see also new Policy Blog: http://info.babymilkaction.org/node/326
WHO breastfeeding recommendations under attack from industry-funded scientists
Press release 14 January 2011
The BBC, the Guardian, The Times, The Sun and other media are carrying stories - about a comment piece from four authors published in the British Medical Journal today challenging World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendation that breastfeeding is exclusive for 6 months (no other foods or drinks introduced). The media coverage implies that the challenge is based on new evidence. In fact this is not a new scientific study nor a systematic review, but the authors review of selected past research, published in the 'Analysis' section of the BMJ.
Three of the four authors of the piece, Mary Fewtrell, Alan Lucas and David Wilson, receive funding from the baby food industry. The baby food industry marketing strategy is to encourage parents to move onto processed foods, rather than family foods, and promoting their introduction before 6 months generally requires feeding purees and paps, which parents are less likely to home prepare. The risks of early introduction of complementary foods have been known for many years, with the World Health Assembly adopting a Resolution in 1994 saying that complementary feeding should be fostered from 6 months (rather than 4-6 months).
Prof Lucas in particular plays a key role in advising the UK baby food industry, and has opposed the WHO recommendation for many years. In 2003 he went so far as to appear for the defence when one of the largest baby food companies, SMA Wyeth was successfully prosecuted for illegal advertising by Trading Standards. (for links to previous articles about Prof Lucas see below.
Professor Mary Renfrew, Director of the Mother and Infant Research Unit, University of York says: "this is not a report of a systematic review, but a critique of literature the authors have chosen to examine. No methodological details are given either of how they decided to include studies, or how they critiqued them in terms of appropriateness and quality."
Baby Milk Action expects this comment piece and the media coverage it is generating (see below) to be used by companies in their attempt to weaken national policies and legislation requiring complementary foods to be labelled for use from 6 months. In the UK, baby food companies are already labelling complementary foods for use from 4 months of age despite Government policy recommending 6 months exclusive breastfeeding or formula feeding.
There are more general concerns over processed foods as the industry has for years resisted moves to market them responsibly, improve labelling and reduce sugar levels (see below).
Some media reports incorrectly imply that it is the 'breast is best' message that is being challenged, but the authors have not suggested that breastfeeding should stop when complementary foods are introduced.
When looking at the authors' comment piece, the following points should be borne in mind:
1 http://www.ibfan.org/news-2006-eu_us.html
Previous concerns about Alan Lucas’s links with industry
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31july03.html
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update33.html#2
http://www.babymilkaction.org/www.babymilkaction.org/update/update29.html#2
http://www.babymilkaction.org/www.babymilkaction.org/update/update23.html#11
Response from UNICEF UK:
http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/pdfs/unicef_uk_response_to_BMJ_article_140111.pdf
Response from Joanna Moorhead, The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/14/breastfeeding-comment-joanna-moorhead
WHO statement 15 January 2011
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2011/breastfeeding_20110115/en/index.html
The following list was prepared when the UK Government was considering its position in 2003. At that time over 70 Countries had already introduced Government policies recommending 6 months exclusive breastfeeding (expressed either as legislation, Presidential Decree, official statement, letter or as guidance to health workers):
Africa: Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome Principe, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Americas: Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Oceania - Australia, Kiribati, Micronesia and Palau.
Asia: Cambodia, Pakistan, India, Iran, Hong Kong, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Yemen.
Europe: Bosnia, France, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Georgia, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia and the UK
Some of the media headlines and comments (14 January 2011):
The Guardian: Six months of breastmilk alone is too long and could harm babies, scientists now say
The Sun: Breast is not Best -milk can put babies off food & cause allergy, says study
Daily Telegraph: Risks to babies in NHS breastfeeding Code
The Times: Babies 'need solid food - not just breastmilk' Official guidelines will be reviewed
Blog from Professor Miriam Labbock, Department of Maternal and Child Health, Director, Carolina Global Breastfeeding Institute (CGBI) http://www.breastfeeding4health.com/
Blog from Chief Scientist at the Food Standards Agency: http://blogs.food.gov.uk/science/entry/what_s_behind_the_development
Blog from the analytical armadillo
http://www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2011/01/starting-solids-facts-behind-todays.html
Comments
Articles from Australian newspapers
http://www.smh.com.au/world/breastfeeding-advice-doubts-20110114-19r80.html (Sydney Morning Herald)
http://www.theage.com.au/national/babies-need-solids-early-to-ward-off-s... (The Melbourne Age)
Bad media: "Is breast not best for babies?"
Article states the paper "suggests that breastfeeding for four months is best for babies".
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110114/full/news.2011.19.html
Purports to "unpick the evidence", but misunderstands that this is about age of introducing complementary foods. Its headline and introduction undermine the authors' own comments on continuing to breastfeed after introducing complementary foods.
Media publicity given to BMJ paper
Cambridge News has the story under the headline "Breastfeeding not always best":
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/National-News/Breastfeeding-not-always-b...