US PSA on bf'ing being re-done

Didn't someone in here mention the AAP B'fing books distributed to new
moms by the formula companies?

This is an interesting article from the NY Times:

December 4, 2003
ADVERTISING
Breastfeeding Ads Delayed by a Dispute Over Content
By MELODY PETERSEN

Federal officials have softened a national advertising campaign to
promote breastfeeding after complaints from two companies that make
infant formula, according to several doctors and nurses who are helping
the government with the effort.

A newsletter distributed by the Ad Council, a nonprofit group developing
the advertisements for the government, said that the Department of
Health and Human Services planned to begin the campaign this month. But
Christina Pearson, a spokeswoman for the department, said yesterday that
it was not clear when the advertisements would begin.

Today, Kevin Keane, the department's assistant secretary for public
affairs, plans to meet with a group of breastfeeding experts who have
been working on the campaign to discuss changes to the ads, according to
people invited to the meeting. The campaign includes television, radio
and print public service announcements.

The original campaign focused on "the risks associated with not
breastfeeding,'' according to the Ad Council's newsletter, and included
statistics from studies that have found that babies fed formula have a
higher risk of developing asthma, diabetes, leukemia and other
illnesses.

According to the newsletter, one planned spot, titled "Roller Derby,''
showed pregnant women roller skating. The voiceover said: "You'd never
take risks while you're pregnant. Why start when the baby's born?''

Ms. Pearson said that the information in the newsletter was preliminary
and should have not been released.

Peter Paradossi, a spokesman for Mead Johnson, the Bristol-Myers Squibb
division that makes Enfamil formulas, said that the company supported a
campaign to promote the benefits of breastfeeding, but that the planned
ads went too far.

"We worried it would give an impression that infant formula is unhealthy
and potentially dangerous,'' he said.

Tracey Noe, a spokeswoman for Ross Products, the Abbott Laboratories
unit that makes Similac, said her company also supported projects
promoting breastfeeding. But she said Ross executives were concerned
that claims made in the government's campaign were not based on solid
science. "The overall approach was like a scare tactic,'' Ms. Noe said.

After the two companies and the top officials of the American Academy of
Pediatrics complained to federal health officials, the government
decided to eliminate spots discussing the risk of leukemia and diabetes
in babies not breastfed, said Amy Spangler, the chairwoman of the United
States Breastfeeding Committee, a group that promotes breastfeeding.
According to the Ad Council newsletter, those ads said that babies not
breastfed had a 30 percent increased risk of developing leukemia and up
to a 40 percent increased risk of developing diabetes.

Ms. Spangler, a nurse who over the last year has been helping the
government develop the ads, said that a federal official told her of the
recent changes. She said that government officials still planned to say
in the ads that infants who are not breastfed face a higher risk of
developing obesity and ear infections, but they have removed all
specific statistics on the estimated level of risk.

Ms. Pearson declined to specify how the ads had been changed, but said
that the ads had been continuously modified as they were reviewed by
government scientists. "We are very committed to doing this campaign and
doing it right,'' she said.

The campaign has divided physician members of the American Academy of
Pediatrics. Dr. Joe M. Sanders Jr., the academy's executive director,
and Dr. Carden Johnston, its president, sent a letter to Tommy G.
Thompson, secretary of health and human services, in early November
expressing their concerns about the tone of the campaign and the
soundness of the science providing the base for some of its claims. That
upset the academy's own breastfeeding experts, who had been working with
the government on the ads and supported their aggressive message.

Dr. Lawrence M. Gartner, the former chairman of the pediatrics
department at the University of Chicago and current chairman of the
academy's executive committee on breastfeeding, said he believed that
academy officials might have sent the letter to appease formula
manufacturers; some of them are large financial donors to the group.

"There is a lot of money involved,'' Dr. Gartner said.

But Dr. Sanders and Dr. Johnston said that the companies' financial
contributions had nothing to do with their criticism of the campaign.
They said that they had decided to send their letter before Ross
executives expressed their concerns at the academy's national
conference, held last month in New Orleans.

Dr. Sanders said that some members of the academy were concerned that
the advertisements could make mothers who chose not to breastfeed feel
guilty if their child later developed leukemia or another medical
condition. Instead of emphasizing the risks of not breastfeeding, he
said, the campaign should emphasize breastfeeding's benefits.

