Sunday, September 11, 2016

A Mother's Tears: Revisiting the intrinsic contamination of powdered infant formula


"We never heard of this infection, ever."  "Nobody has." 
Media comments made by the parents of baby, Axel who died in June 2016 from meningitis and sepsis caused by Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii.  The parents believe that this bacteria was in the powdered infant formula that they fed to their son.
 http://woodtv.com/2016/08/01/rare-bacteria-kills-sparta-baby-source-unknown/

I am not surprised that Axel's parents never heard of Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii.  I am sure that very few people have heard of this bacteria and the fact that it is often found in powdered infant formula. There are no "clear" labels warning parents about this particular risk of infant formula.  Nor are there regular government broadcasts warning parents of this risk.  In small print on the labels of powdered infant formula is the statement that powdered infant formula is not sterile and should not be used by premature or immunocompromised infants.  What does that statement mean to the average parent, particularly when their infant is full term and as far as a parent understands their infant is not immunocompromised?  (Although infant formula patents often state that young formula fed infants are immunocompromised because unlike breastfed infants they are not receiving a milk that has protective antibodies that inactivate pathogens).  

In response to this infant health threat,  the World Health Organization(WHO) and the CDC recommend that water used to prepare infant formula be boiled to a temperature of 158 degrees F/70 degrees C, instructions on the powdered infant formula products make no such statement.  Instead the recommendation is, "Ask your baby's doctor about the need to boil or sterilize water for formula."  And on some infant formula labels they further state, "Pour desired amount of warm water (approximately 100 degrees F/40 degrees C) into bottle."  It seems the infant formula companies are only recommending warming the water.  Confusing?  You bet!  Are parents going to ask the baby's doctor about this?  Are pediatricians aware of this issue and its importance?

While the labels state that "failure to follow these instructions could result in severe harm," the label does not state what kind of harm or that the harm might cause hospitalization, brain damage or death.  How many people read labels on the foods they buy?  How many people can read or comprehend what they read? How many bother to read labels with small print? 

Some years ago I was helping a mom with a breastfeeding problem and because of various issues the mom was also using powdered infant formula.  I watched as she used cold water from the tap to mix with the powdered infant formula.  I asked her about it.  Her response was that it mixed easier with cold water than hot water.  At that time (mid 90's), I had never heard of Enterobacter sakazakii or Salmonella in powdered infant formulas and its damaging health effects on infants.  Watching this mom prepare infant formula, I thought how times had changed. When I had my babies everything needed to be sterilized, but now by some miracle of modern science mothers need not go through such work to feed their babies.  In the 90's in Florida the use of cold water from the tap to make infant formula seemed to be a common practice.  Now I wonder how did this practice get started?  Was it belief that all water supplies are safe?  Curiosity made me do a search on Goggle and I found this from the website of Wayne State University Physicians Group on using powdered infant formula, "Most city water supplies are safe.  If you are making one bottle at a time you can use fresh, cold water from the tap."  This website is the "largest nonprofit multi-specialty physician group in southeast Michigan and is affiliated with Wayne State University School of Medicine. 
http://www.wsupgdocs.org/family-medicine/WayneStateContentPage.aspx?nd=1736

A physicians group doesn't understand that powdered infant formula is not sterile.  I must question the infant formula industry's "ask your doctor whether to boil your water," because it seems that physicians may not be up-to-date on the current recommendations by the CDC and WHO.  They may be unknowingly recommending a practice that increases the risk of feeding a contaminated food to infants.

In a recent paper (2014) published in Research Excellence Framework entitled, "Safer feeds for babies:  international recognition and detection of Cronobacter spp. as an emergent bacterial pathogen associated with neonatal meningitis," by researchers, Steve Forsythe et al, it has a statement that "microbiology research at NTU has helped worldwide to lower the risk of severe infections among newborn babies from consuming bacterially contaminated powdered infant formula."  It discusses the research that has lead to increased safety of powdered infant formula with a culture agar developed specifically for Cronobacter spp called the Druggan-Forsythe-Iversen chromagenic agar.  While this paper discusses the studies done to detect this bacterium, it does make this odd comment, 

"Uncertainties about quality of product have dramatic financial consequences for formula producers.  For example in December 2011 Mead Johnson's share prices fell by 11% due to product withdrawal by Wal-Mart Stores Inc following a publicized baby's death from Cronobacter infection."
http://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies2/refservice.svc/GetCaseStudyPDF/7149

