Talk:Breast milk

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fannnypack, Wrd530, Alicewu95, Jessicabee55.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ksq4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There could be some better information in the Composition section

The article states, "The exact composition of breast milk varies from day to day…" but I think there could still be some better information here. Any generalization of what milk contains is going to be an average, but an average can still be informative. The German language Wikipedia page for this article ([1]) shed some light on the issue, and I've translated the table from that article to post here for consideration:

Milk composition	Human	Cow	Sheep	Goat	Horse
Water	87.2 %	87.5 %	82.7 %	86.6 %	90.1 %
Carbohydrates	7.0 %	4.8 %	6.3 %	3.9 %	5.9 %
Fat	4.0 %	3.5 - 4.0 %	5.3 %	3.7 %	1.5 %
Protein	1.5 %	3.5 %	4.6 %	4.2 %	2.1 %
Dietary minerals	0.3 %	0.7 %	0.9 %	0.8 %	0.4 %
Cal./100ml	70	64 - 68	86	65	43

I think a table like this (along with some explanatory information) could be an informative addition to the article. Xerophyllum tenax 00:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Nice job.4.153.252.155 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So seriously... why is this chart not in the article? Azoreg (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I and a lot of other people are not doing it, yet, and it needs this source, which includes a lot more details. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also - there is some controversy in medical communities as to the accuracy of some of the claims made as the the accuracy of the benefits of breastfeeding. It is fairly well accepted that data suggesting breastfeeding make for smarter offspring is willful misinterpretation of data at best, and outright falsehood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanai3 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

what happens to breast milk if you do not breast feed?

The husbands may consume it. :-(

If you never start, it just dries up. If you've been breastfeeding for a while, and have a full supply, you need to slowly wean, or you could develop mastitis. A doctor can prescribe medication to help dry you up, if necessary. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

blabla :DD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.12.149 (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Male milk

From what I understand, men can produce milk as well (no, I'm not using it as an euphemism for sperm), it would be interesting to have some more info on it. --kissekatt 21:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at male lactation. I doubt that there have been too many studies on the content of it, though. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Vitamin D

IS vitamin d present in breast milk?????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.97.111 (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin D is present in breast milk only if the mother is ingesting it in her diet or getting enough via sunlight. You get out of breast milk what is put into the mother's body. Some studies have shown that many Americans are deficient in vitamin D, so some women may need to take a D supplement when nursing and continue taking it for future personal health.96.13.212.223 (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Intolerant of Lactose

Uh, the dicussion of cows milk mentions as a drawback that infants can be intolerant of lactose. Perhaps, but doesn't human milk have more lactose than cow's milk? Why is this mentioned as a particular of cow's milk?

In order to digest lactose the body needs an enzyme called lactase. Babies are born with this enzyme; it's very rare for a baby to be lactase-deficient. [Occasionally if a mother has a very large supply, the baby's system will be swamped by lactose. It's a simple matter for any mother to tweak her supply to alter the lactose:fat ratio. Any lay breastfeeding counsellor or lactation consultant can help her]

Most races in the world lose lactase from the age of 8 onwards, which is why many Asians, Africans or Native Americans cannot drink cows' milk. However Northern Europeans, especailly in the British Isles and particularly in Ireland, the norm is to retain lactase. This is why diary products are so prominent in Europe.

I'm notyet able to add references but the mechanics of dealing with oversupply can be found on any breastfeeding support website. Alice Roberts presented a BBC programme in March 2011, called Horizon: Are we Still Evolving? Barbara Kingsolver also describes it in her novel , Pigs in Heaven I think. A novel I know, but I've also heard this phenomenon discussed by paediatricians, particularly Brian Vartebedian.

Derrygeel (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Red and Orange Secretions?

The following uncited text was added to the Composition section. I've removed it to here. Does anyone know what this person is talking about, or where this information comes from?

