Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Where Your Contribution Counts!
    eNewsletter
    Support Us!
  • Record is Archived

    This article is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Jefferson Adams
    Jefferson Adams

    WHO vs. BMJ Breastfeeding Debate Stirs Conflict of Interest Questions

    Reviewed and edited by a celiac disease expert.
    WHO vs. BMJ Breastfeeding Debate Stirs Conflict of Interest Questions - New article on breastfeeding raises interesting conflict of interest questions.
    Caption: New article on breastfeeding raises interesting conflict of interest questions.

    Celiac.com 02/25/2011 - In many parts of the world, recommendations by World Health Organization (WHO) regarding child nutrition are regarded as the scientific standard.

    So, any time a major health organization comes out with recommendations that differ from those made by WHO, there is always much discussion about the science behind both sets of recommendations, and, occasionally, some intellectual and scientific jousting from both sides.

    Celiac.com Sponsor (A12):
    That was the case recently, when a magazine called BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) published new and controversial recommendations regarding breastfeeding.

    According to an article by Susan Perry on MinnPost.com, those recommendations, the resulting criticism from WHO, and BMJ reviewers' response make some excellent points about issues of conflict of interest in research.

    The recommendations by BMJ suggest that breast milk should be supplemented with solid foods starting around the age of four months, two months earlier than currently recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). According to the reviewers, waiting to introduce solid foods increases a baby’s risk of developing anemia, food allergies and celiac disease.

    Those recommendations brought a strong response from WHO, which noted that its own decade-long no-solid-foods-until-six-months recommendation is “based on evidence that the early introduction of solid food to babies increases the risk of infection and disease.” The response from WHO then proceeds to refute each argument made by the BMJ reviewers. 

    A response by Susan Perry to the spat appears on MinnPost.com, and makes some excellent points about issues of conflict of interest in research.

    Now, this debate between WHO and BMJ is a bigger deal in certain places than in others. The United States never officially adopted the WHO recommendation, as did the U.K. in 2003.

    Ironically, it seems that more American than British moms are following WHO standards. BMJ reviewers say that less than 1 percent of British mothers exclusively breastfeed their babies for six months. In the United States, that figure is 13 percent, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, that's a story for another day.

    But, a strong rebuttal from WHO is not the only problem facing the authors of the new BMJ review. A more pressing problem for BMJ study is that three of the four authors admit that they took funding within the past three years from companies that manufacture infant formula and baby food.

    Now, these researchers claim that their findings and recommendations are in no way influenced by their financial relationships with these companies:

    "My colleagues and I are independent pediatricians and scientists, funded by universities or hospitals, and we received no funding for doing this review other than our normal salaries,” review author, Mary Fewtrell, a child nutritionist at University College London told NatureNews reporter Natasha Gilbert.

    She adds that “all of us have had links with industry at some point. We are making no comment in our paper about what type of solid foods should be introduced — this could be home-prepared or commercial depending on the mum's choice — the main issue is that the food should be nutritionally adequate and safe."

    But financial connection between study authors and industry cannot fail to raise legitimate questions about the independence of study findings. Moreover, such a relationship creates a cloud of potential doubt over the nature of the findings.

    Indeed, the review itself indicates a strong desire within the baby food industry to get British health officials to change their current advice to mothers to breastfeed exclusively until six months if possible.

    Survey data shows that British mothers are slowly pushing back the age at which they introduce solid foods to their babies.

    Successive surveys since the 1970s show that nearly all UK infants receive solids by four months. The number in the 2000 survey, for example, was 85%. However, the 2005 figure drops to 51%, with mean age of introduction of solids at 19 weeks, a rise from 15 weeks in 2000.

    In view of the higher reported rates of exclusive breast feeding to six months elsewhere in the West (more than 30% in Hungary and Portugal, for example), it seems likely that the impact of the UK recommendation will be greater in 2010 than in 2005. It is timely to consider whether such trends could influence health outcomes.

    Susan Perry notes in her response that the study seems "extremely timely, therefore, for baby food companies to consider whether such trends are going to damage their bottom line — and to financially support, even if not always directly, the research efforts of "friendly" academics."

    That’s one example of why researchers who accept money from industry should be prepared to have their studies, methodologies, data and recommendations questioned — along with their motives.

    Source:

    • Open Original Shared Link


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Guest Karen

    This is the worst kind of reporting I've seen in a long time. The entire thing sounds like something you'd hear from the local town gossip; rumor and innuendo with no mention of the validity of the charges. Nowhere in the entire screed has the author addressed the methodology, rigor or process used by BMJ, which is the only standard by which their results should be measured. Just because some members of the team may have in the past received money from 'the industry' does NOT mean that they are forever in lock-step with the beliefs and priorities of that industry. Each reader should ask themselves: "Do I now, and have I always agreed 100% with everything the company I work for does/says/believes? Will I always agree with them in the future until the day I die?"

