The International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners pulls commercial levers to 'cancel' the Possums (or NDC) programs' genuinely research-based lactation education

IBLCE refuses to allow an Australian provider of genuinely research-based breastfeeding/lactation education to attribute Continuing Professional Development points (CERPs)

"We call on individuals, companies and advocacy groups to abstain from ad hominem attacks on human milk/breastfeeding researchers." Azad et al 2020

Who am I?

I am a GP, researcher, International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC), and breastfeeding medicine physician (also Fellow of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine FABM). For three decades, my professional life has been driven by my passion to help improve outcomes for breastfeeding women and their babies. Also, as an Australian GP, I take very seriously my responsibility - enshrined in my profession's Code of Conduct - to "protect and promote the health of individuals and the community".

My breastfeeding and lactation related courses, which I've been offering in various iterations since 2014, are known as the NDC or Possums programs. For a number of years, my courses were attributed with Continuing Education Recognition Points (L CERPs and R CERPs) by the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners (IBCLE). IBLCE represents 37,000 IBCLC-members globally. International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) need stipulated numbers of CERPs for their cyclical recertification requirements.

What's happened?

In an email sent 23 November 2023, (IBLCE's) office manager for Australia, Asia Pacific and Africa did not specify why IBLCE had rejected The NDC Institute's application to to my breastfeeding and lactation related courses, which had been approved for CERPs previously. But in earlier communications, both the Lactation Consultants of Australia and New Zealand (LCANZ), in a distressing 2019 email circulated to all its members, and the IBLCE, in response to my 2022 application for CERPs, falsely accused my work of violating the World Health Organisation's (WHO) Code for the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes.

The WHO Code + related World Health Assembly resolutions, here, are summarised by the Australian Breastfeeding Association here. The deplorably exploitative marketing practices of formula companies have been recently detailed in major reports by the WHO, here. But the NDC or Possums courses are free of conflicts of interest as defined by the WHO Code and WHA resolutions.

LCANZ and IBLCE claim that I am in violation of the WHO Code because Professor Donna Geddes and Dr Sharon Perrella from the world-leading Geddes Hartmann Human Lactation Research Group (GHHLRG), The University of Western Australia, have been second or third authors on two of my 30 research publications. Research from the GHHLRG has fundamentally changed international understandings of lactation science, and fundamentally changed information taught around the world by educators in the field of breastfeeding and lactation. These two publications, of which I remain proud, are here and here.

IBLCE has withdrawn multiple other human milk and lactation researchers' and breastfeeding organisations' rights to attribute CERPS to education events and courses, including the Australian Breastfeeding Association, Professor Amy Brown (co-author of Assad et al 2020), Dr Nigel Rollins, and Associate Professor Luke Grzeskowiak, according to information given to me. There is however as far as I am aware no transparent list available of affected individuals and organisations.

Targeting the NDC or Possums programs compromises IBLCE's credibility as a science-based organisation

IBLCE's credibility as a peak professional body is undermined by lack of transparency and due process on this matter, which has such significant impact on the advancement of research-based help for breastfeeding women and their babies. For example,

• I've received no explanation from IBLCE explaining how my two publications with Professor Geddes and Dr Perrella impact negatively upon breastfeeding women and their babies, or how these publications actually violate the WHO Code

• I've received no professional communication explaining

  1. The date from which the sanction became effective

  2. Pathway for repair

  3. The date upon which the sanction ceases.*

Similarly, in a verbal conversation with IBLCE's regional manager in 2022 in which I raised these three issues, no answers or clarity was available.

On 29 October 2022, in response to my email raising concerns about IBLCE's weaponising of the WHO Code, Dr Laurence Grummer-Strawn, Unit Head of Food and Nutrition Action in Health Systems, WHO, wrote

[Concerning] interpretation of the Code ... There are many ambiguities regarding the prevention and management of conflicts of interest and there is no specific policy from WHO ... The issue of how to treat receipt of research funding is particularly problematic. WHO has not taken a specific position on this.

What are the impacts of this ban?

IBLCE's decision to label me a WHO Code violator aims to inflict financial and reputational damage upon my professional life and The NDC Institute, with the aim, apparently, of disincentivising further research collaborations with GHHLRG. To date, this damage includes

• Withdrawal of formal invitations extended to me from 2022 to be a guest speaker at national conferences for IBCLCs (Quebec, Taiwan, Denmark, New Zealand).* Each invitation was withdrawn after the organisers learnt that IBLCE would not allow them to attribute CERPS to my presentations. Conference organisers need to provide CERPs in order to attract the attendance of IBCLCs and remain financially viable. Each invitation withdrawal significally impacts not only upon my reputation but upon the growth and uptake of the NDC or Possums research and programs internationally. This leads to inevitable curtailment of opportunity for local or international lactation-related speaking engagements, since word spreads so that invitations are no longer extended.

