In 1999 there was a workshop, "On the Essentiality of and Dietary Reference
Intakes (DRIs) for Omega-6 and Omega-3 Fatty Acids," sponsored by the US
National Institutes of Health. The co-sponsors were BASF, Bestfoods, ENRECO, F.
Hoffman-LaRoche, Groupe Danone (infant formula company in Europe--WHO Code
violator), Martek Bioscience (maker of DHA and AA oils), Mead Johnson, Ocean
Nutrition Canada, Omega Tech (bought out by Martek Bioscience), Pronova Biocare,
Roche Vitamins. The speakers at this workshop were mainly from these companies.
Research mentioned was funded by some of these companies.
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/news/conferences/w6w3_abstracts.html
Most of the research done in the USA on DHA seems to be funded by these major
players. There are over 1000 patents on DHA. Dennis Hoffman and Eileen
Birch (had funding from Mead Johnson) who have done research on DHA have patents.
I believe that if you gave me the name of a researcher on DHA, in most cases
I could tell you of the patent they own or the supplement company that funded
their research.
The study called, "Effects of docosahexaenoic acid supplementation of
lactating women on the fatty acid composition of breast milk lipids and maternal and
infant plasma phospholipids," by Craig L. Jensen et al. was funded by the
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture--known for its support of the dairy
industry) with grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mead Johnson
Nutritional Group. (Jensen is from Baylor College of Medicine--home of the
Pharm Woman patent and other patents on human milk components genetically
engineered)
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/1/292S
This research was continued and Martek Bioscience provided partial funding
(in their company investor information for November 14, 2000). Does all this
funding by those who stand to win financially mean that the science is
questionable? Maybe and then again maybe not. But it does say that there are a number
of built-in biases. And that we should consider with due caution the need
for DHA supplementation (the same could be said about vitamin D, vitamin K, etc.)
The patent that I was so appalled about in regard to DHA and infant formula
was the first infant formula patent/patent application that I have seen
directed specifically at the breastfed infant. This should be a cause for alarm.
Almost all infant formula patents I have read previously write about human milk
as the gold standard. This patent application seems to be premised on the
insufficiency of human milk to provide adequate DHA to the infant. I would
think that most of us would realize where this will go in regard to breastfeeding
continuation rates. One of the inventors to this patent is a researcher for
Mead Johnson and has other patents. So it is possible that Mead Johnson is
working on "openly" directing its marketing towards the breastfeeding mother.
This would not be so upsetting except that we, IBCLCs, have a recent code of
ethics requiring us to understand, recognize, respect, and acknowledge
patents. How exactly should I respect this patent on infant formula directed at the
breastfed infant? As a breastfeeding advocate, why should I acknowledge this
kind of patenting that will most assuredly sabotage breastfeeding?
Valerie W. McClain, breastfeeding advocate
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
