Sunday, March 16, 2014

"I support you" campaign: public health risks vs. lifestyle choices

                                      "Jarvisalo et al. (2009) have concluded that adult
                            men who have been breastfed have better brachial 
                            endothelial function compared to men who have
                            been formula fed." --Nestle patent application #
                            20140044830 entitled, "Infant Formula for use in the
                            Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases."

There is a public relation campaign entitled, "I support you."  This campaign is about infant feeding and the belief that all mothers need support.  I agree with supporting others during parenting trials and tribulations because mothering/parenting is a tough job.  It has its moments of sheer joy, fun and love.  It has its serious moments like staying up all night with a sick baby or child.  It has its moments of wonder, when a child shows us that our world is pretty amazing.  The new eyes of the child and their enthusiasm for everything uplifts us.  Their never-ending energy tires us beyond belief.  Parenting needs support.

But do we need a public relation campaign to support both breastfeeding and infant formula feeding? Infant formula blogs state that breastfeeding advocates are creating guilt and shame in formula feeding mothers.  These blogs state that formula feeding mothers are being bullied by health care professionals to breastfeed.  So they believe that we need a public campaign to support all mothers.  I would suggest that "all" really means that the support they are asking for is for infant formula feeding mothers.  I read one infant formula feeding blogger who voiced her depression and upset over World Breastfeeding Week.  I suppose that no longer having World Breastfeeding Week would show our support of all women? 

So I have a number of questions.  Is breastfeeding a health care decision that impacts the health and well-being of infants and mothers?  Or is this just a life-style choice?  The premise of this PR campaign seems to be that how we feed our babies is a life-style choice.  It is a choice of equal value and without risks.  Therefore it is important to protect the feelings of mothers who choose or cannot breastfeed.  

Is shame and guilt caused by others?  Can individuals control how others perceive life?  Feelings come and go, should we blame others for our grief, shame, guilt, sadness, depression.  Can other people fix our grief or our shame or guilt?  Or are these feelings resolved when a person accepts that emotions are self-generated and often fleeting.  Or the realization of the importance of building personal boundaries in which feelings of others do not control our personhood. 

If breastfeeding is a health care choice of great importance to the health and well-being of infants and mothers, then should we accept a PR campaign that essentially mutes the dangers of infant formula?  Would the PR campaign for stopping cigarette smoking include a "I support you," organization?  Or wouldn't we consider that absurd?  Or the PR health campaigns for "healthy eating" or "exercising" include "I support you," campaigns.  Is support about hiding the truth about health risks in order to make people feel better or is real love about telling the truth about health risks?  How will mothers feel in the future, when they realize that health care professionals kept quiet about the risks of infant formula in order to protect them from feeling bad about their decision?  

The patents and patent applications by the infant formula industry admit that their product is inferior.  Not just inferior but a substance that causes adverse effects in babies.  The patents and applications are about fixing the health problems that infant formula feeding causes.  So far they are still patenting because they can't eliminate the risks of artificial feeding.  The industry is trying to fix their product through genetic engineering (which has its unknown risks on a vulnerable population).

Nestle is busy patenting infant formulas to prevent obesity,heart disease, infections, etc.  And of course so are the other infant formula companies creating patents to prevent or treat the very health problems that artificial feeding causes in babies.  The real prevention is breastfeeding. 

Nestle's latest patent application on infant formula is about preventing cardiovascular diseases (associated with high blood pressure).  So they are changing the protein and lipid content of their formulas.  They believe that their invention will prevent "coronary heart disease, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, hypertensive retinopathy, hypertensive encephalopathy, stroke, and kidney failure," in patients later in life.  So one must question whether Nestle has research that shows that before this invention, infant formula was the cause of all these health problems involving the heart.  Is one of the risks of infant formula, heart disease in adulthood???  Kidney failure?  Stroke?

Should the issue of health risks be about "feelings?"  Would health care organizations invest in PR campaigns to "Stand Up For Smokers?"  Smoking causes heart disease besides lung cancer and other cancers.  Not being breastfed puts an infant at higher risk for heart disease as well as various cancers.  Not being breastfed impacts the infant into adulthood.  

In "The Politics of Breastfeeding," Gabrielle Palmer states, "I know that stating these facts can be painful or even enraging to some women who have not breastfed their children, but the continued denial of the risks of not breastfeeding [I prefer the term risks of infant formula] and the value of breastmilk, supposedly to spare women's feelings, is a patronising deception."  and, "No women need feel guilty for 'failing' to breastfeed, though she has the right to feel angry or sad for being denied support and information when she needed it."  

