Mothers panic following
new study on breastfeeding and heart disease
Baby Milk Action
press release 22nd
March 2001
A new study suggesting
a link between breastfeeding and heart disease in later life was
published on Friday 16th March in the British Medical Journal.(1)
Media coverage has been extensive worldwide - within a day reports
appeared in Canada, Israel and India. In the UK numerous women
are giving up breastfeeding because of it.
Although the authors
state that the observational data does not "establish a causal
relationship between the length of breastfeeding and cardiovascular
disease.." and that "further early dietary information
was limited as the study was retrospective," such fine distinctions
are not stated in the summary and have not been picked up by the
media.
Patti Rundall of Baby
Milk Action states,
"The fact that the
study might actually say more about the risks of a Western diet
later in life, or about poor infant feeding practices, is being
over-looked. Although I am sure the scientists involved in this
study did not intend this, infant health - in the UK and globally
- will certainly suffer, while companies will reap the benefits.
Some of them spend billions encouraging us later in life to eat
high-fat, high-salt and high-sugar foods which are known be risky
in relation to heart disease."
Phyll Buchanan, a Breastfeeding
Counsellor with the Breastfeeding Network states,
"Mothers are suffering
terrible distress because of this, and in some cases have become
ill with mastitis because they stopped breastfeeding so suddenly.
The people most affected are those who have stood up to the social
pressures to give up or to add other foods and have continued
breastfeeding exclusively until 6 months."
Prof Alan Lucas, one of
the authors of the study states,
"I am saddened to
hear that the wrong messages are going out. It was never our intention
that mothers should stop breastfeeding because of this very preliminary
and incomplete data. If our theory proves to be correct that it
is breastfeeding followed by a western style diet that accounts
for our findings, then the public health message should be that
we should deal with the Western style diet rather than breastfeeding
which has so many advantages."
Although valid research
should never be suppressed, the high profile launch of such an inconclusive
study, just a couple months before a crucial debate in the World
Health Assembly about exclusive breastfeeding and marketing (2)
raises important questions about how health research is funded,
designed and disseminated and how corporations use "science" in
pursuit of global marketing strategies. While this particular study
was funded by the Medical Research Council, the authors admitted
a "competing interest" of collaboration with the infant food industry
on previous studies.
Prof. Alan Lucas has
done extensive research which has demonstrated the clear advantages
of breastfeeding, but at the same time is a well-known advocate
of industry funding of research. His views, alongside those of
Baby Milk Action were published in the British Medical Journal
in 1998. (3)
Only last month, Prof.
Lucas published a randomised control which showed that premature
breastfed babies are likely to have lower blood pressure and less
risk of heart disease.(4) Other studies have
shown the risks of too early introduction of complementary foods
and that breastfeeding is likely to decrease the incidence of
obesity in childhood - a major cause of heart disease. (5).
For a number of reasons
this latest study would not be used in a scientific review of
infant feeding. It has shortcomings in its focus and in its methodology,
which the authors themselves acknowledge. For example, its sample
is self-selected and the research is based on recall - some 20
- 28 years after the event. Nor did it contain clear definitions
on patterns of breastfeeding. In other areas of research, for
example, in relation to obesity, HIV transmission or infections
generally, whether - and for how long - breastfeeding has been
exclusive (ie with nothing else added) or mixed with other foods,
have proved to be key factors.
For the last 3 - 6
millions years of evolution of our species, it has been normal
to breastfeed until the child is aged 3 to 5 years. An editorial
in the BMJ by Ian Booth, Leonard Parsons professor of paediatrics
and child health stated:
"Today's paper should
not alter current recommendations about breast feeding being the
best way to promote infant and maternal health... In developing
countries the massive benefits of prolonged breast feeding for
infant survival and health, together with child spacing, will
probably never be outweighed by considerations of ischaemic heart
disease 50 years later."
The many known risks of
artificial feeding, and the estimated 1.5 million infant deaths
caused each year through lack of breastfeeding, prompted the World
Health Assembly in 1981 to recommend that all governments ban the
promotion of artificial feeding. In subsequent years the Assembly
has repeated these calls and called for the fostering of exclusive
breastfeeding followed by complementary feeding from 'about 6 months.'
(6)
This policy is in place
in 61 countries but is continually challenged by the $8 billion
dollar baby food industry which lobbies for weaker and weaker
controls. If the industry can get global labelling standards to
refer to foods as suitable 'from 4 months' rather than from 'about
6 months' it can sell an estimated extra $1 billion dollars worth
of foods.
The question is, will
this study, which leaves so many questions unanswered be allowed
to influence policy makers and undermine mothers who are trying
to do the best for their babies?
For more information
contact:
Patti Rundall, Policy
Director, Baby Milk Action, 23 St Andrew's St, Cambridge, CB2
3AX Tel: +44 1223 464420, Fax: +44 1223 464417 email:prundall@babymilkaction.org
refs:
(1)
Leeson et al, (2001) Duration of breastfeeding and arterial distensibility
in early adult life: population based study, BMJ, Vol. 322, (643-647)
(2)
Brown P, (2001) Campaigners for breastfeeding claim partial victory,
BMJ, Vol. 322
(3)
Lucas A, (1998) Collaborative research with infant formula companies
should not always be censured, Rundall P, How much research in
infant feeding comes from unethical marketing? BMJ, 317, 337-
339 (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7154/333)
(4)
Singhal et al, (2001) Early nutrition in pre-term infants and
later blood pressure: two cohorts after randomised trials, Lancet
Vol. 357, no 9254
(5)
Van Kries et al (1999) Breastfeeding and obesity: cross sectional
study, BMJ, 319: 147-150
(6)
WHA 47.5, WHA 49.15
|