There are two distinct pigments that have been identified in the secretions, red and orange. The two pigments are highly acidic compounds. They are known as red pigment hipposudoric acid and orange one norhipposudoric acid. The red pigment was found to inhibit the growth of disease-causing bacteria, lending credence to the theory that the secretion has an antibiotic effect. The light absorption of both pigments peaks in the ultraviolet range, creating a sunscreen effect.

MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 18:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

One mention of them is here: [2], and that iz a one-hit search, so it iz probable that this wuz a misfile that should hav gone into hippopotamus. 75.152.126.183 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

sure 2405:201:5800:20C1:18D3:7B0D:6142:A6A (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Volume

How much breast milk can a woman produce in one day?

I have heard that it is upwards of two quarts, but I find this hard to believe. Bristow

Average is probably about a quart, but some women are big producers, and freeze their extra milk. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 14:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My wife produces about 35 US oz per day... or about 1.09 quarts. Azoreg (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Morphine

is morphine a constituent of breast milk in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.41.31 (talk) 06:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Morphine is a narcotic drug used to help ease pain. The only way breast milk would contain morphine is if the mother were taking the drug. It would be excreted in her milk and could be dangerous to the nursing infant.96.13.212.223 (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

POPs in Breast milk

Many persistant organic pollutants like DDE, endosulfan, PCBs, and other organochlorine compounds are frequently found in breast milk, and mother-to-child transfer of these toxicants is believed to be a significant source of exposure for children. See e.g. PMIDs 18193138 & 18025027. (Most breast feeding expers agree that despite these contaminants, breast feeding is still the best way to nourish an infant). This info is not in this article or in breast milk. Should it be? Yilloslime (t) 07:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you add that, it's sure that the breastfeeding people who stalk this article will remove it, just as they removed the citation needed from "very rarely women cannot produce breast milk". Because it doesn't need citation, it's a fact that women who cannot coax, supplement, or medicate their bodies into producing breast milk just aren't trying quite hard enough. BARF. go slowly (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That is just spiteful. Everything needs a reference. That the people inserting the statement were too lazy to find a decent one is their problem, not thar of the "breastfeeding people who stalk this article". Arnoutf (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tasty

Can you make cheese out of this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.102.52 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can... didn't you see the reference in the article? Clínica busca cómo hacer queso de leche materna, Nación, 17 June 2007 Azoreg (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Remove Idiotic, Immature Comments

Removed from article: "brest [sic] milk comes from boobs" Idiotic, immature comments come from boobs. Breast milk comes from mammary glands.4.153.252.155 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Certaintly, that statement didn't belong in the article. Thank you for removing it. Having said that, I'd rather hang out with the guy who wrote that than you. Jesus Christ, you really felt it necessary to come here and complain about this? Did you think we'd all cluck along and shake our heads with you? Actually, "idiotic, immature comments" are often funny. Does anybody in your life ever tell you you're funny?

(Oh, am I being mean? Hey: You get out of Wikipedia what you put into it.)

--63.25.26.29 (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, defacing an article on a site meant to inform people is funny. I personally always thought that vandalism was a bad thing, good to know its welcomed as humorous by some members of the community. 65.13.171.157 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Section on Production

says nothing about how it is made and then goes on to talk about it not being made.

Extraordinary consumption

This section makes significant assertions about the use of breast milk for medical treatment of GI disorders -- but does not cite appropriate sources. Please either source or remove this information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sunlight Exposure

• Unlike animal milk, a glass of fresh human milk if exposed continuously to 'direct sunlight' within an hour, it will change its color to be 'blood red' (bloody reddish).

It's not a blood actually. Many people thought it's due to a chemical reaction.

• Unlike animal milk, the fresh human milk if exposed continuously to direct sunlight, within an hour, it will change its color to be blood red. It's due to chemical reaction and still being studied to understand fully its causes.

It's real thing. It's doesn't work with animal milk, such as cow milk. I'm wondering, it's very rarely discussed in public, it could be considered as taboo in our culture.

Well, for it to get into wikipedia it has to be discussed in culture somewhere. It needs a ref. maxsch (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This was in the article again - are there any references for this? Dkam (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a real thing that human milk color can be change into blood red by exposing directly sunlight. Seeing is believing... If you are breastfeeding your baby, you could proof it. This is an old thing which is rarely discussed in western culture and developed countries. I was shock when my friend demonstrate it. It's real. I asked few fresh milk from my nephew, it worked, the color is changed, unbelievable, it's really red, so red as blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.196.56 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

PETA to Ben and Jerry's: Breast is Best!

• PETA to Ben and Jerry's: Breast is Best! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agalactia

It has been suggested that the article on Agalactia be merged with the article on Breast Feeding. In my opinion, Agalactia being a distinct clinical entity, may continue to enjoy its seperate status, while an internal link to it may be cited in the breast feeding article. Mainak (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. relactation should link to Agalactia if it means what I think it means. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Useful source

Here a recent New Yorker piece with lots of sources within it, if anyone wants to add bits to our article: [3]. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

breast milk

Q. is Breast milk a natural antibiotic. My daughter-in-law says she was told to squirt breast milk into her babies eye to help clear up minor conjunctivitus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.197.135 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A. it's not natural antibiotic, but contain natural antibiotic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.163.99.66 (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Breastmilk Icecream.....

so this is random I know but can you make icecream out of breast milk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.195.72 (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to Rename Carried

Suggestion: I think this article should be called human milk rather than breastmilk. We don't call cow's milk udder milk, and every other kind of milk is labelled based on which species produced it: goat's milk, sheep's milk, etc... Just my two cents. jengod (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Breast milk would still redirect to this article, anyhow (right now it's the other way around). Then again, I'm rather biased when it comes to species-neutrality, so more input on the matter is probably needed. Omnomymous (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One man plus courage iz a majority. I know how to do it. Search and replace breastmilk with human milk. Copy article contents to human milk. Redirect this article to human milk. Ignore objections in light of: many other animals than people having breasts. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dyes

Curious to know,if there are enzymes in human breast milk that reduces colourfastness of dyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.103.194 (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Human breast milk ice cream

There's a new article on Baby Gaga, a brand of ice cream using human breast milk as an ingredient. I'm just mentioning it here to see whether anyone thinks it appropriate to mention in the main body of the article or the "See also" section. Cheers. --88.104.39.55 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be at some time though I would rather avoid it. There are also very real stories of dictators drinking breast milk for believed health benefits and maybe many other curiosities. Richiez (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of foremilk and hindmilk

The caption of the photograph is completely inaccurate: the first one is not what foremilk looks like and the hindmilk looks like. Foremilk, as the citation says, is a mixture of creamy mil and non-creamy milk. So is hinmilk, but there is usually more crema in the last drops of the feeds than in the first drops. The Australian research shows that the foremilk of the evening may have more cream than the hindmilk of the morning.

Don't knock the non-creamy portion of milk. It has a high proportion of lactose - essential for brain development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrygeel (talk • contribs) 10:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC) I propose moving the picture down in the article as it also looks to me somewhat misleading. Editor above is correct. We may want to use the space for this:

International Breastfeeding Symbol

Good night! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfair Citation?

I'm not sure about this citation:

• number : 27
• http://www.medelabreastfeedingus.com/products/397/pump-and-save-bags---20-pack

It's very partisan for storage of the milk. I've read | an article about this tissue. This data must be corrected. Thanks to you. 95.70.147.2 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC). Additionally , the citation is an ad which is a no-no. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

SIDS risk

Added "somewhat" to decreasing risk of SIDS. There are no guarantees. One of the founders of La Leche League International had a SIDS baby. Although we can not use personal research, I do know two moms who were breastfeeding and had SIDS babies :-( — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"somewhat" iz a weasel word. Either it decreases the risk of SIDS or it doesn't. The best way to put "somewhat" in iz with a statistic from the OR. Case histories are quite useless, here. Nothing iz sertain. 75.152.126.183 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Jaundice