Why is a paper on safer feeding of infants concerned with the infant formula industry's financial consequences, particularly using Mead Johnson's situation as an example?  The agar test developed to detect Cronobacter spp. (once known as Enterobacter sakazakii) is named after researchers:  P. Druggan, employed by Oxoid Thermo Fisher Science-manufacturer of this particular culture test of Cronobacter spp.;  Steve(n) Forsythe, professor at Nottingham Trent University, also paid expert witness used by Mead Johnson in USA court cases against lawsuits initiated by parents whose babies either died or were maimed by Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii;  and Carol Iversen, professor at University College of Dublin at the Centre for Food Safety, previously employed by Nestle Research Center in which she lead an international group of researchers who proposed the genus Cronobacter (previously called Enterobacter).

The infant formula industry appears to have direct and indirect financial interests in how this organism is detected. The company that manufactures the culture, Oxoid, is owned by ThermoFisher Scientific who has partnered with DuPont Nutritionals (another company that sells infant formula  http://www.dupont.com/products-and-services/food-ingredients/brands/danisco-food-ingredients/sub-brands/danisco-pediatric-nutrition.html) to distribute various rapid testing kits for pathogens in food in Western Europe.  

One of the ongoing issues with Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii complex contamination of powdered infant formula is the difficulty of detecting this organism and lack of mandatory reporting for it in the USA (only one state-Minnesota-has mandatory reporting).   And the confusion for those of us unfamiliar with the Bacteriological Code which brought about a second proposed reclassifying of the genus, Enterobacter, to Cronobacter (with 7 species/subspecies with the most important being Cronobacter sakazakii). According to "My 40-year History with Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii--Lessons Learned, Myths Debunked, and Recommendations, a paper written by John J Farmer III, 

"Every identification of a Cronobacter strain should be taken with 'a grain of salt' or even better the entire box of salt."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662064/

JJ Farmer also states that some of the commercial test kits are just not sensitive enough to detect all the strains within the family Enterobacteriaceae.  He also discusses the experiments done by Dr. Angelica Lehner in which, "Cronobacter seems to enter a viable but non-culturable state."  Thus it appears that at this point in time this bacterium is far more complex and difficult to detect.  And is an explanation of why powdered infant formula may appear to not be contaminated with Cronobacter but is actually contaminated.  These issues could mean that a infant formula manufacturer may be at fault despite testing showing no evidence of contamination.

It has been known since the first documented case in 1958 that Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii complex can cause neonatal meningitis.  And has been the documented cause of outbreaks in various hospitals around the world. It causes bacteremia/sepsis. And some experts believe it can cause necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).

It has been known since 1988 that commercial powdered infant formula is often contaminated with Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii complex.   It was cultured from 52.5% of samples in 35 countries, including the USA.
http://jcm.asm.org/content/26/4/743.abstract 

The oddest part of this issue is that despite the recognition of a problem with powdered infant formula, the CDC has very little data.  In fact they state that, "Analysis is constrained by the use of retrospective and often incomplete data."
Since only one state mandates reporting of Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii complex, it should not be surprising that data is incomplete or in fact non-existent.  One of the interesting statements made at the CDC website on this issue says, "overall incidence rates of invasive infections among infants was in Minnesota."  Not surprising since they are the only state in the US that has mandatory reporting.

The CDC has a list of cases of invasive (sterile-site) Enterobacter sakazakii infections.  The study was published in 2006 in Emerging Infectious Diseases entitled, "Invasive Enterobacter sakazakii Diseases in Infants," authored by Ana Bowen and Christopher Braden, both from the CDC.  
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/8/05-1509-t1

The table does not show all the cases, particularly when compared with another study published in 2009 the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infections Diseases, entitled "Epidemiology of invasive neonatal Cronobacter (Enterobacter sakazakii) infections," by M. Friedemann.  The Bowen et al data misses one case in 1992 in India, 10 cases in 1994 in France, 12 cases in Belgium and 4 cases in Brazil, 1 case in 1999 in USA, 2 cases in Israel, 4 cases in 2001 in USA, one case in 2002 in Brazil, 5 cases in 2002 in USA-CDC data only shows 2 cases, in 2004 CDC data shows 2 cases in France and 2 in USA, the Friedemann data shows 4 cases in France, 1 cases in USA, 1 case in New Zealand and 1 case in Netherlands, in 2005 the Friedemann data shows 1 case USA but Bowen et al data states 2 cases "CDC (unpublished data).
 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10096-009-0779-4

The Friedemann paper states that in the period between 2000 and 2008 there were more than 100 published neonatal Cronobacter infections.  Unlike the Bowen et al paper they included cases of bacteraemia and necrotising enterocolitis. But many of the cases in the Friedemann paper were meningitis cases.

