EDITOR—The issue that Lucas fails to tackle in his article on collaborative research with infant formula companies is conflict of interest in relation to research.1 Much of his article justifies the need for bottle feeding (with which no one would argue), plays up the educational role of formula manufacturers (highly questionable, as their material has been shown to have biased content), and casts doubt on the long term benefits of breast feeding (not relevant to the key issue). He strays into the area of educational sponsorship, where there is far less justification for industry support than in research, which is notoriously difficult to fund.

Lucas makes virtually no mention of what the opponents of sponsorship are worried about: the aggressive sales tactics of formula manufacturers in poor developing countries (now confirmed in a global study that has been endorsed by Unicef2) and the inevitability of a bias towards formula feeding in those who take money from the industry. It is a blot on the reputation of paediatricians world wide that they have been seen to side with milk companies in what is a highly unbalanced marketing struggle; the example of the Indian Paediatric Association is a shining exception.

For most babies who need artificial …