     

    By all means, question BMJs methods and processes. If they aren't repeatable, or if they're found to be unfit, then feel free to ridicule and denigrate the results. But insinuating that they're tainted by association proves nothing and just shows the incompetence of this author and the WHO supporters.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments

  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Help Celiac.com:
    Donate
  • About Me

    Jefferson Adams

    Jefferson Adams is Celiac.com's senior writer and Digital Content Director. He earned his B.A. and M.F.A. at Arizona State University. His articles, essays, poems, stories and book reviews have appeared in numerous magazines, journals, and websites, including North American Project, Antioch Review, Caliban, Mississippi Review, Slate, and more. He is the author of more than 2,500 articles on celiac disease. His university coursework includes studies in science, scientific methodology, biology, anatomy, physiology, medicine, logic, and advanced research. He previously devised health and medical content for Colgate, Dove, Pfizer, Sharecare, Walgreens, and more. Jefferson has spoken about celiac disease to the media, including an appearance on the KQED radio show Forum, and is the editor of numerous books, including "Cereal Killers" by Scott Adams and Ron Hoggan, Ed.D.

    >VIEW ALL ARTICLES BY JEFFERSON ADAMS

     


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):
    Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):





    Celiac.com Sponsors (A17-M):




  • Related Articles

    Miranda Jade
    Celiac.com 06/06/2012 - Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease caused by a reaction to the component of wheat, barley, and rye called gluten and can affect the entire body. Dermatitis herpetiformis (DH) is a blistering and extremely itchy skin rash. It’s usually symmetrical in shape and is most commonly located on the elbows, knees, buttocks, and upper back. It’s common for people with DH to have rashes appear in the same spot, and they can either be consistent or come and go.
    It is hard enough being a young adult, having celiac disease is the icing on the cake, and having Dermatitis Herpetiformis is the cherry on top. So how is it that I have been able to so easily make the transition from eating gluten on a daily basis to being 100% gluten-free for over six years now? Simple: by...


    Tina Turbin
    Celiac.com 12/22/2014 - Is your child sneaking a bite here and there off his or her needed gluten-free diet? You should know not only for the health of your child but to also ensure there are no other issues you need to help address, such as an allergy to nuts or dairy which can cause other issues. As a parent we need to stay on top of things to get to the bottom of any “unresolved” issues in their little bodies. If your child has been diagnosed with celiac disease, it’s critical that he or she follows a diet 100% free of gluten. Alarmingly, according to Celiac.com, 43% of celiacs cheat on their gluten-free diet, and 13% cheat 20-40 times per year or more for various reasons.
    One of the reasons children may cheat on their diet is because they don’t have substitutes for their favorit...


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 02/13/2015 - Food intolerance is non-immunological and is often accompanied by gastrointestinal symptoms. 
    What can a review of scientific literature teach us about the causes, diagnosis, mechanisms and clinical evidence regarding food intolerance and gastrointestinal symptoms? Researcher M. C. E. Lomer recently set out to critically analyze the scientific literature related to etiology, diagnosis, mechanisms and clinical evidence as it relates to food intolerance.
    To do so, Lomer searched Pubmed, Embase and Scopus for the terms and variants of food intolerance, lactose, FODMAP, gluten, food chemicals. He restricted his search to human studies published in English. Lomer also conducted a physical search for references to these terms from relevant papers and appropriate ...


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/15/2015 - The steep costs of getting food onto the shelves at major grocery chains has claimed another notable start-up, the Charlotte-based gluten-free foods company, Bumbalooza.
    The quick, promising rise and rapid demise of Bumbalooza still troubles sisters-in-law Holly Paeper and Monique Prato. In just two short years, their Charlotte-based gluten-free foods company, Bumbalooza, rose to prominence in the specialty foods community, winning fans, customers and awards.
    Their promising start looked even rosier when, against stiff competition, the team won the Charlotte Chamber's Power Up Challenge, complete with a check for $25,000. The Power Up award is bestowed on small-business owners who provide innovative products, earn $1 million or less in revenue.
    But just...


  • Recent Activity

    1. - Scott Adams replied to Kaylee G's topic in Gluten-Free Recipes & Cooking Tips
      1

      Learning to cook for myself

    2. - JustGemi replied to JustGemi's topic in Celiac Disease Pre-Diagnosis, Testing & Symptoms
      6

      SCARED: What Do These Test Results Mean?

    3. - Scott Adams replied to Raquel2021's topic in Post Diagnosis, Recovery & Treatment of Celiac Disease
      1

      Went to see a gastroenterologist today and

    4. - Scott Adams replied to RILEYW's topic in Celiac Disease Pre-Diagnosis, Testing & Symptoms
      11

      I don’t have a diagnosis but I’m pretty positive I have celiac and have ongoing GI Problems

    5. - Scott Adams replied to JustGemi's topic in Celiac Disease Pre-Diagnosis, Testing & Symptoms
      6

      SCARED: What Do These Test Results Mean?


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      120,472
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Jessiehags91
    Newest Member
    Jessiehags91
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      120.2k
    • Total Posts
      1m

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Popular Now

    • JustGemi
    • Linedancegal
    • Hannah24
      9
    • jessiemariecar
    • Rhonda H
  • Popular Articles

    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
  • Upcoming Events

×
×
  • Create New...