How can we be so stuck on this theme of "shame and guilt?"  I think its time to let go of this "elephant in the room." The risks of infant formula are real and the patents and applications by the industry are the legal proof.  The truth has to be spoken and the consequences of speaking the truth means that some mothers will feel guilt or shame, sadness, and anger.  
Copyright 2014 Valerie W. McClain 

Saturday, March 1, 2014

"Breast milk is the right milk..."

                "Designed to shape the communication and academic
                 development of future pediatricians, Baylor College of 
                 Medicine and the North American Society for Pediatric 
                 Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN)
                 provide training programs supported by the Nestle
                 Nutrition Institute."
                                        --Nestle Nutrition Institute Media Room

"Breast milk is the right milk...."  Who would think I got this sentence from a Nestle patent application (# 20120171178)?  If we were to advertise human milk, it would make a great slogan.  Yes, I know, I shortened the Nestle patent application statement.  The sentence reads, "Breast milk is the right milk for infants up to 12 months."  The name of this patent application is, "Nutritional Composition for Supporting Brain Development and Function of Children."  This is directed at children ages 3-6.  Their nutritional composition will include DHA/ARA, prebiotics and probiotics besides protein, carbohydrates, etc.  Its to improve cognitive performance, in particular memory, learning comprehension, etc.

DHA/ARA, prebiotics and probiotics are naturally found in human milk and the infant formula industry has been imitating these substances to create an infant formula more like human milk.  They want to improve the cognitive functions of formula fed infants.  Mead Johnson uses sialic acid.  In one patent application they state, "Specific components unique to human milk have the potential to support rapid brain growth.  In particular, sialic acids..." (patent application #20060247153 entitled, "Method of improving learning and memory in mammals.")  In a patent (#7867541, "Compositions and methods of formulation for enteral formulas containing sialic acid.) also owned by Mead Johnson they state, "While human breast milk contains substantial amounts of sialic acid, most infant formulas contain less than 25% of the sialic acid found in colostrum.  Moreover, 75% of the sialic acid in formulas is glycoprotein-bound, unlike human breast milk in which 75% of sialic acid is bound to oligosaccharides."

A patent owned by Vitaerx Pharmaceuticals (Texas), inventors Marian L. Kruzel et al. present a novel use of lactoferrin (a component in human milk, bovine milk has very little or none).  Lactoferrin will be use to treat "age related disorders in humans."  They will use lactoferrin to control oxidative stress which they believe can cause alzheimers, parkinsons, etc.  The patent mentions the use of lactoferrin to control oxidation in infant formula.  They mention a study done in 2000 in the J Agric Food Chem in which the researchers state, "Lactoferrin can be used, therefore, as a dual purpose additive in infant formulas and similar food products for its antioxidant and its antimicrobial properties."

Then there is a company from Israel called Enzymotec Ltd. that owns a patent entitled, "Glycerophospholipids containing omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids and their use in the treatment and improvement of cognitive functions." (patent # 8052992) They will use their invention to treat various cognitive and mental conditions and Alzheimer's disease.  Yes, glycerophospholipids are naturally occurring in human milk fat.

Then there is a patent application from Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB, entitled, "Method to Increase the Absorption of Unsaturated Fatty Acids by Human Infants." (application #20120100127)  Their invention is a recombinant human bile-salt-stimulated lipase (genetically engineered) to improve the visual and/or cognitive development of a human infant (particularly a preterm infant).  Yes, bile-salt-stimulated lipase is a component in human milk not found in cow's milk.

It appears that the infant formula and drug industry thinks that certain components in human milk improve brain function.  Meanwhile some researchers that have gotten a lot of media attention tell the public that the reason "breastfed babies are so smart is because moms who breastfeed are more responsive and read to babies."

Or researchers asking,"is Breast Truly Best..."  and declaring that"much of the beneficial long-term effects typically attributed to breastfeeding, per se, may primarily be due to selection pressures into infant feeding practices along key demographic characteristics such as race and socioeconomic status."

So who do you believe?  The media?  The industry and their patents?  Should we believe what we read through the media? through patents?  What is intelligence?  I am rather humored this morning because I think that we are playing the ultimate shell game.   Reminds me of the sixties--smoking is bad for smoking is not bad for you.  Keep us guessing and in a state of confusion, the ultimate con game.

We have media articles that are destructive to the encouragement, protection, and promotion of breastfeeding.  Meanwhile, industry continues to make its profits by creating public confusion through damaging media reports.  While privately owning the very substance that is libeled publicly.
Copyright 2014 Valerie W. McClain