In the FAO/WHO 2006 meeting report on "Enterobacter sakazakii and Salmonella in powdered infant formula," Anna Bowen of the CDC is one of the experts at this meeting and the table of cases from her and Braden's paper in Emerging Infectious Diseases is included in this document.  The following statement is made about Anna Bowen, "Fifty percent of her salary is covered by a commercial entity as part of a cooperative research & development agreement.  While the company manufactures products for infants, it does not manufacture any infant formula products." Yet they do not name the company and obviously dismiss that there could be a problem.  I am just amazed that 50% of her salary from the CDC is covered by a commerical entity!  
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0707e/a0707e00.pdf 

Yet how accurate was the Bowen et al. information in 2006 regarding the statistics of cases known regarding Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii complex?  Why eliminate cases of bacteraemia and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC)?  It appears that some experts believe that this organism does not cause NEC but has an "association" with NEC.  The more one delves into this issue, the more one has to question what we think we know.  But without mandatory reporting of data, how can anyone presume to know whether there is only 4-6 cases per year, as the CDC states.  Or whether this is a far bigger problem?  And when an industry has its financial tentacles on testing kits that determine whether contamination did or did not happen, will we ever get closer to the truth of the situation?

Meanwhile a Mead Johnson patent application for an infant formula patent that solves this contamination issue. 

 "[0003] Cronobacter sakazakii, formerly referred to as Enterobacter sakazakii is an opportunistic pathogen that has been associated with outbreaks of infection in infants, especially in neonatal intensive care units.  In infants it can cause bacteraemia, meningitis and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC).  The infant mortality rate due to infection by this organism has been reported to be 40-80%.  As a consequence of bacterial invasion to the brain, infections frequently lead to developmental delays and impaired cognitive function.  Up to 20% surviving neonates develop serious neurological complications.".  
[0004] Hence there is a desire to provide a composition that is protective against or can treat infection of pathogens like C. sakazakki.  The present disclosure provides a composition that has an effect on the invasion of pathogens such as C. sakazakki into the brain and on mortality in a neonatal rat model.  It has been found that supernatant of a LGG culture reduces the invasion of C. sakazakki to the brain and liver and even completely inhibits C. sakazakki related mortality of rat pups." 
Patent Application #20130251829, filed in 2013.

Strangely the infant formula company admits to a 40-80% infant mortality rate regarding this pathogen.  But the CDC on their website states up to a "40% infant mortality rate.  So the CDC appears to be minimizing the problemAnd then on the CDC's Prevention & Control page they state, "To best protect your infant, here are some things you can do:  Breastfeed."  That certainly does not help the women who are formula feeding exclusively and who can't or won't breastfeed.  And this may be used as part of a blame game--if the mom had only breastfed, this wouldn't have happened.  When a society continues to act as, if there are no risks to formula feeding.  And that breastfeeding is just a personal lifestyle choice, one cannot blame moms/parents for making the choice to formula feed.  And who gets off the hook of the blame game?  The Infant Formula Industry.

What is more troublesome about the passage about the CDC's "To best protect your infant," is the statement, "Almost no cases of Cronobacter infection have been reported among infants who were being exclusively breastfed.."  I haven't seen any cases in the medical literature.  Then they go on to state that if you use a breast pump you must practice careful hygiene.  What evidence do they have that breast pumps are a source of infection.  We have many research papers since the 1980's that powdered infant formula is a source for this infection and now the CDC implies without research to back it up that we should be concerned about breastfeeding and breast pumps. How to confuse this issue by implication not facts. 
http://www.cdc.gov/cronobacter/prevention.html 

