donating breast milk

[x-posted to mkb]

Graciesmom wrote:

I also found a company called Prolacta, with milk banks around the
country (and growing).

I note that a gmailer with no usenet posting history has leapt in not
once, but twice in this thread to enthusiastically promote Prolacta.

Prolacta is not non-profit, no way, nohow. They have set up a nominally
"non-profit" collection arm, which they have chosen to name the
"National Milk Bank" - the entirety of the milk collected by the NMB is
passed on to Prolacta, which is 100% for-profit, privately owned and
funded by venture capitalists.

They reformulate the milk, because they claim neonatal specialists
prefer milk with a "nutritional label" over mother's "generic
breastmilk". They openly contend that their pricey brand-name milk is
superior to less processed breastmilk. The CEO's mission is to sell the
milk to hospitals for thirty days per baby, until they can, in her words
"tolerate other milk". Interpret that as you will. They also have an
active research and patenting programme, claiming mother's milk
components as their own intellectual property.

The kicker? They on-sell the processed milk for nearly fifty dollars an
ounce.

In contrast, HMBANA milk banks, the real non-profit network in the USA,
provide donated breastmilk on a needs basis for around around three
dollars an ounce.

Lara

References (for a starting point):
http://www.paramuspost.com/article.p...60327012622202

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/business/ci_3823090
--
www.tafkac.org
www.ozclothnappies.org

I have to say that I am not convinced on Prolacta's morals, but I feel the
need to nit-pick at Lara's post (sorry!)

"Lara" wrote in message
...
[x-posted to mkb]

Graciesmom wrote:

I also found a company called Prolacta, with milk banks around the
country (and growing).

I note that a gmailer with no usenet posting history has leapt in not
once, but twice in this thread to enthusiastically promote Prolacta.

Prolacta is not non-profit, no way, nohow. They have set up a nominally
"non-profit" collection arm, which they have chosen to name the
"National Milk Bank" - the entirety of the milk collected by the NMB is
passed on to Prolacta, which is 100% for-profit, privately owned and
funded by venture capitalists.

In your first link, it does say that the centres who get paid for the
donated brastmilk are then able to use that money to fund pregnancy and
breastfeeding classes etc :
"Karen Plevyak, director of the new Escondido clinic, said the revenue it
makes from selling milk to Prolacta will help fund a nonprofit pregnancy
clinic and free parenting and breast-feeding classes.

"Our goal as educators is to encourage moms to breast-feed to a year," said
Plevyak, also a certified lactation educator. "

I suppose the centre's may not all use the money for such good causes, and
we would only here about the ones that do.

They reformulate the milk, because they claim neonatal specialists
prefer milk with a "nutritional label" over mother's "generic
breastmilk". They openly contend that their pricey brand-name milk is
superior to less processed breastmilk. The CEO's mission is to sell the
milk to hospitals for thirty days per baby, until they can, in her words
"tolerate other milk". Interpret that as you will.

You are misquoting here. From your second link, the actual quote is:
"During the first 30 days, a baby under 1,500 grams should be receiving 100
percent human milk," Medo said. "By the end of that 30 days, hopefully, the
mom's milk has kicked in - or they can tolerate other milk."

This is not the same meaning as what you have said.

They also have an
active research and patenting programme, claiming mother's milk
components as their own intellectual property.

The kicker? They on-sell the processed milk for nearly fifty dollars an
ounce.
This to me is where the whole idea of Prolacta being a good thing falls down
too. $50 (although I couldn't find this figure on the links) is a lot of
money, especially compared to the ~$3 from a non-profit organization.


In contrast, HMBANA milk banks, the real non-profit network in the USA,
provide donated breastmilk on a needs basis for around around three
dollars an ounce.

Lara

References (for a starting point):
http://www.paramuspost.com/article.p...60327012622202

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/business/ci_3823090
--

Having read the links that you posted and Prolacta's website, I am in two
minds about them. I think that we are all agreed that BM is best,
especially for preemies. I have recently read a blog on a preemie, and I
was suprised to read that the Mum's BM was fortified with formula in order
to provide extra calories. If this is a common practice (and not being
involved in anything neonatal I don't know), wouldn't it be better to use a
milk formula based on human milk rather than a formula based on cow's milk?

Against this, I hate the whole idea of mucking around with such a
sophisticated substance such as breast milk. It has taken nature a long
time to perfect it - who are we to change it?

I also bet that Prolacta are doing precious little to help the mothers of
the preemies to breastfeed, as that would have an impact on their sales.

Suzanne

Suzanne S wrote:

In your first link, it does say that the centres who get paid for the
donated brastmilk are then able to use that money to fund pregnancy and
breastfeeding classes etc :
"Karen Plevyak, director of the new Escondido clinic, said the revenue it
makes from selling milk to Prolacta will help fund a nonprofit pregnancy
clinic and free parenting and breast-feeding classes.

Information about these "classes" (what they consist of, the
qualifications of the people running them) has not been forthcoming.
Regardless, since the proportion of money going (on-paper) to the
collecting centres is very, very small according to news reports, there
is no way that Prolacta profit is all or even mostly going back into
philanthropic missions.

They reformulate the milk, because they claim neonatal specialists
prefer milk with a "nutritional label" over mother's "generic
breastmilk". They openly contend that their pricey brand-name milk is
superior to less processed breastmilk. The CEO's mission is to sell the
milk to hospitals for thirty days per baby, until they can, in her words
"tolerate other milk". Interpret that as you will.

