LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Morgan Gallagher <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:29:51 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (95 lines)
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/press-twisted-my-words-says-academic-in-breastmilk-row-1766147.html

"Few topics are more emotive than breastfeeding, that rite of passage 
into motherhood. Witness the furore that erupted over a story purporting 
to rubbish claims that breast milk provided newborns with a protective 
shield against an array of illnesses or allergies.

Mums everywhere entrenched their positions on either side of the 
breast-milk divide when they leapt on the alleged assertion made by a 
leading professor of paediatrics and breastfeeding adviser to the World 
Health Organisation and Unicef. Michael Kramer was reported as saying 
that much of the evidence used to persuade mothers to breastfeed was 
either wrong or out of date.

Those in the anti camp were particularly ecstatic. "It was all I could 
do not to dance around the room whooping with joy.... Thanks for 
vindicating all the mums who dared to challenge the sanctimonious 
breastfeeding orthodoxy in 'discussion' forums," wrote TheJasMonster on 
Mumsnet after reading the article in The Times. Conversely, those 
pro-breastfeeding, from new mums trying to do the right thing to 
anti-formula campaigners such as Baby Milk Action, were left devastated 
that someone as respected as Kramer, who has studied evidence on 
breastfeeding since 1978, could perform such a massive U-turn. 
Especially on the eve of World Breastfeeding Week, which kicked off 
yesterday.

Or did he? Not a bit of it, says the professor, who is renowned for a 
groundbreaking study that found an IQ advantage to breastfeeding even 
after you'd stripped out the natural advantages that being the sort of 
mum who breastfeeds would give her child. Rather, he is spitting tacks 
at how his comments had been so "grossly misrepresented" for the second 
time in almost as many months. (The first was in the respected American 
magazine, The Atlantic, in an article entitled "The case against 
breastfeeding", which ignited the original media storm on the subject.)

"Journalists certainly have the right to express their own opinions, but 
not to misquote experts they choose to interview in order to support 
those opinions. That sort of sensationalist journalist would not 
surprise me from the tabloids, but I had expected better from The 
Atlantic and The Times," Kramer said last night.

The Times quoted Kramer, who is based at McGill University, Montreal, as 
saying there was "very little evidence" breastfeeding reduces the risk 
of a range of diseases from leukaemia to heart disease. Yet, what he 
actually said was: "The existing evidence suggests that breastfeeding 
may protect against the risk of leukaemia, lymphoma, inflammatory bowel 
disease, type 1 diabetes, heart disease and blood pressure." All he did 
concede was that we need "more and better studies to pursue these 
links", a common cry from academics lacking in funding.

As for the article merely casting him "in the camp that believes that 
breastfeeding will turn out to have a slight effect on brain 
development", well, that hardly squared with his life's work, he said 
yesterday. "There is an IQ advantage to breastfeeding by as much as 
three or four points. It's not the difference between Einstein and a 
mental retard at an individual level, but it means having a smarter 
population on average, fewer children with school difficulties, and more 
gifted children."

He added: "There really isn't any controversy about which mode of 
feeding is more beneficial for the baby and the mother, but when you 
read the article in The Times it sounds like there is." Furthermore, he 
points out: "I'm not aware of any studies that have observed any health 
benefits of formula feeding. That's important, and any mother weighing 
the benefits of breastfeeding vs formula feeding needs to know that."

His only note of caution, which was flipped on its head by both 
publications, was that breastfeeding advocates don't need "to overstate 
their case for issues that are more controversial", such as the link 
between breastfeeding and protection against obesity, allergies and 
asthma. "Public health bodies don't have to exaggerate the benefits in 
order to be very comfortable about supporting breastfeeding," he added.

Some solace for campaigners such as the WHO, keen to use World 
Breastfeeding Week to increase global breastfeeding rates and save up to 
1.3 million children's lives a year. Worldwide, fewer than 40 per cent 
of mums breastfeed exclusively for the first six months of their baby's 
life, as recommended: in the UK only 3 per cent are still breastfeeding 
exclusively at five months."

----

Morgan Gallagher

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

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2