Dr. Chandra and Nestlé: why we need independently funded research
In the early 1990s, Nestlé introduced a ‘revolutionary’ formula called Goodstart. Supposedly, the formula reduced the incidence of allergy symptoms in infants who were at high risk of developing allergies. Nestlé made this claim based on the research of one Dr. Ranjit Chandra of the Memorial University of Newfoundland. After doing the studies for Nestlé, Chandra went on to do research on vitamins. His studies, released in 1992 and 2001 purported that certain multivitamins enhanced the memories and immune systems of seniors. Based on this work, he patented and sold a nutritional supplement containing the special multivitamins.
But in December of 2003, his vitamin studies came under intense attack in a prominent US medical journal. It was revealed that Chandra had not provided any raw data, and thus his findings could not be verified. There were also found to be differences between the placebo and test groups, which should have been similar if they were in fact chosen at random. As the controversy mounted, Chandra traveled to a remote part of India and could not be contacted. Dr. Chandra, who was given the Order of Canada and nominated for the Nobel Prize, has never divulged his raw data despite repeated requests from medical journals and Memorial University.
Nestlé has been selling Goodstart for over a decade based on Chandra’s claims about its hypoallergenic properties. It has become one of their standard formula products. Given the likelihood that his later studies are unverifiable, important questions need to be asked about the studies he was commissioned to do for Nestlé. When they were first released, INFACT Canada had serious doubts about the findings. Chandra was purported to have included more exclusively breastfeeding mothers than were estimated to be in St. John’s at the time, and several mothers in the study group who were supposed to be breastfeeding were reported to have received cases of Nestlé formula.
This case highlights the need for verifiable and independent research to be done on the properties of infant formula. Since Nestlé introduced Goodstart, its competitors have followed suit and released formulas with ingredient modifications which they claim have special properties: hypoallergenicity, the ability to boost IQ etc. But in most cases, these claims are based solely on research commissioned/funded by the baby food companies. How can researchers be trusted to be objective when they know the outcome their employers are looking for? Even health claims that have been scientifically verified are inherently deceptive as these products cannot hope to replicate the health benefits of breastmilk. Unfortunately, the parents who buy the products pay the price in more ways than one.
Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez talks with people
affected by .ooding in Araira,
50 km (31 miles) from Caracas,
this past February. .