Valerie writes: "The problem is that our most prestigious journals are admitting to
greater and
greater problems with research being a part and parcel of industry. One journal
wrote that about 50% of articles submitted to the most prestigious journals
are ghost-written by various industries (pharmaceutical industry was an
example)."

Actually, the figure you give is lower than what I have heard. My sources says that
industry is involved in some way in about 70% of the research published. There is a
good reason for this. Research is costly. Who will pay?  The most logical source of
financing is those who have a financial interest.  From a practical standpoint, it
only makes sense.

This, in and of itself, is not a problem, as long as the research is conducted
ethically , the study methodology is sound, and it is reviewed by a group of peers
before publication. Just as is true of all the information at our disposal, we need
to examine each study critically to make sure that its conclusions are valid.  One
example of study that many of us depend on in which there was industry involvement
was the one that Medela funded, Paula Meier conducted, and was published in JHL on
the reliability of using the BabyWeigh scale for pre- and post-feed test weights.
That study was a huge boon to all of us. After I started using the BabyWeigh at
consults, it didn't take long before I could hardly imagine doing my job well without
being able to--when needed--check a baby's intake at the breast.

Just because a study is funded by industry doesn't make it invalid.  Just because a
study is independently funded doesn't make it valid.  ALL research should be
considered suspect until it is examined critically. Researchers may have their own
agenda, even if money is not involved.  Simply put, I think it is more productive
*not* to put industry related studies in a separate category to scrutinize more
closely.  I think we should scrutinize ALL studies with the *same* care with which we
should be scrutinizing industry funded studies.

The example you give about Monsanto is concerning. Thankfully, it sounds as if it all
came out well in the end, since the book was eventually published.

In a related vein, I heard a talk by Ted Greiner about 18 months ago here in Chicago
that gave me great inspiration. His presentation was on HIV and breastfeeding and he
recounted his personal experience as part of a small group that worked to convince
WHO to modify its original recommendation that all HIV-positive women (even in
developing countries) artificially feed their babies to avoid HIV transmission. His
small group insisted that WHO consider that in developing countries more babies would
die if this recommendation were followed than if they breastfed, even if their
mothers were HIV-positive. He talked about the pressure from the formula industry
being part of the equation at these meetings.

Those of us in the audience listened with fascination. Here was a man speaking up for
breastfeeding when history was being made and the stakes were high. Someone raised
her hand and asked, "How can we expect to reclaim breastfeeding as the norm when the
formula industry has so much financial might and we have so little?"

I will never forget his answer, although I didn't write it down exactly. This gist
was: "We can succeed against industry pressure when we have what's right on our
side.  Ultimately industry is powerless against that." (Even though my dh might
object, I wanted to marry that man on the spot!)

Audrey Naylor told a similar story at LLLI's International Conference this year in
which pressure from the baby food industry was brought to bear in the debates at WHO
about the appropriate age for starting solids. Ultimately right won out in this
debate as well, despite the industry pressure, and the recommendation for starting
solids was changed from 4 to 6 months to 6 months, because the research clearly
showed that both mothers and babies were healthier if solids were delayed until then.

This same type of fight has taken place in our country with the tobacco industry. It
was exactly 40 years ago when the US Surgeon General announced that smoking is
hazardous to our health. Did industry fight it?  You bet.  Did they succeed in
delaying the inevitable through their financial might and marketing?  There is no
doubt.  Is this war being won?  Absolutely.  We still have a ways to go, but I
remember the days when people smoked in hospitals and restaurants.  On a personal
note, after more than 50 years of smoking, my 76 year old mother quit last year.
Things are looking up.

Call me an optimist, but I think we are on the winning side. We just need to stand
our ground and speak the truth.  Perhaps we can all get some comfort from this
sentiment during the fast-approaching holidays, when the breastfeeding community is
on tenterhooks waiting for a resolution to the Ad Council controversy.

As Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world.  Indeed it is the only thing that ever does."

May all Lactnet subscribers keep this thought in mind as they enjoy the coming
holidays with family and friends.

Nancy Mohrbacher, IBCLC
Lactation Education Specialist, Hollister, Inc.
Chicago suburbs, Illinois USA

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

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(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html