Advertisement

Whole Cow’s Milk Versus Hydrolysed Infant Formulae: Analysis of Systemic Immune Responses and Antigenic Cross-Reactivities

  • S. Strobel
  • L. M. Fairclough

Abstract

There is no doubt that breast feeding is the most natural, hygienic, psychosocially important and least expensive way of feeding the young infant. Despite unequivocal advantages of breast feeding the young infant, cow’s milk based formulae or other xenogeneic feeds (e.g. soya and pasteurised fortified goat’s milk) are considered safe alternatives in the European setting and will certainly be used in future as they have been for over 80 years. The most commonly reported adverse clinical effects of cow’s milk feeds are diarrhoea, vomiting and also failure to thrive, which is frequently due to an enteropathy. About 2% of infants suffer from more or less serious side effects of milk-containing feeds.

Keywords

Whey Protein Hydrolyse Peptide Skin Test Result Hydrolyse Formula Nutrition Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nutrition Committee of the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (1982) Guidelines on infant nutrition II. Recommendation for infant feeding. ESPGAN Committee on Nutrition. Acta Paedriatr Scand [Suppl] 302: 1–27Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nutrition Committee of the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (1987) Nutrition and feeding of preterm infants. ESPGAN Committe on Nutrition, B Wharton (ed). Acta Paedriatr Scand [Suppl] 336:1–14Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knights RJ (1985) Processing and evaluation of the antigenicity of protein hydrolysates. In: Lifshitz F, ed. Nutrition for special needs in infancy. Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albinia JE, Jacobs DO, Melnik G, et al. (1985) Nitrogen utilisation from elemental diets. J Parent Enteral Nutr 9:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldman AS, Anderson DW, Sellars WA, et al. (1963) Milk allergy. I. Oral challenge with milk and isolated milk proteins in allergic children. Pediatrics 32:425–443PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freier S, Kletter B, Lebenthal E, Griefman M (1969) Intolerance to milk protein. J Pediatr 75:623–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sawyer WH (1969) Complex between β-lactoglobulin and K-casein. A review. J Dairy Sci 52:1347–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jost R, Monti JC, Pahud JJ (1987) Whey protein allergenicity and its reduction by technological means. Food Technology 41:118–121Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson KJ, McLaughlan P, Devey ME, Coombs RRA (1979) Anaphylactic sensitivity of guinea pigs drinking different preparations of cow’s milk and infant formulae. Clin Exp Immunol 35:454–461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Protein hydrolysate injection. In: The United States Pharmacopia XX, 1980, pp 687–688Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strobel S, Ferguson A (1987) Persistence of oral tolerance in mice is different for humoral and cellular immune responses. Immunology 60: 317–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strobel S, Anderson DM, Ferguson A (1986) Immunogenicity and crossreactivity and nonspecific irritant properties of the exudate gums acacia, karaya, and tragacanth. Food Addit Contam 3:47–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Strobel
  • L. M. Fairclough

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations