Cathy,

I think this is really the crux of the issue:

As lactation consultants I think we
> are all very grateful for the insights his work and the work of his
> students
> has given us from understanding the physiology and anatomy of the breast to
> the physiology and pathologies surrounding suckling, to the work on human
> milk banking and human milk fortifiers, and most recently stem cell
> research
> in breastmilk.


All of these topics go directly to Medela's ability to make claims that will
help them sell their products. That, in and of itself, isn't particularly
troubling. (There's nothing wrong with funding research to prove marketing
claims.)  But when a *pump* company's research becomes the basis for how we
understand breastfeeding directly at the breast, we have to be careful...no?

I'm just saying that we should exercise caution, because the conflict of
interests is there. (I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who's
devoting their time to researching anything in our field.  I think that on
the ground level, these research activities are fantastic; it's at the
top-level, where Medela is, that it becomes problematic for me.)

The work Medela is funding in the areas of milk banking, human milk
fortifiers, and stem cell research is downright disturbing to me. This
research is funded for one reason, and one reason only: Medela is banking on
their future ability to gain patents in these areas and then profit from
them.  Personally, I see no altruism behind this particular research (again,
on Medela's part, not that of the individuals carrying out the work).
 There's truth to the term "liquid gold," and this will become more true as
companies like Medela patent and profit from it.

So, I think there absolutely IS a human face in all this, like you mention.
However, I think it's the face of the mom - because it's moms who will
ultimately be short-changed when components of human milk become commodities
for sale. (That's as if to say human milk isn't already a commodity for
sale, but look at Prolacta - moms are duped into donating milk while
Prolacta laughs all the way to the bank.)

I realize that this might not be a popular opinion, either, and that there's
a lot of controversy embedded in what I've said here. However, the more I
research Medela (I wrote the post about the mold in their
pumps<http://bit.ly/eorTAw>),
the more strongly I feel that whatever they are involved in may be fruit of
a poison tree, so to speak.

Amy West, CLC

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Cathy Fetherston <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I have been reading with increasing concern the posts regarding both
> the calma teat and medela in general and am very worried about the
> escalating emotions surrounding these topics, and what they mean for us as
> a
> profession.
>
> Before I continue, I need to declare a disclaimer, that I have never
> received any Medela funding for my personal research, although indirectly I
> may have benefited when I was a PhD student in Peter Hartmann's lab in the
> early days when he first began to receive funding for his research from
> medela, I believe the equipment I used to analyse my milk samples for
> chloride may have been purchased with that money.
>
> The very negative, and sometimes emotive comments made on this subject in
> the last week or so, do not seem to recognise the human face of the subject
> of industry funded research (admittedly a much larger subject than can be
> effectively discussed here) and it seems to me that many people have been
> very quick to demonise the new calma teat simply based on its association
> with Medela.
>
>  I would like to provide an alternative view for everyone to consider
> (although perhaps not necessarily to agree with......)
>
> Professor Peter Hartmann's research into lactation receives an enormous
> amount of funding research from Medela, most of which these days would be
> impossible to conduct without this money. Peter lives and breathes this
> work
> night and day, 7 days a week, and has done so for most of his working life
> (a very substantial number of years). As lactation consultants I think we
> are all very grateful for the insights his work and the work of his
> students
> has given us from understanding the physiology and anatomy of the breast to
> the physiology and pathologies surrounding suckling, to the work on human
> milk banking and human milk fortifiers, and most recently stem cell
> research
> in breastmilk. The work is broad ranging and has been extremely important
> in
> enabling us to provide better care to Mum's and their babies. Just last
> night I attended a poster presentation of 22 separate pieces of research
> conducted in his lab by his associates or his students - all of which were
> funded partly or wholly by medela and have also either been published in
> peer reviewed journals or been presented at the International Society for
> Research into Human Milk and Lactation (and are awaiting publication).
> Amongst those posters were three related to the calma teat.
>
> 1. Heart rates and blood oxygen saturation during feeding with a vacuum
> release teat
>
> 2. Tongue movement and vacuum in infants feeding from the breast and an
> experimental teat that releases milk only with vacuum
>
> 3. Suck swallow breathe patterns during feeding from the breast and a vacum
> realease teat.
>
> They are yet to be published.
>
> I dont want to comment on "advertising strategies" or code issues related
> to
> teats and bottles (a topic for another day). But I do believe it is
> important to recognise that bottles and teats have been in existence since
> the 1800s and many mothers either want or need to use them to deliver
> breastmilk to their babies. As a human race we are always driven to know
> more and achieve better ways of doing things. The hartmann research group
> work incredibly hard to deliver new knowledge that we can apply clinically,
> and they do this with the best of intentions. Perhaps this teat will not
> have the answers that we all seek in providing the best alternative method
> of delivering EBM, and objective scepticism is important to evaluate any
> new
> knowledge, but I beseech you all to wait till you are able to objectively
> assess the research associated with it before discarding it (and its
> inventors) to the trash can.
>
> Warm regards
> Cathy Fetherston RM PhD IBCLC
> Perth, Western Australia
>
>             ***********************************************
>
> Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
> To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
> Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
> COMMANDS:
> 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set
> lactnet nomail
> 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
> 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
> 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
>

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome