HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads (Waxman investigates GOP/formula industry political interference)

[onehandle]

Source: Washington Post

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.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.

snip...

Rep. Henry A. Waxman's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating allegations from former officials that Carmona was blocked from participating in the breast-feeding advocacy effort and that those designing the ad campaign were overruled by superiors at the formula industry's insistence.

"This is a credible allegation of political interference that might have had serious public health consequences," said Waxman, a California Democrat.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083002198.html

---

Another GOP attack on the health of children in the name of big business.

[Greeby]

1. It's like what George Carlin said about conservatives

"If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked"

[rodeodance]

2. Softening a Message:

Graphic
Softening a Message
The federal Office on Women's Health developed an ad campaign several years ago that included insulin syringes and asthma puffers that looked like bottles of formula to make women aware of the risks of passing up breast-feeding.The formula industry objected to the campaign and brought in powerful lobbyists, including Clayton Yeutter, who was agriculture secretary during the administration of George H.W. Bush.In the end, the agency dropped many of the hard-hitting ads and kept the more soft-focus ones, including images of dandelions puffs and ice cream scoops that looked like breasts. In the 2004 letter at right, Yeutter thanks the secretary of health and human services for modifying the ad campaign

[southern_belle]

3. kick

[Ian David]

4. What does Representative Sqeezy McFeelpants think about it?

Texas Representative Squeezy McFeelpants loves breasteses too much to see them squandered in babies.

[mod mom]

5. DESPICABLE-a government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

[Auggie]

25. Screw terrorists. Corporations are the biggest threat to our well-being.

[FiveGoodMen]

65. That's quite literally true.

The chances of any one of us suffering harm from terrorists (I mean the officially designated kind) are nothing compared to the chances of suffering caused by corporations, government policies, out-of-control police, etc, etc, etc.

[Tanuki]

6. k&r in the interest of healthy babies eom

[suegeo]

7. Boo Hiss

These people are low, low, low.

ON Edit: Changed title of post because there was unintended humor there. And there's nothing funny about hurting the health of small children.

[Bitwit1234]

8. Since we now have republicans that want to hide breast nipples

lets watch them, maybe they will next get caught, running around trying to get to breast nipples. Remember. Those that protest the loudest are usually the ones that end up doing what they don't want others to do.

[Seabiscuit]

50. They don't want to hide breast nipples from everyone.

They just don't want you or your babies to see them.

They have pictures of breast nipples all over their office walls.

[mod mom]

9. Thanks to the mods for putting this on the front page-it's very indicative of GOP policy

[SteelPenguin]

10. The formula companies are outrageous

The things they do are borderline criminal. Distributing formula in third world countries where safe water might be an issue and helping prevent the safest healthiest form of nurishment for those children in their mother's breast milk.

[gratuitous]

11. These assholes don't miss a trick

Keep this in mind the next time some administration factotum goes up before a congressional hearing and starts stammering and stuttering about "I don't recall," "I don't remember," or "I have no recollection" bullshit. These people keep tabs on everything and nothing is too picayune to escape their morbid attention.

[Beetwasher]

12. WAIT JUST A FRIGGIN' SECOND HERE!!!!!! WTF????

Lobbyists lobby FUCKING GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENTS???? WTF???? Has that ALWAYS happened or is this something new courtesy of Repubco.?

[AllyCat]

13. You know, I'm very pro-breastfeeding, but the ads sounded a bit over

the top. There are mothers who cannot or shouldn't breastfeed (some with reductions or enlargements, women with mastectomies, those taking HIV drugs, women living with breast cancer), and some who just aren't going to do it no matter what. The images in these ads would have been really threatening to them and I don't think SCARING people into breastfeeding is going to work.

That said, the post-intervention ads sound really stupid and are not going to convince anyone to breastfeed! Women need positive images of breastfeeding, especially public breastfeeding to encourage them to do so. They need information on how much breastfeeding does help fight long-term diseases like diabetes and asthma. There is also a much lower risk of SIDS for babies who are breastfed. It's the best nutrition for babies. For those who cannot or just will not, it's a good thing we have formula.

Listening to the formula companies to rewrite these ads as opposed to listening to healthcare professionals and lactation specialists is just typical of this stupid administration. Let me guess, good 'ole Tommy T. was in charge of HHS when this happened?

These folks are just plain evil :evilfrown:

[BrklynLib at work]

15. Iguess the formula companies did not agree or they would not have felt compelled to intervene.

In addition, I feel that the ads were more in the vein of emphasizing the negative side of formula rather than the idea that one MUST breastfeed.

[chicagomd]

19. Could not

agree more with your post (although I am not sure about your SIDS comment, do you have a source for that?) Scare tactics are not the way to go in what is already a very high pressure, high demand situation (taking care of a newborn infant).

In my experience knowledge, encouragement, and support go a hell of a lot farther than trying to scare parents into a certain behavior.

And why add another entire layer of guilt onto new mothers who, for what ever reason, cannot breast feed?

[Cairycat]

22. It goes to informed consent

Formula is an intervention and it has risks. Sometimes it is a necessary intervention. People deserve to be able to make informed choices (free from industry intervention) on behalf of their children, even if it makes some people feel guilty for choosing the intervention and its risks.

The initial ads were put together after focus groups of the target audience repeatedly said the risk approach was more effective at changing behavior than the usual namby-pamby "breast is best but formula is just as good" baloney.

[Pithlet]

66. Exactly. An equivalent would be if the candy industry lobbied to prevent the ADA

from putting out public service announcements on how to take care of your teeth. It's ludicrous that an industry was allowed to block the dissemination of public health information.

[AllyCat]

23. Here's one link.

http://www.breastfeedingtaskforla.org/SIDS/AAP-SIDS-Mass-BF-Coalition-response.htm

I also know Dr. Sears has said this many times, but many consider him extreme. I like his work though. www.askdrsears.com

[chicagomd]

34. Thank you,

Good arguments. Not a lot of references for those arguments, as is the case with many of the SIDS recommendations, including those made by the AAP. I think a lot of the breastfeeding organizations forget that they are just that: General recommendations based off of information available.

I do take issue with them questioning the integrity of the AAP recommendations based off some collusion between the organization and companies that sell pacifiers. Is there really going to be a massive increase in pacifier purchases, or do most parents have pacifiers anyway? Talk about a stretch.

The AAP recommends breastfeeding. Period. There is nothing in the guild lines, if you actually read them, that undermines breastfeeding. Just as there are safe ways to co-sleep, there are ways to NOT co-sleep that still promote healthy breastfeeding.

I like Dr. Sears a lot, but his website is becoming more advertisement than educational resource.

[vanlassie]

28. Why would they feel guilty if

for "some reason" they couldn't breastfeed? I can't do a lot of things. I regret those sometimes. I never feel guilty, however, unless I KNOW I COULD do something helpful, healthy, etc, and I CHOOSE not to. There is a huge difference, don't you think?

[chicagomd]

39. Some choices

are easier to make than others, and not everyone's situation is such they can choose to continue to breastfeed for as long as they would like to.

Everything is a choice. Personally, I would love to see more women choose to breastfeed, but I am not sure how good an idea it is to scare or intimidate them into that choice.

[Ilsa]

56. There was some research that indicated that knowing the

benefits, which also means understanding the risks, provided alot of the motivation for moms to keep going when breastfeeding became difficult for some reason. I wish I could quote it for you, but it became the basis for RN-IBCLC's to spend a lot more time in breastfeeding classes emphasizing benefits. I agree that it shouldn't be a scare tactic, but I'm not certain how they would create a visualization of that without it looking scary.

[electron_blue]

31. I agree. Haven't we had enough scare tactics?

I'm also very pro-breastfeeding, and used to be a member of La Leche League, but the best way to boost bf'ing rates is with education and support.

[redqueen]

35. Scaring them?

I don't see how showing them possible outcomes is scary. It seems to me like it's just informative.

:shrug:

[chicagomd]

40. Really?

You don't see how "...striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples" could be scary to a new mother?

Breastfeed babies still have the possibility of getting diabetes and asthma. So by your logic it would be ok if the formula industry started making posters of breasts with syringes sticking out of them.

You know, because it is informative.

[redqueen]

41. That seems rather disingenuous

Are you trying to imply that breastfed babies and formula fed babies face the same risks of having those issues?

[chicagomd]

44. Of course not.

But breastfeeding is not under any circumstances 100% protective against those issues, either. Asthma and diabetes are possible outcomes for breastfeed babies as well.

It just seems odd to me that you could not understand how seeing these images would not be scary to a new mother. I respond to one of your other comments below with my bigger issue with the posters, which is that somehow you are going to GIVE your child asthma or diabetes by not breastfeeding.

[redqueen]

45. Of course it's not... and not smoking is no guarantee you won't get lung cancer. n/t

[xxqqqzme]

38. I'll have to agree w/ your assessment.

I had no problem because I had no one discouraging me. My sister did not because there was no one encouraging her.

A better approach would be economical. When the expense of formula feeding is tallied and compared to breast feeding, there is a very powerful argument for breast feeding.

[MUSTANG_2004]

54. Sometimes choices ARE scary

There are real risks to using formula. It seems like a good idea to make sure that new mothers are aware of them before they decide not to breastfeed.

[BrklynLib at work]

14. The US govt is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of coroporations like baby-formula makers,

big pharma and oil


Thank you Bill Maher whom I first heard use that phrase..

[redqueen]

16. What, republicans put corporate interest ahead of public interest? Again?

You don't say!




I so hate these people.

[trogdor]

17. The polticially powerful infant formula industry?

Is there an industry that is not politically powerful? You could almost mad-lib this article for just about any purpose. I can see it now.

Source: Washington Post

In an attempt to lower the nation's wasteful consumption of PET packaging, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince people that buying bottled water posed a grave threat to the environment. It featured striking photos of bulldozers pushing mountains of plastic bottles around a landfill.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful bottled water industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Environmental Protection Agency. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.

snip...

Rep. Henry A. Waxman's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating allegations from former officials that EPA was blocked from participating in the plastic bottle waste reduction effort and that those designing the ad campaign were overruled by superiors at the bottled water industry's insistence.

"This is a credible allegation of political interference that might have had serious public health consequences," said Waxman, a California Democrat.

[deepthought42]

18. So I suppose just giving the facts

and letting the women decide for themselves (oh no, we can't have a choice) would be asking too much. Yep... :banghead:

[iconoclastic cat]

20. What a load o' crap.

My daughter is healthy as a horse and projected to be about 6' tall by the time she's finished, and she was a formula baby.

[redqueen]

36. I'm glad she wasn't adversely affected. That doesn't mean no one is, though. n/t

[MUSTANG_2004]

55. An anecdote is not data

Virtually all of the many, many studies done to compare formula to breastmilk have proven that breastfed babies are healthier and smarter than they would have been had they been given formula.

[iconoclastic cat]

62. True, but statistics are not destiny. nt

[Desertrose]

21. There is no part of human existence not controlled by corporations.

From conception to death (and maybe a bit before & after when you think about it)....the most important thing in the CORPORATES STATES of AMERICA is ALWAYS the bottom line- PROFIT.


The fact they pushed formula over breastfeeding in third world countries...well, it just makes me furious...along with a lot of other stuff....


DR

[wake.up.america]

24. Incredibly dangerous is this all. Profits over health - WOW!!!

[vanlassie]

26. Tommy Thompson was at the helm

when this dispicible activity took place. It was very well documented.

Read: http://www.drjaygordon.com/development/bf/milky.asp

then if you think the difference between human milk and artifical baby formula is minimal....

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/07/19/formula/

vanlassie

edited to add second link

[shenmue]

27. Are people still afraid of the human breast?

:wow:

[SheilaT]

29. There are a lot of reasons

why women who otherwise are perfectly capable of breastfeeding don't.

They've never seen a baby nursing.
Their own mothers never breastfed.
Those same mothers tell them that formula is every bit as good as breast milk.
The nursing staff at the hospital where they give birth do not encourage nursing. Some even actively discourage it.
Even if they begin nursing at the hospital, they are invariably sent home with a sample of formula.
Husbands want to share in taking care of the baby, and often think the best way to do that is to give a bottle.
It's at best difficult and often impossible to nurse out in public.
Working full time and breast feeding are largely incompatible. We need huge changes here.
It's not always an easy or natural thing -- not all mothers and babies take to it easily, so it's easy to give up as soon as there are problems.
I bet Brittany Spears didn't breast feed. And she's a role model, right?