Ross was one of the top three corporate donors to the academy's budget
in 2001, giving more than $500,000, Dr. Sanders said last year. Dr.
Sanders's staff said yesterday that more recent information was not
available.

Last year, Ross purchased 300,000 copies of the academy's latest book on
breastfeeding. Dr. Sanders said he would not disclose how much the
company had paid for those books, which it is distributing to new
mothers. He said last year that the academy had made a profit of no more
than $500,000 from the initial book purchase by Ross. Dr. Gartner said
that Ross recently purchased another 300,000 copies.

Ms. Spangler said she believed that the campaign would still be
effective in persuading mothers to breastfeed. But other breastfeeding
advocates expressed disappointment with changes that they said had
weakened the message.

Marsha Walker, who sits on the leadership team of the United States
Breastfeeding Committee with Ms. Spangler, said that the information on
leukemia and diabetes should be left in the ads.

"I'm a registered nurse, and we would never withhold information from
our patients because we thought it might make them feel guilty,'' Ms.
Walker said. "This is being shot down by an industry that has no
business interfering. Ultimately it hurts the health of our babies and
our moms.''

--
'Tis Herself

(Herself) wrote,

Dr. Sanders said that some members of the academy were concerned that
the advertisements could make mothers who chose not to breastfeed feel
guilty if their child later developed leukemia or another medical
condition.

Well....if the mother was physically unable to breastfeed (breast cancer,
hypoplastic breasts, adopted child, etc.) then there would be nothing to feel
guilty for.

If the mother was genuinely unaware of the risks involved in formula feeding
and was misinformed by doctors or other trusted sources, then she should feel
angry but not guilty.

If the mother gave breastfeeding her best try but gave up prematurely because
she ran into difficulties, she should be angry that our culture is not more
supportive of breastfeeding, but she should not feel guilty.

If, however, the mother *knew* of the increased risks associated with formula
and chose to feed it to her baby anyway for reasons of convenience, then she
would need to be prepared to accept any consequences from that decision.

I look at it this way: I was born in 1961 and my mother was told to give me
soy formula from the get-go by my trusted pediatrician. Those were the days
when formula feeding was "scientific" and anything scientific was presumed to
be better. My mother had no breastfeeding support available and was following
the best medical advice. I do not think my mother should bear any guilt or
regret over my ulcerative colitis.

On the other hand, I was aware of breastfeeding's benefits and of formula's
risks before my first child was born. If, knowing what I did, I chose to
formula feed anyway and one of my children developed ulcerative colitis or some
other medical condition known to occur at higher rates in artifically fed
children, then I would expect to feel guilty.

It is really disheartening to read about the watering down of breastfeeding
information. Kind of like if the tobacco companies could remove the
information about cigarettes raising the risk of lung cancer or heart disease
from their ads.

Mary Ellen
William (8)
Matthew (6)
Margaret (2)

"Herself" wrote in message
...
"We worried it would give an impression that infant
formula is unhealthy and potentially dangerous,'' he said.

Gee, whatever would give them that idea... Oh, maybe this...

According to the Ad Council newsletter, those ads said
that babies not breastfed had a 30 percent increased risk
of developing leukemia and up to a 40 percent increased
risk of developing diabetes. snip
She said that government officials still planned to say
in the ads that infants who are not breastfed face a higher
risk of developing obesity and ear infections, but they have
removed all specific statistics on the estimated level of risk.
--
Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 8 mo.
And Jaden, 3 months

Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing.

Sorry for the bandwidth, but thank you, Cheryl. I was about to post
on the same point, answering the first quote with a simple, "well, gee,
maybe it is".

Richard
Micaela's dad

I shouted at the monitor when I read that line....

"We worried it would give an impression that infant formula is unhealthy
and potentially dangerous,'' he said.

Uh, yeah. That would be a correct impression, though, wouldn't it, Mr.
Spokesman? Kind of like the "impression" that other PSAs make that smoking
cigarettes is unhealthy and potentially dangerous....

Holly
Mom to Camden, 2.5 yrs
EDD #2 6/8/04

Mary Ellen ) wrote:

I look at it this way: I was born in 1961 and my mother was told to give me
soy formula from the get-go by my trusted pediatrician. Those were the days
when formula feeding was "scientific" and anything scientific was presumed to
be better. My mother had no breastfeeding support available and was
following
the best medical advice. I do not think my mother should bear any guilt or
regret over my ulcerative colitis.

