Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Safety of donor milk: a brief report

Abstract

Objective:

To review the standard processing and testing of human donors and donor milk and to report the frequency of detected markers of potential harm.

Study Design:

This was a retrospective analysis of the data gathered by a donor and human milk screening and monitoring process over a period of 3 years.

Results:

Screening results from 2011 to the end of 2015 demonstrated that careful history taking resulted in rejection or hold of 29.7% of willing donor candidates. Individual infection screening tests rejected an additional 0.3–2.9 per 1000 donations. DNA fingerprinting of donations eliminated 2 out of 13 491. Drug testing rejected 42 out of 12 408 and dilution or adulteration eliminated 73 out of 4935 donations. Only the dilution rejection rate was significantly higher in the remunerated donors. The details of these results are presented.

Conclusions:

There are significant risks involved in the collection, processing and distribution of donor milk-based products. The behaviors of the donors, biochemical and genetic screening and milk processing are critical to mitigation of these recognized risks. Testing at this level of rigor appears to be justified.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 496–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Narayanan I, Prakash K, Murthy NS, Gujral VV . Randomized controlled trial of the effect of raw and holder pasteurized human milk and of formula supplements on the incidence of neonatal sepsis. Lancet 1984; 2: 1111–1113.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics 2012; 129: e827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schanler RJ, Shulman RJ, Lau C . Feeding strategies for premature infants: Beneficial outcomes of feeding fortified human milk vs preterm formula. Pediatrics 1999; 103: 1150–1157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schanler RJ, Lau C, Hurst NM, Smith EO . Randomized trial of donor human milk versus preterm formula as substitutes for mothers' own milk in the feeding of extremely premature infants. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 400–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author appreciated the employees and staff of Prolacta Bioscience who provided the results of their screening process for this report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry T Bloom.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bloom, B. Safety of donor milk: a brief report. J Perinatol 36, 392–393 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.207

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.207

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links