Some jaundice in a breastfed baby is considered perfectly normal. I think this should be explored more completely. Besides personal experience, Sources: *http://www.americanpregnancy.org/firstyearoflife/breastfeedingandjaundice.htm

• http://www.breastfeedingbasics.com/articles/jaundice-in-the-breastfed-baby

I will do this when I have a chance but anyone is more than welcome to jump on in. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I put some information about sunlight under jaundice#neonatal; don't know what to do with it here, because it seems irrelevant. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ggalactorrhea

i was wondering why i am producing breast milk i havent had my period i have taken four pregnany tests and they all came out negative. what does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.21.150 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia can not offer medical advice. You may read galactorrhea but if you are concerned you need to ask your physician. Richiez (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Source of information in the article sentence?

Hello! I was wondering if the following sentence could be omitted as the source of the information is cited as a reference:

"According to a report by msnbc.com released online on Saturday, June 30, 2012..."

Thanks for your input!

--hackfish 01:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving sources from text to citations iz copyediting for redundancy. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Benefits in cognitive development

Our article currently says breastfeeding makes babies smarter. It is cited to this source, which also notes that this topic is hotly debated: Science Daily

This other source which has reviewed numerous past studies, however, declares there is no relationship to cognitive improvement. King James Medical Laboratory -- Page 6

Can these sources be reconciled? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Unjustifiable reverting of well-documented editing

If you want to try to reconcile conflicting studies, you or somebody is welcome to try to do so. In the meantime, do not delete perfectly well-documented editing that presents a conflicting viewpoint. Differences of opinion and conflicting studies exist. People live with them.PollutionAction (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Perfectly well-documented editing" wasn't deleted. Poorly written editing was. The presentation of conflicting viewpoints must be presented neutrally, and with proportional weight given if one view refutes the other. We also don't use words like "in the above cited report...", because the structure of Wikipedia articles is constantly changing, and that "report" isn't guaranteed to be there. We also do not muddle assertions of fact with weasel-words like "According to some studies" and "claimed", unless the cited reliable sources also use that form of presentation. When citing a report that consists of 400-500 pages, please include page numbers in the reference citation. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What was non-neutral about what I wrote? How would you suggest proportional weight might be given, in this case?

OK, the comments about "in the above cited report" and need for page numbers are perfectly reasonable. Please inform me where somebody besides you says, "We also do not muddle assertions of fact with weasel-words like "According to some studies" and "claimed", unless the cited reliable sources also use that form of presentation." Who determines that cited sources are "reliable."PollutionAction (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

See the Manual of Style's section on weasel words and the guideline on which sources are reliable for medical claims. - MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Which "weasel"-type words in my edits do you consider to be unsupported by the references provided?PollutionAction (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic mentioned them above. - MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The studies on which I based that "weaseling" are eminently respectable. The first one is regularly used by breastfeeding's proponents, including the U.S. Surgeon General, to support their position. The second one is by a Fellow of the American College of Nutrition, who is author of many published studies.PollutionAction (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so is there no disagreement that the "weasel words" I used were adequately supported?PollutionAction (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There is already disagreement expressed above. Since your preferred phrasing, and the same content and sources, are already under discussion at Talk:Breastfeeding, perhaps it would be better if these discussions were conducted there to reduce confusion and duplication of effort. You'll find that user:Noformation has provided additional reasoning against the use of weasel words on that Talk page. There are several knowledgeable editors there who may be able to help you craft Wikipedia-compliant content additions to these articles if asked. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic. Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ohio State University cuts our list of benefits down.

It's an electronically published ahead of print issue, so it's not at pubmed, yet. I am not sure they've done all of their peer review process, whatever Elsevier requires for peer review. The biggest problem with it iz that it measured mostly diseases that breastfeeding happens to hav little to do with, and the popular press exajerated what it means.
This iz disease protections of BM from us:
sudden infant death syndrome,
middle ear infections,
cold and flu,
childhood leukemia,
childhood onset diabetes,
asthma and eczema,
dental problems.
obesity later in life,
autism,
psychological disorders, particularly in adopted children.