• Obstruction of IBCLCs capacity to participate in The NDC Institute's courses, because

  • IBCLCs need to receive CERPs (in order to support their ongoing professional certification) when they invest time and money into professional upskilling**

  • There is stigma attached to IBLCE's decision that the NDC or Possums programs can no longer attribute CERPs. Most IBCLCs place trust in their peak international professional organisation and are likely to believe in the veracity of the false accusation made against me.

• Rejection of a paper submitted to the Journal of Human Lactation, not due to academic merit or lack thereof, but because the Editor falsely stated that my team were WHO Code violators.

Why does IBLCE act to undermine IBCLC's trust in universities?

My co-authors had no involvement in the development of my studies (one of which was entirely theoretical, the other a small case series evaluating implementation of the gestalt method,which was developed years prior to my collaboration with the GHHLRG).

Genuinely science-based organisations understand and support the conflict of interest mechanisms set up by universities, even as we acknowledge the complexity of research funding and the ethical challenges that funding sources can pose, in a world (and in health systems) increasingly dominated by market powers. Genuinely science-based organisations support the efforts of our universities to appropriately address this complexity.

It's concerning that the IBLCE, the world's dominant breastfeeding and lactation non-profit organisation, in a decision supported by other single-issue breastfeeding non-profits like the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine and the Breastfeeding Network of Australia and New Zealand, refuses to accept the integrity of mechanisms implemented by universities to transparently manage conflicts of interest.

The co-authors of my two offending publications receive their research funding through usual university mechanisms, which are designed by The University of Western Australia to protect independence of research. The various contributors to my co-authors' research funds are always carefully declared.

Could there be other reasons why IBLCE acts to harm the commercial viability of the NDC or Possums lactation-related education courses?

IBLCE's decision to withdraw my rights to attribute CERPs is clearly not based upon a genuine concern to protect breastfeeding women and their babies from harm, because

• My right to work with breastfeeding women and their babies as an IBCLC (qualification first achieved in 1994, most recently renewed in 2022) has not been withdrawn by IBLCE

• Other breastfeeding and lactation businesses, who continue to receive CERPS from IBLCE, use educational materials which rely upon research papers published by GHHLRG, without being sanctioned in this way. Because of the ground-breaking and extensive research published by the GHHLRG over many years, any failure to use GHHLRG research findings renders lactation education courses outdated, and not evidence-based

What might be the reasons then which explain why IBLCE uses commercial levers to control which lactation-education businesses are able to succeed?

NDC or Possums programs are evidence-based and challenge widespread overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breastfeeding women and their babies. The programs and my research publications continue to critique certain popular approaches applied by many IBCLCs around the world are. These popular approaches are taught to IBCLCs with CERPs attribution in the absence of corroborating research, and sometimes even when the research directly shows lack of efficacy or risk of harm.

Here are questions reasonably raised by IBCLE's refusal to attribute the Possums/NDC courses with L CERPS and R CERPS after previously endorsing them.

• Could I be banned from CERPs attributions because I was the first internationally to publish critiques of

  • The diagnosis of posterior tongue-tie

  • Frenotomy overuse?

• Could I be banned from CERPS attributions because I have critiqued applications of chiropractic, orofacial myofunctional therapy, osteopathy and other bodywork therapies for breastfeeding infants which unnecessarily pathologise babies, which are not supported by credible evidence, and which create unnecessary expense and anxiety for parents? Bodywork therapists and tongue-tie professionals have become dominant industry groups within the fields of breastfeeding and lactation healthcare provision and education. You can find further discussion about evolutionary vs traditional bodywork therapy here.

In my view, IBLCE's decision to negatively impact the commercial prospects of a small, evidence-based education organisation which offers dissenting interpretations of the breastfeeding and lactation research constitutes an anti-science trend within IBLCE. This ideologically-driven approach to research and the suppression of research-based innovation extends to the world's other breastfeeding non-profit organisations, which depend upon CERPs attribution to attract IBCLCs to their education events so that these events remain financially viable.

Why are senior professionals in breastfeeding advocacy networks silent on this issue?

There is silence by senior professionals in breastfeeding and lactation advocacy communities and breastfeeding medicine networks on this issue. This silence

1. Condones IBLCE's anti-science stance

2. May be driven by fear of being exposed to social media and other backlash in breastfeeding advocacy communities, with potential impact upon not only their own reputations, but upon the viability of their own conferences and upon their own small clinical and education businesses

3. Is unethical. By remaining silent, these professionals and their professional networks may find themselves either

   • Drawing upon and influenced by research from GHHLRG, and perhaps also on research and education programs by myself, but feel unable to appropriately acknowledge the source of this work, which is unethical, or

   • Avoiding any reference to GHHLRG research, which means selectively ignoring available evidence, which is unscientific.

When we, as a global professional community who support breastfeeding families, remain silent about unethical or unjust behaviours in our ranks, then our silence not only condones injustice or unethical behaviour, but perpetuates it.

IBLCE's weaponising of the WHO Code fails to protect, and impacts negatively upon, the wellbeing of breastfeeding women and their babies

The NDC or Possums programs, which directly contest overdiagnosis and overtreatment, have been shown to be effective in ten preliminary evaluations to date. IBLCE's attribution of CERPS to non-evidence-based lactation education, at the same time as IBLCE actively silences or 'cancels' genuinely evidence-based and innovative lactation education, inevitably impacts negatively upon the wellbeing of breastfeeding women, their babies, and their families.

I work independently and my 30 research publications over the past two decades have been a labour of love. Weaponising the WHO Code against a small, self-funded and independent primary care clinician-researcher with a view to stigmatising and excluding her breastfeeding-related work internationally does nothing to address the complex problems posed by formula companies, including deplorable marketing practices, nor does it address any unethical promotion of breast milk pumps, bottles and teats.

Unrestrained corporate or industry self-interest is a major driver of the global trend to overdiagnosis and overtreatment in healthcare, including in the care of breastfeeding women and their babies. Unrestrained corporate self-interest is a complex and existential problem, which not only inflicts harm upon breastfeeding women and their babies globally, but also undermines democracy, ravages the natural environment and climate, and threatens our very survival upon this earth. Intelligent, effective, and highly ethical responses to the excesses of corporate power are urgently required, from governments, governance structures, and from each of us as best we can.

IBLCE's decision to 'cancel' the NDC or Possums programs by withholding CERPs attribution has nothing to do with the wellbeing of breastfeeding women and their babies. As a response to the global problem of corporate excess and its impact upon breastfeeding women and babies, IBLCE's decision is neither effective nor ethical. It is, therefore, an ideological position which is removed from science-based practice.

You might be interested in signing a petition which asks IBLCE to reconsider the ban of the NDC or Possums programs from being a provider of L CERPs and R CERPs, found here.

Kind regards

Pamela Douglas

14 June 2024

Update 22 July 2025

*One of these email communications stipulated that the ban applied for five years. This was not communicated to me directly, and fails to clarify how the commencement date of the offence is clarified (given the many years that many research publications can take to complete, from first step in ethics application), in order to clarify the five year duration.

** The NDC Institute has been informed this month that IBCLCs are able to successfully apply (that is, self-apply) for CERPS when investing time in upskilling with our lactation-related education courses and modules.

*** In June 2025 I was invited to present at the 2026 New Zealand Lactation Consultants Association national conference. When I accepted, I also explained that IBLCE declined to allow my presentations to be attributed with CERPS. Their representative continued to extend the invitation, believing that participants would receive CERPS for the rest of the conference's presenters. The representative was then warned in writing by the IBLCE Asia Pacific and Africa Regional Director that the entire NZLCA 2026 conference could be at risk if I presented, claiming that the US-based governing body of IBLCE may not allow anyone who co-presented with me at the conference to be attributed with CERPS. The representative subsequently withdrew my invitation to present at the conference, given this uncertainty; understandably the risk to the viability of the conference became unacceptable.

"Recognize that calling someone unethical is defamatory unless you have evidence that they violated their Code of Ethics. Further, interfering with someone’s ability to make a living is illegal (such as trying to get them dropped from a conference program). These behaviors need to stop. ... I would also like to see some transparency at IBLCE. They are, of course, allowed to decide which conferences they want to list on their site. However, if they [IBLCE] are adhering to a list of banned speakers they need to be transparent about that. Where did the list come from and why are certain speakers banned?" Kathleen Kendall-Tackett 2021, Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Texas Tech University School of Medicine, Amarillo, in Have we returned to the Dark Ages? Excommunication and its chilling effect on science

"Currently, scientists with robust, ethical, and cutting-edge research programs can be denied opportunities to present their results in certain venues and contexts, as organizers struggle to apply the WHO Code beyond its original purpose and intention... Our current approach can feel disordered and lacks the nuance, transparency, and due process required to distinguish ethically problematic ties with Code-violating industries from those that are neutral or even beneficial to the field... Our field must develop an ethical structure that allows us to hold complexity without silencing dissent." Ellen Chetwynd 2025, Adjunct Assistant Professor, School of Medicine UNC

References

Azad MB, C NN, Bode L. Breastfeeding and the origins of health: interdisciplinary perspectives and priorities. Maternal and Child Nutrition. 2020;17:e13109.

Chetwynd E. From censorship to conversation: agnotology, market infuence, and the ethics of breastfeeding research. Journal of Human Lactation. 2025;4(3):303-305.

Kendall-Tackett K. Have we returned to the Dark Ages: Excommunication and its chilling effect on science. Clinical Lactation. 2020;November:DOI: 10.1891/CLINLACT-D-1820-00024.