Complaint
Prompted by a leaked letter from the medical director of an NHS Trust which claimed milk produced by trans women with the help of drugs was nutritionally comparable to that produced by a mother following the birth of a baby, the programme included an interview with Kate Luxion, described as “a research fellow in creative global health at the University College, London and a lactation consultant trainee”. A viewer complained that (1) “the science cited in the letter was accepted without question” and “the science was undoubtedly misrepresented”; (2) that the item’s reference to advice from the World Health Organisation was inaccurate and misleading; (3) that it was also misleading to show “pictures of women (females) feeding babies” at the point where Ms Luxion was talking about a study of lactation induction in a trans woman; and (4) that Ms Luxion was presented as “a neutral ‘expert’” whereas she had “a vested interested in this debate”, and “as an authority on the issue without inviting on a medical expert to counter her argument”. A second viewer complained in similar terms. The ECU considered the complaints in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality.
Outcome
On the first point, the ECU found limited evidence to support the claim, attributed to Dr James, that “a transgender woman’s milk is just as good for babies as breast milk”; of the five studies cited by Dr James in her letter as “informative resources” on “the composition of human milk after induced lactation (nonpuerperal lactation) versus lactation after birth” only one referred specifically to trans women, and was based on a single case (most referred to those whose sex was recorded as female at birth). The weight of relevant evidence was not, therefore, made sufficiently clear and in the ECU’s judgement viewers would have been left with a materially misleading impression.
On the second point, the terms in which the introduction to the item referred to Dr James’s letter (“The Trust referred to studies and the World Health Organisation guidance, including one case which found what it called no observable effects in babies fed by induced lactation”) would have led viewers to infer that the WHO guidance supported Dr James’s claim about “a transgender woman’s milk”. In fact, the WHO guidance does not refer to trans women, and so accepted that the audience would have been left with a misleading impression of the evidence to support Dr James’s claim.
On the third point, generic pictures of babies feeding were shown as Ms Luxion referred to “the research which has been done specifically about trans women”. The first complainant considered this potentially confusing to viewers because “a recent study showed that a third of people believe a ‘trans woman’ is someone whose birth sex is female”. The ECU considered that, although the term may not be universally understood, the concept of gender identity and the terms trans woman and trans man are widely used in public discourse and by relevant authorities such as the NHS when referring to people with gender dysphoria. The extent to which members of the audience would have been misled by the use of the term alongside images of babies being fed was, therefore, limited.
On the fourth point, Ms Luxion stated there was persuasive evidence to support the nutritional value of trans women’s milk and dismissed any health concerns about the potential presence of male hormones in milk produced by trans women. In light of the limited evidence to support the view she expressed and her lack of any specialist knowledge about the nutritional value of human milk, it should have been made clear to audiences that more research is needed before such conclusions can be drawn with confidence. The presenter did offer some challenge to the views expressed by Ms Luxion but the programme failed to give due weight to an appropriate range of views and perspectives on a controversial issue.
The ECU noted that the management of BBC News had already acknowledged to the complainant that some of the scripting of the item, such as the reference to the WHO, could have been clearer, and that it would have been better to interview another contributor alongside Ms Luxion to examine the issues raised by Dr James’s letter, and had made a posting to that effect on the significant complaints page of bbc.co.uk. These actions allowed the ECU to conclude that the issues of complaint in relation to the second and fourth points to have been resolved. The ECU upheld the first point of complaint in relation to accuracy, but found no breach of editorial standards in relation to the third point.
Source: The Context, BBC News Channel, 19 February 2024 | Contact the BBC