I do not know why adjusting for confounding factors should be done. This is the list of measures from an adjustment for confounding factors:
obesity,
asthma,
hyperactivity,
attachment,
compliance,
academic achievement and competence.

The study casts doubt on two of wikipedia's items, so I will strike them out in anticipation that this will not be ruled a biased review. If anyone wants to delete them in concurrence, please go ahead.
Bohgosity BumaskiL 172.219.255.215 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work but I think we need to discuss this before we start to add this information. I'm going to delete your edits for now and hopefully there will be more discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who gave me an editor's barnstar (as an IP#) for this, or something like it on a related page. Thanks, again. I won't be doing anything either way in the section, until I find some more numbers to write into a table of risk ratios, find out whether the students are really qualified to judge other studies, or find some numbers about multiple sclerosis, which I'm told haz a risk ratio below one for EBF. When the study came out, I wuz convinced that it wuz industry-funded, because it hit popular press very hard one day. It's not in their funding declaration, though; could be just guilt relief. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Primary photo?

Since this article is about breast milk and not Breastfeeding, I think maybe the above-the-fold/lead photo should be a photo of breastmilk, not a photo of someone breastfeeding. Perhaps we can use one of these instead?

• 
• 

Personally I prefer the second one, but I think it is pretty appropriately included already in the "composition" section, so I don't know how to resolve that problem. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting observation. Even though I breastfed my two daughters, I had no idea that the milk changed in composition/appearance. I'll go for a change (and I prefer the second one as well). Gandydancer (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Breast milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002143030/http://www.nancymohrbacher.com/blog/2010/11/29/do-breastfeeding-babies-need-extra-iron-at-4-months.html to http://www.nancymohrbacher.com/blog/2010/11/29/do-breastfeeding-babies-need-extra-iron-at-4-months.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070120085511/http://www.aap.org:80/healthtopics/breastfeeding.cfm to http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/breastfeeding.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060708071504/http://www.seattlechildrens.org:80/child_health_safety/resources/health/nutrition_fitness/nutrition.asp to http://www.seattlechildrens.org/child_health_safety/resources/health/nutrition_fitness/nutrition.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nutritioncare.org/ABPNS/Curriculum_Guide_for_Physician_Nutrition_Specialists/Curriculum_Guide_Table_of_Contents/Nutrition_Through_the_Life_Cycle/Pediatric/Human_Milk__What_s_the_Difference_/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Breast milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812180552/http://www.websciences.org/cftemplate/NAPS/archives/indiv.cfm?ID=20084074 to http://www.websciences.org/cftemplate/NAPS/archives/indiv.cfm?ID=20084074
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/breastfeeding.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seattlechildrens.org/child_health_safety/resources/health/nutrition_fitness/nutrition.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dangers of (Human) Breast Milk: CMV virus at least! (V=Virus)

Dangers of (Human) Breast Milk: CMV virus at least!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpesviridae#Human_herpesvirus_types

Assuming tha Wikipedia herpesvirus article is correct, I did not write that article.

ee1518 (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Benefits

         I thought about adding the line "In addition, feeding an infant breast milk is associated with lower insulin levels and higher leptin levels compared feeding an infant via powdered-formula."  after the line in the article that starts with "These benefits include..." because insulin and leptin weren't already mentioned among the variables in infants that are affected by breast milk consumption.
         In addition, I was planning on adding "Lactation may protect the infant from specifically developing Type 2 diabetes because studies have shown that bioactive ingredients in human breast milk could prevent excess weight gain during childhood via contributing to a feeling of energy and satiety. A lower risk of child-onset diabetes may more applicable to infants who were born from diabetic mothers. Though breastfeeding for at least the first 6 months of life minimizes the risk of Type 1 diabetes from occurring in the infant, but inadequate breastfeeding of an infant prenatally exposed to diabetes was associated with a higher risk of the child developing diabetes later on." 
         The last thing I wanted to add under this subheading about benefits was "However, it can be argued that human breastfeeding may contribute to protective effects against the development of Type 1 diabetes due to the fact that the alternative of bottle-feeding may expose infants to unhygienic feeding conditions." I believe this addition provides an alternative theory about the association between breast milk consumption in infants and its protective health benefits. 

