We appreciate the sentiments expressed by Dr. Srivastava in
response to our article(1). We appreciate that there could be
circum-stances when a mother may not be able to provide breast milk to
her infant. However, the only point we wish to reiterate is that the
Pediatrician, when counseling such mothers not wanting to breast feed
their infant, should ascertain that there are compelling reasons for
doing so which are justified and not compromise the infant’s interest.
We are not contesting the fact that pediatrician’s need to be informed
regarding breast milk substitutes, but the source of such information
should not be that solely provided by the manufacturers of infant milk
substitutes. It is here that scientific bodies such as pediatric
associations can provide evidence-based information to the medical
community.
The issue of the role of breast milk in reducing
infectious disease in infancy especially in the poor and
under-privileged communities is undisputed. In the absence of evidence
one cannot conclude that the same benefit may not be seen in the
affluent populations of developing countries. However, we are also
concerned by the fact that often poor families are influenced by the
practices of the affluent, with often disastrous outcomes for their
infants. The other issue that is emerging as a concern is the role of
infant milk substitutes in some adult diseases.
The article should be read in its spirit and not in
its words only. The aim is to educate masses and not an exceptional
individual. We hope that this communication will help in removing doubts
regarding infant feeding practices from the minds of our pediatrician
colleagues.
Satish Tiwari,
P. Chaturvedi.
Correspondence:
Dr. S. Tiwari,
Associate Professor in Pediatrics,
Medical College,
Amravati, Maharashtra,
India.
Email: [email protected]
1. Tiwari SK, Chaturvedi P. The IMS Act 1992: Need for more
amendment and publicity. Indian Pediatr 2003; 40: 743-746.