Some examples: A study described in an April, 2001, press release from St. Michael’s hospital in Toronto noted “Researchers find peanut allergens can pass into breast milk.”

As pointed out in a letter sent to St. Michael’s hospital by INFACT, “the press release did not declare the competing interests of the financial sponsors of this research. One funder of this study is Nestlé Canada?

“Although the research, which tested the milk of 23 lactating women who consumed half a cup of peanuts after a fast, found that only 11 showed peanut protein spillage into their breastmilk and that the peanut proteins cleared from breastmilk after only a few hours, the implication of the press release was that breastfeeding can sensitize children to peanut allergies. There is no evidence in Dr. Vadas’ research to support such an association?

“Additionally there was no mention in the press release that infant formulas may be manufactured with peanut ingredients and therefore might be a cause of rising peanut allergies in the general population.”

The British Medical Journal published a study earlier this year by Leeson, Kattenhorn, Deanfield and Lucas which reported that infants breastfed for more than four months had less distensible arteries as young adults than those who were not breastfed or who were breastfed for less than four months. This study was funded in part by infant formula companies.

After the publication of this study, the BMJ received 51 responses. The Journal editor writes “all but five were highly critical of the study, largely for shortcomings in the research methods and because it was funded by the infant formula industry.” The other responses did not criticize the study directly but were concerned that the results would be misinterpreted and publicized, to the detriment of breastfeeding.

Their concerns proved valid.

Top | Summer/Fall 2001 Contents |