Ksq4 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, to begin I see that the article already states, "However, it can be argued that human breastfeeding may contribute to protective effects against the development of Type 1 diabetes due to the fact that the alternative of bottle-feeding may expose infants to unhygienic feeding conditions." Is this perhaps a copy vio? Gandydancer (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, forget it - I see you added this stuff already. Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Composition

         I wanted to add "Even though most infants infected with HIV contract the disease from breastfeeding, most infants that are breastfed by their HIV positive mothers never contract the disease. While this paradoxical phenomenon suggests that the risk of HIV transmission between an HIV positive mother and her child via breastfeeding is small, studies have also shown that feeding infants with breast milk of HIV-positive mothers can actually have a preventative effect against HIV transmission between the mother and child. This inhibitory effect against the infant contracting HIV is likely due to unspecified factors exclusively present in breast milk of HIV-positive mothers."  after the sentence "Women breastfeeding should consult with their physician regarding substances that can be unwittingly passed to the infant via breast milk, such as alcohol, viruses (HIV or HTLV-1) or medications." in order to emphasize how the important of breastfeeding may surpass the relatively minimal risk of transmitting HIV to an infant. 
         I plan on adding "
    In addition, research has shown that women who rely on infant formula could minimize the gap between the level of immunity protection and cognitive abilities a breastfed child benefits from versus the degree to which a bottle-fed child benefits from them. This can be done by supplementing formula-fed infants with bovine milk fat globule membranes (MFGM) meant to mimic the positive effects of the MFGMs which are present in human breast milk."  after the sentence "Most women that do not breastfeed use infant formula, but breast milk donated by volunteers to human milk banks can be obtained by prescription in some countries." in order to inform people about how feeding an infant with formula may not deprive the child entirely if certain supplements are incorporated in his or her diet. 

Ksq4 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Marketing

          Another change I want to make is to include that "Breast milk is considered to be healthier than cow's milk and infant formula when it comes to feeding an infant in the first 6 months of life, but only under extreme situations do international health organizations support feeding an infant breast milk from a healthy wet-nurse rather than that of its biological mother. One reason is because the unregulated breast milk market is fraught with risks such as drugs of abuse and prescription medications being present in donated breast milk. The transmission of these substances through breast milk can do more harm than good when it comes to the health outcomes of the infant recipient."  underneath this subheading because more can be expanded on the dangers of relying on the breast milk donor market than is currently discussed in the article. 

Ksq4 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7b

1) Expand on the section of 'Effects of Medications and Other Substances on Milk Content". We are planning to add more information about safe medications, unsafe medications, medications that decrease milk production, etc in the form of words/charts/diagrams.

2) We are planning to look into/expand the non-pharmaceutical methods mentioned in the "Production" section.

Jessicabee55 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Jessicabee55, regarding this (followup note here) and other edits like it, please stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Read WP:MEDRS for what I mean. Please advise your class to do the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Manuel's Peer Review, 2019

Group 7B went above and beyond in demonstrating all the various medications that can be transferred through breast milk in a clear and in-depth table, listing even the side effects. This showcases the effort the team placed to make the content on this article much more accessible to the audience.

The group remained very neutral in their findings.

ManuelSeraydarian (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sara's Peer Review 2019

1. The group's edits have improved the article. They made and added a chart which shows the medications that are safe to use in breastfeeding mothers and which medications to avoid.

2. The group has achieved its goal, but it would have been an interesting read if they expanded on the non-pharmaceutical methods that they mentioned in their goals.

3. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Yes

Sara.F.Shaikh (talk)Sara S.

Ashley's Peer Review, Foundations 2 2019

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? -- Yes, the group has supplemented this article by creating and incorporating tables of approved vs. avoid during breast feeding. The table is understandable and in lay language.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? -- Yes, one goal is to expand the section regarding medications which the team has done very well.

3. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? -- Yes, the group's edits continue to have a neutral point of view and written in lay language for general Wikipedia readers.

Ashleyher (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael's Review - Foundations

Goals

1. The addition of a table on "effects of medications and other substances on milk content" is very informative and adds much clarity to the article.

2. It is unclear what edits were added regarding "non-pharmaceuticals" in the production section.

Group 7b's edits substantially improve the article in both adding clarity and improving its organization. The edits made to this article offered a neutral perspective and significantly improved the article. Michaelfashola (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Wondering about some of the unsupported assertions in the article

I have never done much serious editing on wikipedia, because it was hard to find anything that needed improving. As I've got a baby on the way, I'be been reading and researching on a lot of baby-related topics. On some articles, including this one, I keep finding assertions that are not backed up, or backed up by one scientific study, which I understand is against Wikipedia policy. Before I edit the article, I'd like to hear from those that have been working on and watching over the article.

For example -- on IQ and breatmilk: the lone citation is to https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080505162902.htm which is one scientific study. To support the IQ claim there should be a reference to a tertiary source, right? But I don't think there is one (not that I can find anyways) because the jury is still out on that claim. This particular study of Belarusian mothers and babies shows only a small increase in IQ. There isn't enough information about the recruitment methods for the study to rule out that the women who opted in to the breastfeeding program were not already more likely to raise slightly more intelligent children. Opting in to the breast feeding training program was voluntary. And the "control" group seems to be just the general population. Wikitedium (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikitedium, yes, you are correct this source is not very good. You can check the Breastfeeding article which covers IQ better. You may want to remove this info from this article. (I moved your post to the bottom.) Best of luck in your work here! Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mother's Milk (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Benefits of Breast milk

I was doing some copyediting in this article and noticed that the 'benefits of breastfeeding' paragraph, in general, has weak sources for fairly extravagant claims. I do not know the literature well in this field, but I think there must be stronger sources or we should not be sharing these benefits. The asthma and eczema benefit is from a dental article, and the 'tiny' decrease in risk in childhood leukemia should be checked. I pasted the section below. Does anyone want to review these and clarify with stronger sources. I see there there is also a [[Breastfeeding]] article that I have not read to see how they shared potential benefits of breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding offers health benefits to mother and child even after infancy. These benefits include proper heat production and adipose tissue development, a 73% decreased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, increased intelligence, decreased likelihood of contracting middle ear infections, cold and flu resistance, a tiny decrease in the risk of childhood leukemia, lower risk of childhood onset diabetes, decreased risk of asthma and eczema, decreased dental problems, decreased risk of obesity later in life, and a decreased risk of developing psychological disorders, including in adopted children. In addition, feeding an infant breast milk is associated with lower insulin levels and higher leptin levels compared feeding an infant via powdered-formula. Many of the infection-fighting and immune system related benefits are associated with human milk oligosaccharides.

References

Does anyone anyone want to work together on this?

JenOttawa (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC) JenOttawa (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

a compelling twitter thread on breast milk, with sources by science girl

Hi, I came across this twitter thread by the science girl, and almost all the informations in it are very new to me, I can't locate them in Wikipedia. here's the thread https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1704067360926134292 Information like animal studies have shown differences in breast milk composition for male vs female offspring is very surprising, Sadhguru have said this before with many backlash Not sure all the referenced studies are in deed reliable, I am submiting to great wikipedians to fact check Here's some points that are not in the wikipedia article Research showing breast milk composition changes to help an ill infant, even if the mother is unaware the infant is sick. The Twitter thread gives a specific example of lactoferrin and white blood cell levels increasing. Animal studies showing milk composition changes depending on the sex of the offspring (sons vs daughters). Details on how breast milk contains melatonin and tryptophan that fluctuate to aid infant sleep regulation. The 2007 discovery of stem cells in breast milk, and the 2014 study tracking them migrating into mouse pup tissues and transforming into mature tissues. Information about infant saliva interacting with breast milk to increase hydrogen peroxide levels and inhibit pathogen growth.

twitter thread in full text Look at this picture, here a mothers milk visibly changed overnight to meet the demands of her baby who was unwell at the time

Those signals are communicated to the mother by saliva from her baby, the mother may even be unaware of her baby’s health status yet levels of white blood cells in milk are boosted.

