Wash Post article on HHS breast-feeding research and ads

[KCR4]

My parents live in the DC area and forwarded the text of this Wash Post article to me - thought it was interesting. -Karen


HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads
Formula Industry Urged Softer Campaign

By Marc Kaufman and Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 31, 2007; A01



In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

balance of article removed due to copyright infringement

[bisous]

I'm actually really glad that you posted this because now I have the opportunity to correct at least one fact that is inaccurately portrayed in the campaign. We were discussing this over at the childrenwithdiabetes.com forums just this morning.

As the article states one of the ads ran with the words, "Babies who aren't breastfed are 40% more likely to suffer Type 1 diabetes." While I am a huge breastfeeding advocate, unfortunately this fact is unsubstantiated by any scientific study. I'm not very "scientifically" inclined (I have an M.A. in History) but I do know tons about Type 1 Diabetes. The fact that I was able to find a fallacy in the campaign is a little worrisome to me.

It seems somehow unnecessary to conduct a campaign designed to frighten women into feeding their babies based on false information, you know?

Just my two cents,

Jen

[o_mom]

Actually, there are a few studies that show this. You can argue about the quality of the studies, but they are out there. They are well summarized in the AHRQ report mentioned in the article (Type 1 diabetes starts on p75, PDF p87):

http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/brfout/brfout.pdf

[aa2mama]

Ok, as a mother who mostly formula-fed my first DC (but is still going stong with BF'ing my 6 mo old DC), I have to say that I am glad that the ads didn't go to print. I, for one, found them offensive. Formula-feeding was not my first choice: I did it because my DS was getting dehydrated and we were not able to troubleshoot with a lactation consultant in a timely manner. BUT had I been planning to formula feed all along, I wouldn't have seen that ad, smacked myself in the forehead, and said "Oh my goodness, I should breastfeed!" If we want to get practical in raising breastfeeding rates, we need to work at better support of breastfeeding - inexpensive/free access to lactation consultants, breastfeeding support groups, free/low cost breastpumps available to all women, places to pump at work, time to pump at work, etc.

I have to say that I have a hard time believing that we are in historically low times of breastfeeding. Back in the 1940's when my mom was born, my grandma said that everyone she knew formula fed their children.

In contrast, every single mother that I know started out breastfeeding and most of them did or will continue until their child is a year old. That's not to say that we don't have room for improvement, but I just don't think shocking ad campaigns are the way we will accomplish this.

[lisams]

The politics of this is very interesting and frustrating. This is why I really dislike formula companies.

[Katia]

I found the ads really offensive, too. They just seemed really anti-woman to me -- I can't really explain why. That said, I wish the formula companies didn't have so much influence, either.

"If we want to get practical in raising breastfeeding rates, we need to work at better support of breastfeeding - inexpensive/free access to lactation consultants, breastfeeding support groups, free/low cost breastpumps available to all women, places to pump at work, time to pump at work, etc. "

YES YES YES!!! I couldn't agree more. I wish pediatricians were better informed, too. Ours is supportive but really passively -- she wouldn't be able to help if we needed it. (I know this because I faced lots of obstacles with breastfeeding DS, and she was no help at all.)

As for historical breastfeeding rates, I wish I could find a neat graph I saw a few years ago...it showed the absolute low point being around 1970, with rates picking up after that. Anecdotally, I've also heard the same thing about formula feeding in the 1940s -- it was the modern thing to do!

Katia
DS 2003 and DD 2006

[maestramommy]

>I found the ads really offensive, too. They just seemed
>really anti-woman to me -- I can't really explain why.

I haven't seen the adds, but from the descriptions, I would say it's because it puts the onus of feeding entirely on the woman. That is, a baby being formula fed is entirely the "fault or failing" of the mother. Which I don't think is the case at all. Sure, I don't like the influence the formula companies have. But there are so many other practical obstacles to a mother bfing to a year (short or no maternity leave, support for pumping at the workplace, knowledgeable peds, etc, etc) I really think the responsibility is a shared one. All these ads do is frighten and guilt mothers that are formula feeding their babies. Which won't raise the numbers one bit.