Scare tactics are truly a stupid idea. Breast really is best. And yeah, kids do grow up perfectly healthy and strong and smart and well-adjusted and good citizens even if formula fed. Middle class children in this country generally do well. In my opinion what's needed are a lot more role models of breast feeding, especially in every woman's personal life.

And those who can't breast feed not be made to feel guilty about it.

[redqueen]

37. How is it scare tactics?

Because it shows the risks with pictures instead of dry descriptions?

[chicagomd]

42. No.

Because it implies that if you use formula, for whatever reason, your child is going to develop long-term, incurable illness that they will sturggle with for the rest of their lives and it is YOUR fault, and failure, as a mother.

Do you really do not understand how that could be scary to a new mother?

[redqueen]

43. It's the same with tobacco warnings, is it not?

Are anti-smoking ads showing diseased lungs also scare tactics? Should we also want those to stop?

I understand how it could get their attention better than dry descriptions, yes.

[chicagomd]

46. Lets just contine this

conversation down here so we don't have to keep jumping posts...

Yes, tobacco adds showing sick lungs are scare tactics, and you cannot equate the two because, and this is really the key point, smoking actually GIVES you those lungs. Formula does NOT doom your child to asthma or diabetes or any other illness. That does not make it equal to breast milk.

But that is not really the point of our discussion, and I didn't argue that it would not get their attention. I said it was a scare tactic. You disagreed at the time and said it was not scary, just informative.

Do you still think the images as described would not be scary to a new mother?

[redqueen]

48. All smokers get cancer? Or just dirty lungs?

The implication of those ads, of course, is that it gives you cancer. But does it give *all* smokers cancer? No.

So... can we equate them now?

I don't think they're scary, no. I think they're as 'scary' as the anti-smoking ads are.

[chicagomd]

52. No, you cannot equate them.

There are a lot of other things smoking can give you besides cancer, but all of them involve sick lungs.

Those formula posters leave nothing to the imagination and the implication is explicit: Give your baby formula, give them asthma and diabetes.

That is a scare tactic, even if it does not scare you personally, and it quite frankly is not true.

[redqueen]

53. Yes, that's true...

similarly, there are a lot of adverse effects tied to infants who are given formula. And all of them involve the child not being given what nature intended for the critical first months of life outside the womb.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether these ads imply that formula will without a doubt give your baby asthma or diabetes. IMO they don't imply that at all, only that there is risk.

Your comment about it being a scare tactic even if it doesn't scare me personally seems more to me like just your opinion, but you state it as if it's a fact. Same thing with you saying 'it's not true'. You'd have to first infer from the ads that they are saying doing x will result in y without any doubt whatsoever (which I don't infer at all).

[chicagomd]

60. Agreed to disagree.

We can go back and forth about intent all day, I suppose, which is where the crux of the argument really lies.

Scaring mothers (or if you prefer: informing them of the possible negative consequences in a very freaky way)into not giving formula is not the same thing as encouraging them to give their babies breast milk. In my opinion money would be much better spend in maternal, physician and nursing education to wards the benefits of breast feeding, as well as doing thinks like requiring employers to allow "pump breaks" for women who have to go back to work to support their families.

As far as the asthma and diabetes are concerned: There may be association with formula, and breast milk may be protective, but giving your child formula does NOT mean they are going to develop asthma or diabetes, just like giving your child breast milk does not provide absolute protection against those conditions. There is not an established causative relationship.

[redqueen]

61. Yes... agree to disagree re: intent.

However, re: education... they have been doing that for years... and with not much result. Americans frequently choose the 'easy' way, and so I view this campaign as a way to get new mothers to think about the consequences of taking the easy way out.

As for pump breaks, anyone working full time is guaranteed two breaks per day, plus lunch. While nursing my first child, I worked full time, and used those breaks to pump. Are you saying lactating mothers should be given more time off to pump?