Research shows compositions of lactoferrin which is an immune molecule, which carries out protective functions like piercing the walls of harmful bacteria, are also found to be increased in the weeks prior to and following an infant's illness.

Breast milk is awesome in its complexity and the way it constantly changes and is tailored 1/ 2/🧵it is more than a nutritional supply,

it has been demonstrated that breast milk leukocytes respond dynamically to maternal as well as infant infections, and that reverse flow of milk

from the infant mouth back into mum delivers signals that morph the milk to the child’s needs

the mother of a premature baby produces milk with more fats and secretory immunoglobulin the latter protect the baby until the development of the immune system

Animal studies show the composition of milk even changes when daughters or sons are fed.

Milk even changes throughout the day,

Breast milk contains melatonin, the sleep hormone, and tryptophan, an amino acid that contributes to its production. These components fluctuate in a cyclical pattern that may aid in regulating infants' sleep and wakefulness.

But I think the most amazing study came in 2007. Stem cells were discovered in human breast milk.

A study conducted in 2014 tracked these stem cells in nursing mice and observed that they migrated from the mother's mammary glands, crossed the stomach walls of the pups, and integrated into developing tissues throughout their bodies. Even when when the baby mice grew up, the mother's cells remained present and had transformed into mature tissues alongside the offspring's cells 3/🧵as well as retrograde flow back to mum to morph future feeds to the exact requirement baby needs’

Baby’s saliva also interacts with milk to make it even more powerful. concentrations of hypoxanthine and xanthine in neonatal saliva were significantly higher than those in adult saliva, while the combination of baby saliva with breastmilk produced enough H2O2 to inhibit the growth of opportunistic pathogens.

references https://www.bellybelly.com.au/breastfeeding/different-breastmilk-for-boys-and-girls/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4334701/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4424778/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-scientists-are-working-to-unlock-these-ve-puzzles-about-mothers-milk/2018/10/05/cf9a9c8c-c346-11e8-97a5-ab1e46bb3bc7_story.html Kaveinthran (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Fear the article may be parting medical advice

Hi all, I’m concerned this article may be parting medical advice with the lists of safe and unsafe medications for use by lactating mothers whilst breastfeeding?

My question being: Is the section Breast milk#Effects of medications and other substances on milk content containing tables titled 'Examples of medications considered generally safe for use by a breastfeeding mother' and 'Examples of considered dangerous for use by a breastfeeding mother' not too specific and therefore could be arguably parting medical advice since lists like these are forever evolving, and I think we could replace these tables with some obvious dangerous/unsafe examples and safe ones in-line body text.

What do you think? @Doc James: The only username I can remember from the project off my head. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, this section constitutes medical information instead of medical advice. The distinction is between "these drugs are not generally considered safe" (information) instead of "you personally should not take this drug" (advice). According to this model, the information in this article is not medical advice.

However: Is this really what we want? I'm not sure about that. IMO we should include some specific examples across a range of common drug types, but I think the current tables are significantly undercited, and I don't know that we need quite so many examples. The smaller table, in particular, could probably be turned into a short paragraph that says something like "Some classes of drugs, such as cytotoxic chemotherapeutic drugs, and some specific individual drugs, such as amiodarone and Lithium, may not be safe for the baby or may interfere with milk production." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Well I’ve done a bold edit, and will come back with some fresh cites for the uncited drugs mentioned. But two simple paragraphs should suffice so the page isn’t used as a reference and therefore, IMO may constitute medical advice.

I will be copyediting from there downwards over the coming days, just haven’t had the time. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

How people choose to use information (e.g., "as a reference") does not transform information into advice.

I'm glad that you're working on this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)