Guilt, no, but why wouldn't she feel regret? I don't see why she shouldn't
think "Oh, dear, I wish I had known that!"

I should think anyone would feel regret when they heard your story. But maybe
we're using the word in different ways.

--Helen

"Herself" wrote in message
Didn't someone in here mention the AAP B'fing books distributed to new
moms by the formula companies?

This is an interesting article from the NY Times:

December 4, 2003
ADVERTISING
Breastfeeding Ads Delayed by a Dispute Over Content
snip

Bummer :-( I heard about the AAP president's letter to Tommy Thompson a few
weeks ago from my local breastfeeding coalition. I sent a bunch of letters
encouraging that the focus of the Campaign remain the same (the risks
incurred by not breastfeeding)--to Tommy Thompson, to Drs Sanders &
Johnston, to a few senators, and also a letter of support to the AAP Dr.
Gartner and the AAP's Section on Breastfeeding. Various Coalition members
sent letters as well. I'll pass this info along to them :-(

--
Em
mama to Lann, ten weeks

(H Schinske) wrote,

Guilt, no, but why wouldn't she feel regret? I don't see why she shouldn't
think "Oh, dear, I wish I had known that!"

I should think anyone would feel regret when they heard your story. But maybe
we're using the word in different ways.

My mother is not someone who looks back with regret on much in her life, and
while she has been supportive of my breastfeeding (or at least tolerant, when
it came to tandem or toddler nursing), she is not as immersed as I am in the
world of breastfeeding facts and figures.

She has a form of the same illness that I do--there is some heritability
involved and it is virtually 100% sure that I got my genetic predisposition
from her side. I think it bothers her more that she may have passed on the
genetic susceptibility than that any actions of hers may have affected my
health. She also was never breastfed, btw--her own mother was debilitated for
months following my mother's birth and was far too weak to breastfeed (my
grandmother nearly died)--and infant feeding in 1926 wasn't even close to 1961
standards.

I think my mother has suffered enough without adding regret over decisions that
were based on the best available information at the time.

And anyway, I don't mean to sound like my life has been ruined by bowel
disease. I am very fortunate to have been in remission for the last ten years,
and I hope to stay in remission for the rest of my life. It's more of an
inconvenience now than anything else, though the memory of being so terribly
ill will stay with me for the rest of my life.

(Also I am rated for life insurance and absolutely cannot get private
disability insurance at any price. I urge all of you--WOHMs and SAHMs
alike--to get your private disability coverage NOW if you haven't already. You
never know what may lie ahead.)

Mary Ellen
William (8)
Matthew (6)
Margaret (2)

Sigh. I'd love to see the ads myself and form my own opinion, but I
really wish the medical profession would seriously re-evaluate its
relationship with drug and formula manufacturers. I really don't
think any health professional has any business making people feel
guilty for their choices, justified or not. An effective and
appropriate campaign has to work within the reality that 30% of moms
in the US never breastfeed. But this reeks of slimy corporate
self-interest on the part of the formula companies, and to a certain
degree, anyone they support financially. All of medicine is far too
deep in the pockets of the drug companies, and pediatrics is far too
deep in the pockets of the formula people. All pediatric residents in
the US get membership in the AAP paid for by one of the formula
companies, a gift of the most popular general pocket reference book
(with a "courtesy of Enfamil" page in the front), in addition to cute
little tags for labelling their stethoscopes and whatnot. I've also
heard that any pediatrician who asks can get a free year's supply of
formula home delivered for their child -- how's that for sneaky
undermining of doctors' support of breastfeeding? Grr. Can't wait to
throw around a little lactivism with my co-workers next year.

I'm starting to ramble. I also rambled on about the current state of
scientific evidence about the benefits of breastfeeding, but since it
got rather long and is not entirely on-topic I posted it as a new
thread, "scientific evidence for breastfeeding".

Dr. Kate
and the Bug, June 8 2003

Akuvikate wrote:

I've also
heard that any pediatrician who asks can get a free year's supply of
formula home delivered for their child -- how's that for sneaky
undermining of doctors' support of breastfeeding?

WHAT?!?!?!?!? Are you serious?! That is, without a doubt, the most
disgusting thing I've ever heard. Ugh. I can feel the slime dripping
off me....

You go kick some ff butt, Dr. Kate!
--
'Tis Herself