Agreed that breastfeeding won't guarantee that your child won't have health problems which have been indicated to occur at higher frequencies in formula-fed babies... but similarly, not smoking does not guarantee that you won't get cancer (sorry to use that analogy again, I'm being lazy :)). So yes, there is no direct causal relationship that's 100% guaranteed to happen... but that hardly ever (if ever) is found with any health related isue.

[chicagomd]

63. I would

like to give mothers more time off to pump. But then again I would also like to have a system similar to some European countries where mothers could lake 6 months of leave to breastfeed at home.

Finland in think?

[redqueen]

64. On that we *totally* agree.

If only this country was as civilized...

I think it's more than one country that does that, and I think Finland is one, yes.

[Dervill Crow]

51. Haven't seen an anti-smoking ad in a long time.

Sadly, the only commercials I seem to see anymore are for home loans, prescription medications, auto insurance, and scooters for old/arthritic/obese people.

[bleedingheart]

47. my grandmother's generation breast fed because it was cheap and it was natural

poor immigrant women learned from their peasant mothers that breastfeeding was the natural method of feeding children and if you couldn't give milk...you would find a wet nurse to do it for you.

My grandmother and her sister would wet nurse for each other when the other was ill or was working...

My mother's generation gave birth to their babies in the 50-60's...and they were told by big business that "bottle is best"...
My mother did breastfeed her first child but it was pooh poohed by the nurses at the hospital...and thus all of my mothers children were bottle fed.

Then my generation came along...and we breastfed.

I breastfed both my children and it was not only good for them, it saved a lot of money...formula isn't cheap.

But still...the campaign of those early ads telling women that their breast was not best...still permeate our culture...

[PatSeg]

30. Maybe that's what is wrong with the extreme Right

They weren't breastfed and are taking it out on the rest of us!!!

Formula warning label: "Use of this product could cause severe right-wing tendencies, diminished compassion, and irrational intolerance."

Seriously, this is outrageous, but sadly not surprising. Every day brings yet another example of corporations influencing politicians and government policy. When they don't out and out lie, they suppress or omit the truth.

[Katherine Brengle]

32. I'm sure their motives are suspect, as usual, BUT

the whole breast-feeding v. formula feeding shitstorm has an extremely negative effect on mothers.

And lest we forget, remember who told mothers to use formula rather than breastfeed in the first place.

You can't win in this world if you are a woman, and especially a mother.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. GOP is bad for your health

GOP pollutes your streams and rivers, wants you to be obese, hijacks breastfeeding, siphons off your money - bad for the USA

[Maine-ah]

49. maybe it should start with doctors instead of the television

since the docs like to give out free samples of formula that they get from the formula companies. Right after I had BB Maine-ah, the hospital gave me a diaper bag, I think from Similac, that was full of some cool stuff and formula. To me, it's odd that my doc pushed BF'ing, but hands me a bag of stuff made by a formula company. My SIL's doc gave her a whole case of the stuff.

[Ilsa]

57. The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative is a designation that alot of

hospitals desire, but they have to agree not to hand out the free formula.

[Cairycat]

58. There's a campaign going on to stop hospitals from

giving out these bags. See www.banthebags.org . Naturally the formula manufacturers are raising hell and trying to get mothers to feel victimized for not getting their "gift".

It makes no sense to me why people don't realize this is not a gift, this is a bribe and it's formula buyers who end up footing the bill for this. The companies would not be so insistent about the hospitals pimping these if the bags weren't very effective at undermining breastfeeding. (I had a heated argument with the nurse when my youngest was born to NOT take it.)

[JerseygirlCT]

59. Eh. The free stuff can come in handy if someone is having

a tough time with BFing. Or given away -- it's expensive stuff!

I think the more important part is that health care people find a good way to really offer the encouragement that new mothers need in order to be successful. I had a hard time with my second. He just didn't want to nurse. Very stubborn even then. Most of the health care people just shrugged and said, oh well, here's the formula. (With the exception of a lactation consultant, who was helpful).

I'm as stubborn as the kid, though, because even though it took a solid month of feeding him with a syringe and my finger in his mouth, he FINALLY took to it. And nursed until health reasons made me stop at 16 months. Few people would have had the sheer cussedness to see that through, I think, without some good support.

But through a good amount of it, I had to supplement. No sleep at all, and a baby who won't nurse does not make for a copious milk supply, as you probably know.