>Dr. Innis gets funding and support from formula companies. I don't
suppose that was brought out in the article.<
Probably not. She is a world-class scientist and has a right to speak on
her area of expertise. However, she is not a historian, and I gather needs
to learn in that area unless I misread Jack's post.
>What she is quoted as saying in the article [missed this so can't comment]
is technically correct, however. Women who breastfeed tend to be more
educated that those that don't, at least in western societies.<
I assume this is what she said. Now women who breastfeed are better
educated etc.. They were not earlier in this century, as late as the
1940's, when all the studies still showed advantage to breastfed children.
Elites still bottle feed in some places.
>Nevertheless, there are theoretical reasons for believing that breastfed
>babies have an advantage.<
Any number of them, from the continuing presence in infant formula of high
levels of neurotransmitters inappropriate to infant brains to the very
dubious fat blends in current use, to the continued heavy metal problems of
formula feeding....Dorner called artificial feeding "qualitative
dysnutrition" and that's about right. Earlier in the century people were
into quantitative nutrition, as we now lament, and certainly milk designed
to grow a calf will make babies heavier...
>The point is not whether or not there is proof breastfeeding
makes you smarter.<
This is true. But I think there is a lot more of such proof than people
realise, and hope someday to get that chapter written summarising what
doctors in the 1920's postulated and now is proven to the satisfaction of
anyone who really looks at all the evidence.
>The point is that there is no proof that formula fed
babies, being fed a ver different product, are as smart as breastfed
babies. Until that proof comes forward, and the [scientists] of the
world criticize the studies in the same way as they criticize the
breastfeeding advantage studies, we should be very careful about telling
mothers that it does not matter if they breastfeed or not.<
I agree entirely. The onus of proof is upon the person proposing an
unphysiological alternative. Of course the problem is that infant feeding
is indeed the largest uncontrolled in vivo experiment in human history.
Having become normal, we are stuck with it, and change is very difficult,
even to tinker with formula composition. Present formuals are still too
high in protein, too low/high in other nutrients, but everyone is afraid
now of what changes might do.
>The formula companies seem to be getting out their big guns these
days--calling in their iou's and all that.<
Jack, your post would have been better without this and the earlier
personal snipe. Scientists of Dr. Innis' calibre may be mistaken, they may
not think through the assumptions common to North American bureacracies,
researchers, and public alike, they may annoy those of us who have by not
doing so. But they generally are not prostituting their science to company
demands. They are doing the best they can, in an incredibly difficult
funding environment, to obtain funds to do basic research that is often
altruistically intended to help babies. Governments everywhere refuse to
fund research for women and children yet directly or indirectly foot the
bill for expensive surgery for the self-inflicted ills of middle class
folks, mostly male...
Scientists are human, and naturally don't respect people who show them
disrespect, implying they are venal creatures of commercial masters. And so
the important messages you want to give them will not be heard. What is
more, you strengthen their bond with industry by doing so, since industry
values and rewards them while breastfeeding advocates abuse them.
>What's up?<
What's going on is a worldwide review (of which I am part) of the
regulations governing infant formula composition. All the companies are
involved and according to their own research and commercial base are trying
to influence the outcome. Billions of dollars are at stake. Those companies
that have a commercial source of DHA (using marine algae and recombinant
techniques, or egg phospholipids, all without allergy testing) want dha in
formula to increase market share; those that are behind and have no source
lined up want to delay its introduction to maintain market share. They know
perfectly well that better brain growth will win customers.
Ten years ago in a video I said that no infant formula had the fats needed
for proper brain growth after birth: It caused a huge stir among those who
saw the video, but was quietly ignored by the press because there was no
alternative..other than to breastfeed, widely seen as impossible for every
woman. The scientists have been worried for decades about fat blends, and
as knowledge advances formula must change. Companies can wheel on
scientists who genuinely believe what they are saying, because the company
knows in advance what the scientist believes and the scientist wants to get
important messages (messages they deem important) to mothers. Not because
they pay or instruct them. Scientists of Innis's calibre usually pride
themselves on independence and integrity, but are sometimes not good at
seeing themselves as encultured people with prejudices and assumptions they
have not examined, influenced by those they talk with.. A coincidence of
views can be convenient without being corrupt, a quid pro quo, "calling in
the IOUs".. I always assume that these scientists do not have Swiss bank
accounts, and are probably working for wages far below that of the company
people they interact with. Let me know if you can prove me wrong here, but
until then, let's respect Dr. Innis's achievements and give her credit for
wanting the best for mothers and babies.
I have worked with a number of such scientists and know them to be
fantastic bright and argumentative people needing information I can supply,
via mind-stretching conversations and debate. So can you: but only if they
like you. I imagine Dr. Innis would like you better if you apologised for
the slur on her professionalism which I for one read into what you wrote.
Perhaps I am wrong: I would be happy to think so. I am sure it was
unintended.
I considered writing this privately, but know you to be big enough to take
as well as give a little direct admonition...I'm posting publicly because
the point is important, and one of the reasons I quit Lactivist (which I
enjoyed). I think it unprofessional and un- Lactnettish to impute motives.
Lots of good people have done work for formula companies, paid and unpaid.
It is not by itself a reason for condemnation. An independent bad scientist
does more harm in the world than a good scientist funded by a company.
Rotten research leads to rotten decisions and rotten outcomes, no matter
how pure the researcher. I have seen materials funded by impeccable sources
that have made me want to weep for the damage they have done and will do.
Mind you, one thing I really appreciate about your posts: you say what you
think and are willing to be accountable for it. I hate people who will say
all sorts of things off the record and then something else in print. It's
my policy that if you can't write it you shouldn't be saying it.
.I'll buy you a beer when we get you to Oz! All the best, Maureen
------------------------------
Maureen Minchin, IBCLC
5 St, George's Rd., Armadale Vic 3143 Australia
tel/fax after March 1: 61.3.95094929 or 95000648
|
