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