself.

The breast milk-autism link is something we’ve wondered about in my support group, mostly because that’s one of the things that have changed dramatically in the past thirty years. I’m glad the link is being investigated, but I don’t think it’s the key to the skyrocketing rates of autism. Our world is polluted and poisoned; it’s going to be very difficult to determine which risk factors combine with genetics to create autistic children. And, like most parents of autistic children, I wish the money being spent on studies like this one were being used to find a cure instead of a group of mothers to blame.

Oh, some more untrue comments: that all formula is made with fructose corn syrup. No it’s not. Or that only breastmilk has DHA, not formula. Not true. I’m not trying to discourage anyone from breastfeeding but just saying if you must lie to make your point and you feel compelled to resort to scare tactics to get women to breastfeed, that really says something.

No, GP, daycare does not cause autism, but thanks for playing.

I guess I need to clarify that my point was to illustrate that its just as silly to say its BFing that “causes” it as it would be daycare…both have elements that might contribute to the mix, it seems to me, but could not be said to be the “cause”.

Holy lack of reading comprehension, Batman!

Jeanne Sager wrote: “RE: the opening sentence. I wasn’t waiting for someone to cast stones at breastfeeding . . . I was waiting for someone to finally key into the fact that breastmilk is also full of toxins. That’s the horror to me here, that people aren’t doing anything to REDUCE the amount of chemicals in a woman’s (or a man’s) body.”

I’m sorry, Jeanne, but I don’t buy it. You spent the entire post talking about breastfeeding advocates trying to cover something up and now you say the “real horror” to you is that nobody is doing anything about reducing chemicals in our bodies? That makes no sense. I agree with Cate - you started the snarking. Her article actually highlighted the frightening results on the rats at least twice (and yes, they were done on rats so why wouldn’t she say that?). In fact, I read the original study and it makes perfect sense that the researcher would hesitate to extrapolate too much from a study on rats, since rats are not humans (go figure). I didn’t see anything so crazy as researchers colluding with lactivists to keep this information from the rest of the world, just the normal caution any good scientist would have against making blanket statements about what the research might mean. I think Cate’s snarkiness was definitely a reaction to the original tone of your article. Speaking as someone who has left a snarky comment here myself (and was rightly chided for it), I have to say that the level of troll-like behavior on this site is amazing. Maybe by the time some of us get on to read these articles we’re just too exhausted from working and parenting to be less nasty to each other. But I have to say, in this case the snark originated in the post itself.

Comments The best study to date on autism says its associated with the age of the child’s father. What kind of environmental insults could contribute beyond that? It’s a good question. I wonder if anyone’s explored parental use of the miracle drug of the 60s and 70s. No, not that. I’m talking about pimple cream.

Hi, I work for EWG and we have relevant info on our site about chemicals in breastmilk if you are interested: http://www.ewg.org/reports/mothersmilk/. We maintain that breast is best, but know that many women cannot or choose not to breastfeed. So, we also have tips for parents interested in choosing safer formulas to avoid the chemicals in it (yes, formulas have chemicls, too) on our blog: http://bit.ly/q7fav. Hope this is helpful for your readers who are interested in reducing their family’s exposure to chemicals - in breastmilk and formula (many people use both). Also, science in this area is emerging with increasing evidence that for many toxic chemicals, low-dose exposures are linked to serious health effects. Best, Lisa @ EWG

As mothers we all want what is safe for our children. I felt like your post was thumbing its nose at breastfeeding mothers. I chose to breastfeed my kids because that is what I believe to be best — to have you take delight in the not-so-new revelation that toxins are passed through milk disgusts and saddens me.

Hey Ali, I like knitting and yogurt. Any knitting patterns for a Greek-style yogurt? Seriously, if a child has a cow’s milk allergy, giving standard formula (which is merely altered cow’s milk) wouldn’t help. An elimination diet for the mom would have done so- my DS gets gassy when I have too much dairy, so I keep it to a minimum. And when cow’s milk becomes allergen and toxin-free, let me know, OK?

Give women the facts and let them decide. Period.

I have been saying this for a few years - it just almost seems obvious - I’m just always dumbfounded b/c the mainstream media won’t ever TOUCH on any negative of BF other than to say stock to it. I don’t buy it. Breastmilk isn’t ever tested - do YOU know what is in your milk? Really? If you live in a high precipitation, high mercury location, high pollutant area - wouldn’t you assume your body has absorbed more of that into your fat cells?