You are misquoting here. From your second link, the actual quote is:
"During the first 30 days, a baby under 1,500 grams should be receiving 100
percent human milk," Medo said. "By the end of that 30 days, hopefully, the
mom's milk has kicked in - or they can tolerate other milk."

This is not the same meaning as what you have said.

Mother's milk doesn't take 30 days to come in, that to me just smacks of
meaningless lip-service to breastfeeding. The strong implication is that
babies, even very small and sick babies, are just fine to have
artificial milk at thirty days of age.

They also have an
active research and patenting programme, claiming mother's milk
components as their own intellectual property.

The kicker? They on-sell the processed milk for nearly fifty dollars an
ounce.
This to me is where the whole idea of Prolacta being a good thing falls down
too. $50 (although I couldn't find this figure on the links)

My apologies, try this link.
http://www.biospace.com/news_company...mpanyID=959520

I also bet that Prolacta are doing precious little to help the mothers of
the preemies to breastfeed, as that would have an impact on their sales.

Exactly. And all those dollars have got to come from somewhere - and at
a time where insurance dollars even for IBCLCs or hospital grade pumps
for preemie mums seem to be very hard to find.

Lara

[In case anyone is wondering about conflict of interest, I have none. I
don't even live in the Northern Hemisphere. My lactation support
activities right now are limited to the running of an internet support
group for EPing mums (many of them mums of preemies).]

Having read the links that you posted and Prolacta's website, I am in two
minds about them. I think that we are all agreed that BM is best,
especially for preemies. I have recently read a blog on a preemie, and I
was suprised to read that the Mum's BM was fortified with formula in order
to provide extra calories. If this is a common practice (and not being
involved in anything neonatal I don't know), wouldn't it be better to use
a
milk formula based on human milk rather than a formula based on cow's
milk?

Against this, I hate the whole idea of mucking around with such a
sophisticated substance such as breast milk. It has taken nature a long
time to perfect it - who are we to change it?

I also bet that Prolacta are doing precious little to help the mothers of
the preemies to breastfeed, as that would have an impact on their sales.

Suzanne


Well, one thing I was told as a preemie mom was that my body would make the
milk my baby needed-and I can attest that I had colostrum, or at least
colostrum enriched, really yellow breastmilk until Alli was past her
original due date, which meant I gave colostrum for about 6 weeks. So, if a
mother truly can't breastfeed, I suppose it may be possible that milk
"designed" for a more mature baby isn't rich enough for a preemie,
especially a very little preemie. In addition, you have to consider the
health of the mother here. You don't have a premature baby, especially a
micropreemie, without a reason-and those reasons can mean that the mother
isn't exactly healthy enough for breastfeeding to be a priority, or maybe
even a possibility. For example, had my son survived to be breastfed (born
at 22 weeks due to severe PE and class I HELLP), I doubt it would have
happened, simply because I was barely conscious the first few days following
his birth since my hemocrit was so low, had blood pressure through the roof,
and was drugged to the hilt to prevent seizures. Somehow, I don't think ICU
nurses want to be messing with breast pumps.

"Lara" wrote in message
...
[x-posted to mkb]

Graciesmom wrote:

I also found a company called Prolacta, with milk banks around the
country (and growing).

I note that a gmailer with no usenet posting history has leapt in not
once, but twice in this thread to enthusiastically promote Prolacta.

Prolacta is not non-profit, no way, nohow. They have set up a nominally
"non-profit" collection arm, which they have chosen to name the
"National Milk Bank" - the entirety of the milk collected by the NMB is
passed on to Prolacta, which is 100% for-profit, privately owned and
funded by venture capitalists.

They reformulate the milk, because they claim neonatal specialists
prefer milk with a "nutritional label" over mother's "generic
breastmilk". They openly contend that their pricey brand-name milk is
superior to less processed breastmilk. The CEO's mission is to sell the
milk to hospitals for thirty days per baby, until they can, in her words
"tolerate other milk". Interpret that as you will. They also have an
active research and patenting programme, claiming mother's milk
components as their own intellectual property.

The kicker? They on-sell the processed milk for nearly fifty dollars an
ounce.

In contrast, HMBANA milk banks, the real non-profit network in the USA,
provide donated breastmilk on a needs basis for around around three
dollars an ounce.

Lara

References (for a starting point):
http://www.paramuspost.com/article.p...60327012622202

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/business/ci_3823090
--
www.tafkac.org
www.ozclothnappies.org

The other milk banks in the US that I am familiar with take donated milk and
sell it for $4 per ounce, still pretty spendy if you ask me. I guess though
they do pasteurize the milk so perhaps they are just recouping their
expenses... but cow's milk is pastuerized and is only $3 per gallon.

I've decided ot donate to the Sharp Mary-Birch Hospital here in San
Diego, where they would then send the milk up to San Jose. This is all
for nonprofit.
I feel this is the right thing to do. Prolacta is now competing for
donors like me to donate to them (so they can make their money) instead
of the nonprofit milk banks. I asked the woman at the Prolacta milk
bank over the phone why they are better. She said they put the premies
in the most need for breastmilk first, where as the other milk banks
wouldn't. hummm??
The bottom line is, I feel like it's a service to the commuity that I
donate my milk, but I don't think a huge profit should be made on it by
some company. I'm sticking to my gut instinct, and donating to HMBANA.