Follow this blog:
RSS

One day, humans may not need breasts

By | September 10, 2012, 1:33 PM PDT

Parents have fed their babies formula milk since the mid 1800’s, when Nestlé debuted ‘Farine Lactée.’ The formula industry enjoyed a boon of good press for nearly a hundred years, as their product was seen as convenient, cheaper than staying home from work to nurse, and modern.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s international health agencies began to promote the health benefits of breast milk. Mothers in the industrialized world returned to the practice, and the formula industry shifted its target demographic to developing countries. Though many countries heavily regulate the industry’ advertising, researchers estimated this year in the British Medical Journal that, “Currently, suboptimal breastfeeding is associated with over a million deaths each year and 10% of the global disease burden in children.”

Human breast milk has unique ingredients that protect babies against illness. They’re special sugars called human milk oligosaccharides (HMO). And until now, they’ve been too prohibitively expensive ($1000 pre gram) to put into formula.

University of Illinois researchers announced in a new report online today in the journal Microbial Cell Factories that they’ve found a work-around. They’ve figured out a way to synthesize the most common HMO, called 2FL, in the lab. They did this by engineering a strain of E. coli bacteria to produce the sugar for them, quickly and cheaply. The researchers will next be testing whether the manufactured 2FL can be added to formula milk.

This new research may be the most promising breast milk work-around yet, but its certainly not the first. I’ve previously reported on efforts to produce goats that synthesize the human breast milk ingredients and pre- and pro-biotics supplements that can improve formula quality.

If infant formula technology truly succeeds at reaching equal benefits to breast milk, I predict we’re about to see an interesting publicity war over the continued need for the real thing.

Photo: EdenPictures/Flickr

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Audrey Quinn

About Audrey Quinn

Audrey Quinn is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Audrey Quinn

Audrey Quinn
Contributing Editor

Audrey Quinn is a multimedia science journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. She has corresponded for PRI's The World, Radiolab, Deutsche Welle's Living Planet, and a number of NPR affiliate stations. She also produces and hosts a podcast for the Mind Science Foundation. Previously, she performed neuroscience research at the University of Washington Autism Center and the Seattle VA Hospital.

Follow her on Twitter.

Audrey Quinn

Audrey Quinn

Audrey does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
9
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Breasts not needed?
Goodbye, Hooters.
Posted by affordablecomputerguy@...
10th Sep
+3 Votes
+ -
Narrow view of what Breastfeeding is
This argument only rests on the potential nutrition of a BM substitute. Breast feeding is not only about BM. Breastfeeding is much more than feeding a baby/toddler. there is a lot of research about it... it is in that sense that this "article" disinform the public as opposed to inform.
Posted by maravmar
Updated - 12th Sep
+3 Votes
+ -
They still cannot replicate other factors.
Expanding research is indicating everything from intestinal flora to disease fighting anti-bodies are passed to children in breast milk. Replicating 1 more item might be helpful in the making a better formula for circumstances where feeding formula is needed, but science is a long way from matching the many benefits of breast milk.
Posted by Hates Idiots
13th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
Yes
yes, I agree with you.
Posted by maravmar
14th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
No way!
utter non sense! As long as there is a man alive on this earth there will be laws passed if need be that women shall have a set of them. Those who refuse to have them will fall victim to the worlds new laws needed to control the population, as the worlds highest court consisting of 5 men and 2 women rule unanimously to uphold the value law that outlines the requirements to prove worthy of a place at the table. No boobies, you will be captured and gentle put to sleep by the good folks at the SPCA. ( makes sense given they are already trained to do this). A world with out boobies, might as well take away the sunshine, beer and football.
Posted by bruce butkis
13th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
One day, humans may not need breasts...for mother's milk
Thus far, artificial or GMO altered food products have created increased rates of obesity and other human DNA malfunctions...so these people want to start the degenerative process much earlier. If breast milk is healthier, there can be no 'replication' replacement is not 'replication'. Most early biology and chemistry classes teach this on the High School level. The mantra of Capitalism: if you build it they will come is quickly becoming the demise of humanity as we know it.

Simulated, or artificial, synthetic foods are for simulated, or artificial, synthetic people not humans.
Posted by TenFeet2Hands
Updated - 14th Sep
-2 Votes
+ -
GMO
Who in their right minds want anything to do with GMO? By the way, breasts are not just for milk! They are lovely to fondle!
Posted by kitemanmusic
15th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
Ingredients will never be matched
Even with the ingredients currently in formula, they are a poor match for the very small number of breast milk components they are copying. They are not identical. Many are in much more poorly absorbed forms, and therefore present in larger quantities, so a baby produces much larger smellier faeces on formula. Why anyone thinks that is good for the baby, I don't know. The 'milk' basis will always be something that is a highly processed but poor imitation as well. A breastfeeding mother's breasts can produce antibodies to her baby's illness within hours, even if the mother herself has never caught that illness, and fend off sickness, along with all the other antibodies delivered every single feed. Formula will never contain antibodies. No-one even knows the purpose of the recently discovered stem cells in breastmilk, but we could not make them, nor could they be kept alive in a container of formula. Breastmilk changes in composition throughout a feed to match a baby's hunger vs. thirst, throughout the day, and adapts to the age of the baby over the months/years. The thirty or so ingredients in current formula don't very much resemble what they are trying to copy now - why anyone would ever think the hundreds of things in breastmilk could be manufactured, I don't know. Even the formula companies know that is impossible. You can bet even if oligosaccharides were added, they would not be bio-identical. Anyway, I would rather snuggle close skin to skin and feed my baby. For a mother who cannot provide sufficient milk herself for whatever reason, formula is a useful supplement to keep a baby alive. But that's it. And that's all a manufactured product will ever be.
Posted by TGem
17th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
Wow
When the world gets to the point where society requires the mother to work over spending those moments that are so crucial to a baby, I think we need to reverse engineer our way of life. What will be the impact on the child 20 years into new way of feeding the baby, a different type of autism. Will a Monsanto type company outlaw real breast feeding? Are we advancing, it is so hard to tell?
Posted by dspardoe
19th Sep
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!