 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After reading the article by Owen et al1 on a possible reduction of low-density lipoproteins in adolescents fed mother’s milk (MM) and that of Martin et al2 on a positive influence on adulthood height, the answer is yes.
However, recently it has been shown that the prolonged feeding of MM has a negative influence on arterial stiffness3 and increases over the long-term the risk of atopy and asthma.4 Furthermore, higher levels of immunoglobulin E (IgE) were seen in children fed MM compared with those that were formula-fed.5 In these cases, the answer is no.
A possible explanation of these contrasting findings would be derived if we consider the targets of nature and the changes of life habits in the last century.
The targets of nature are: a) to eliminate abnormal or weak subjects at conception, during pregnancy, birth, and first periods of extrauterine life; b) to ensure a normal growth (including the brain); c) to protect from infections in infancy and early childhood; and d) to allow "normal infants" to reach the reproductive age to continue the species.
MM (in this case human) is at least programmed to allow normal infants to grow normally, probably also reducing the risk of childhood obesity,6 to have good brain development, and to ensure a favorable gut flora. And it does.
Late allergies or degenerative diseases are mainly attributable to the more toxic environment (including inadequate nutrition with an excess of animal proteins and fats and refined sugars) we have been exposed to since the last century. In the previous cultures after MM the diet was mainly made of vegetables and cereals with a modest supply of animal proteins and fats. Subjects came into contact with numerous germs that were not antibiotic-resistant, they did a lot of physical activity, and air pollution was limited.
All these factors can explain at least, in part, why with the same genetics (unless we will consider epigenetics) allergies and degenerative diseases were less frequent.
As for the IgE rise in MM-fed subjects, it should be pointed out that this is not an univocal finding because we have observed an opposite pattern.7 In fact IgE levels are influenced by different ratio 
3/6 in the diet,8 and it could be possible that mothers and infants in the Wright et al study4 assume an unbalanced intake of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Anyhow, we have to consider that IgE was originally built up to antagonize intestinal parasites so frequent in the past, and it could be that nature, under some circumstances, will probably enhance this line of defense.
Furthermore, the actual role of IgE in development of asthma is not so clear because doubtful results have been observed in the treatment with antibodies against IgE.9,10
Therefore, there are no reasons to blame nature if MM is not able to protect from all later degenerative disease even if, as far as allergies are concerned, MM is effective in reducing atopic dermatitis, rhinitis, and asthma in childhood.11–13 Nature did not expect such dramatic changes, and it might well be in the future that it will provide with favorable adjustments in MM. But, in the meantime, shall we choose artificial feeding only because late allergies are more frequent in infants fed MM?
Even if early massive contact with foreign antigens in artificial feeding might prepare subjects for future battles, the advantages of MM are great with regard to overcoming late doubtful disadvantages that can be reduced with different lifestyle habits.
Finally, we must remember that breastfeeding is good for mothers and, among the psychological and medical advantages, reduces the risk of breast cancer and maybe ovarian cancer.14
Antonio Marini, MD
Massimo Agosti, MD
University of Milan
Azienda Ospedaliera Istituti Clinici di Perfezionamento
"L. Mangiagalli" Hospital
Via della Commenda, 12
20122 Milan, Italy
REFERENCES
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  M. J. Craig and N. W. Boris Youth Tobacco Access Restrictions: Time to Shift Resources to Other Interventions? Health Promot Pract, January 1, 2007; 8(1): 22 - 27. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||
|
||
Home | My Pediatrics | Journal Information | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscriptions & Services | Contact Us Click here for faster international access © 2003 American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. |
||
|
||