And so the tears of mothers who have lost babies to this infection will continue because our society believes that there are no risks to infant formula.  And because there is no mandatory reporting of this problem.  If this was any other industry that would be impacted by this information, would we so callously continue onwards, pretending we don't have a problem?  The biggest myth of Cronobacter is society's belief that infant formula is a risk-free choice.  
Copyright 2016 Valerie W. McClain 

For further news on this issue visit the IBFAN (International Baby Food Action Network) website.
http://ibfan.org/contaminants-in-baby-foods  




Sunday, July 3, 2016

Breastfeeding: The loss of our basic traditional knowledge


"I saw some women had written that the cloning of Dolly* was wonderful since it showed that women could have children without men.  They didn't understand that this was the ultimate ownership of women, of embryos, of eggs, of bodies by a few men with capital and control technique, that it wasn't freedom from men but total control by men."  Vandana Shiva

*Dolly, the sheep, cloned in 1996 from an egg cell and a mammary gland cell. http://dolly.roslin.ed.ac.uk/facts/the-life-of-dolly/ 

Ah, the versatility of the mammary gland in its ability to help men create life and sustain life.  Yet women nowadays seem totally unaware of this power.    Many women reject it-won't or can't breastfeed, but men are so enamored by the mammary gland that they will patent its powers.  Vandana Shiva understood that the cloning of Dolly is about ownership not liberation.  

Yesterday, I slowly walked around the Duck Pond, the many retention ponds created in order to have this housing development built on a swamp.  They had mowed down those dreadful weeds that grow around the pond, so that those who live on this waterfront property, can see the water.  Some of those dreadful weeds they mowed down were blue-flag irises, a perennial native plant of the wetlands in Florida.  Hell who needs them?  Every 6 months or so they pour some herbicide around the pond.  Then all the plants become a sickly brown color that mingles with the stryofoam cups and beer and soda cans that float so well in the pond.  One day I saw a suitcase floating in the pond.  I wondered if the suitcase contained dead body parts.  Yes, I have watched too many Bones episodes on TV.  Yesterday I picked up a pile of school papers matted around the trees next to the pond.  School's out for summer, some child felt so liberated he or she just tossed those papers into the bushes.  I understand that feeling.  When I was a child, I looked forward to summer all year because school felt like a cement cage.  All I wanted to do was run around outside, play in the dirt, pick dandelions and watch the seeds float all over the yard.  My Dad wondered why our yard had more dandelions than the neighbors.  I could have told him.  I understood about seeds, although I never had a science class.

Nowadays, I never see children running around outside.  They have disappeared, like the endangered species of our world.  Shut up in their rooms, with their glowing electronic equipment.  They live in the virtual, like some science fiction movie.  I do see some adults walking around, many of them running with earplugs oblivious to the sounds of nature.  They don't want to hear the owl who meows like a cat or the frog that croaks in the drains.  They don't want to be in the outdoor environment.  They just want to use the outdoor environment. 

I picked up aluminum cans today, some wrapped in brown paper wrappers.  Just call me the bag lady.  I am tired of seeing trash everywhere in my neighborhood.  Sometimes the neighborhood looks like an environmental disaster drive-by; cans and papers jettisoned from cars, cause no one wants their own cars to be trashed.  Likewise the Duck Pond neighbor who pushes his mounting trash of spent fireworks, broken chairs and trellises, broken toys and 2 by 4's closer to his neighbor's property.  No trash on his property. Not his problem.  This is how we live, enveloped in a world that excludes any environmental concerns.

Those retention ponds in this wonderful suburb connect and eventually go into the Mosquito Lagoon.  And the Lagoon meets with the ocean.  We are currently witnessing an environmental nightmare of a huge algae bloom not so far from us.  But it doesn't touch the neighborhood cause we can live in a bubble away from the degradation of the planet.  

So what has this to do with breastfeeding?  Nothing and everything.  We are a people who have lost our understanding of the connections between nature and ourselves.  We live in our artificial environments connected to a web of artificial intelligence.  Yet we are disconnected from our humanity and our consciousness of the real web of life.  We bring babies into a sterile world in which parents are hooked into their hand-held devices.  Yet the baby, who is new to this sterility, does not understand why their parents love their devices more than them and will hold their devices day and night, but refuse to hold them as much as their devices.  Breastfeeding does not work very well, when moms believe that babies are to be held at arm's length, regulated by artificial time.  Or when parents believe that their pets deserve to co-sleep with them but the baby belongs down the hall in another room by itself.  (As an IBCLC I worked with a number of parents who refused to co-sleep with their infants to help make breastfeeding easier to maintain but welcomed their pets into their beds every night--I still find that very strange).

