Canadian Pediatric Society - Nutrition Committee Breastfeeding Friendly - Not!

Notably, this is not the only overt endeavour by the Committee to relegate breastfeeding to the status of unimportance.

When perusing the Who's Who of the Nutrition Committee their lack of breastfeeding support comes as no surprise. Chaired by Stanley Zlotkin of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, recognized for his pro-artificial feeding stance and research links to the formula industry, the committee includes representatives from Heinz and the National Nutrition Institute (founded and funded by the formula and food industry to propagate and lobby for industry interests) and has a history of anti-breastfeeding positions. This litany includes their:

• refusal to endorse a breastfeeding video produced by the La Leche League in Quebec
• acceptance of product briefings before the committee by such notables as Nestle Carnation, to formalize closer links between Nestle and the CPS and to provide the Nutrition Committee with research funds
• endorsement of a Nestle Carnation formula advertisement directed at parents published in Chatalaine, August 1995
• refusal to include a representative from the Canadian Expert Working Group on Breastfeeding (a national committee composed of breastfeeding experts and representatives of major organizations representing health professional and infant and child intere sts, set up by Health Canada to address breastfeeding issues) as a liaison member to the Nutrition Committee, even though the latter has a member on the Canadian Expert Working group
• acceptance of liaison members from the infant food industry as well as the now defunct Canadian Infant Formula Association
• production of the extensively criticized statement on Infant Feeding and Iron which minimized the importance of breastfeeding as the best means to achieve optimal iron status for infants and which unecessarily extended the feeding of formula into the second six months of life
• production of the Nutrient Needs and Feeding of Premature Infants statement which dismisses the adequacy of preterm mothers milk unless "fortified" based on the unsubstantiated assumption that extrauterine growth should be the same as intrauterine growth. What about the increased risk of necrotising enterocolitis, the lack of essential fatty acids in formulas whether "fortified" or not? Are cow's milk proteins and fish oils really as good as mother's milk f or high needs infants? Banked human milk can readily be used to fortify mother's milk for preterms as is being done in Europe
• promote expensive rehydration fluids produced by infant formula companies as a treatment for all infants with loose stools when this is not necessary. Breastmilk is the optimal way to maintain adequate hydration and nutritional status for infants wit h loose stools and vomitting.

Given the influence the pediatric profession has enjoyed in the past through its nutrition statements, the current performance of the committee puts into question the trust Canadians may have placed in them. In the light of such unprofessional behaviour, what if any credibilty will the committee retain? Small wonder it has been dubbed the Infant Formula Marketing Board of the CPS.

And, most importantly, we have to ask what is the impact on the nutritional status and well-being of infants and what are the consequences for mothers, for parents?