In the past decade, breastfeeding has become more about bottling human milk than breastfeeding.  Mothers let down to the sound of their pumps, not the cry of their infants and yet no one finds that strange.  Many mothers leave their infants with strangers.  What mammal in nature, gives her babies to another mammal to raise?  We know in nature that if you take a mammal baby away from its mother, the mother often will reject that baby if it is returned.  Yet we assume there is no ramification to separating mothers and babies.  Strange this artificial world.

Years ago I was called to help a mom breastfeed her baby.  The mom was in tears, frustrated with breastfeeding and the after-effects of a c-section delivery in which she was separated from her baby for over 24 hours.  The dad who was holding the very contented baby in his arms, told me that lucky for them that the hospital allowed him to be with the baby during those hours.  

Like all first time parents they spent enormous amounts of time changing the baby's diaper.  Which, of course, got the baby crying and then screaming because the parents were new to changing diapers.  Then the Dad held the baby again and the baby settled right down.  I asked the mom if she would like to breastfeed the baby now.  And the father handed the mother the baby while giving the mother instructions on how to hold the baby.  The mother held the baby as far away from her body as possible and her awkwardness increased as the father hoovered over the pair.  The infant began to cry and then scream.  The father obviously felt the mother wasn't doing it right and took the baby back into his arms.  The baby immediately stopped crying and began rooting at his breast.  I sat there in total astonishment.  And at that moment realized that this baby had bonded with his father not the mother.  And the father had bonded with his baby.  But the mother was left out of this circle of love and attachment.  I asked the father to leave for awhile so that the mom could have some time alone with her baby.  At first he became angry with me for asking him to leaveBut then he left abruptly.  The mother started to relax and she began to hold the baby closer.  Just when it seemed like the baby would breastfeed, the father burst in and said he could not stay away from his baby.  And from there the session disintegrated with the mother getting hysterical and saying that the baby hated her.  The father decided bottlefeeding was obviously the answer and I left because the mother accepted the father's decision.  I thought about this case on and off for many years.  At a critical moment after birth, this baby made a perfectly logical choice to bond with the father because of the absence of the mother.  The father happened to be a very domineering person and the mother saw that the infant appeared to prefer the Dad.  When we interfere with attachment at the birth of infants, we can create emotional scars that may last a lifetime.  While I support fathers being at births, I think it is critical for breastfeeding that mothers get to hold their babies before anyone else.  And of course their are circumstances where mothers cannot medically be the first to hold their infants. 

I remember the question I got over and over again with my first baby regarding breastfeeding.  "Are you nursing that baby again?"  I tuned it out because I had attended La Leche League meetings and knew that breastfeed babies nursed often.  But what I still didn't really understand was that breastfeeding was not just about nutrition, about eating.  It was about connecting, the infant's need to be skin-to-skin with its mother.  In reflection this need is just as critical as the need for food or water.  I call it the human need for connection, for love.  I remember my frustration when the baby nursed and an hour later (yes I was carefully watching a clock) the baby needed to nurse again.  Being an adult I made the judgment call that the baby could not possibly need to eat again.  So I walked around, holding an increasingly upset baby. And by the time I realized that very upset baby needed to nurse, the baby was too upset to nurse.  By my second baby, I simply nursed the baby without making an adult judgment call.  Instead I followed instinctual behavior and nursed the baby despite her having nursed an hour ago or 5 minutes ago.  Life became simple the moment that I suspended my rational mind and followed my heart or what I call traditional knowledge of breastfeeding.  

Breastfeeding works quite well, when we understand that babies don't easily fit into our technological world.  Making a baby fit into that world of artificial light, air, food, clothes, clocks and schedules is difficult and sometimes impossible.  When we accept that babies know what they want and need and that this has worked for thousands of years; then life becomes easier.  When we presume to know what babies need and want, we create are own worse nightmares.  Babies are simple creatures, they want the closeness of mom, they want her warmth and milk.  This is basic traditional knowledge (and a La Leche League truism). 

Copyright 2016 Valerie W. McClain