Thursday, July 15, 2004
Thursday Breast Blogging
Politicians Make Boobs of Themselves
PZ Myers has a good post about breastfeeding.
In it, he makes some good points. One of his primary points is
that the Bush Administration recently dropped an ad campaign that would
have promoted breastfeeding. Apparently, this decision was made
in response to political pressure from the infant formula
industry. What is more shocking is that the American Academy of
Pediatrics supported the industrial leaders in this.
The fact that the Administration has established a
pattern of misusing, manipulating, and distorting science is old
news. See the Union of
Concerned Scientists' web site for background on this.
I've looked through their updated report, though, and it appears that
they have not yet listed this particular example. For that
reason, I will be submitting this post to them.
Likewise, the allegation that infant formula companies engage in unethical promotion of their products is not news. See this BMJ article for more information on that subject.
Some of the material used by Dr. Myers came
from an article in the Valley Advocate. More details are present
in the ABC News story, which was distilled from a 20/20 program by
Brian Ross and Jill Rackmill.
Feeding Frenzy
How big business and politics conspire against breastfeeding mothers
by Maureen Turner - April 15, 2004
This
print ad was part of the government's original campaign but was later
dropped. It says that if a baby is not breast-fed, there is an
increased risk of diabetes.
One point that should be emphasized is that the American Academy of Pediatrics does not oppose breastfeeding; most of the material on their web site actively promotes it. Their own official Policy Statement is unequivocal:
Why the AAP President would side with the infant formula industry is
baffling. That he would do so is not only baffling, it is
aggravating. Granted, the Industry supports the AAP with large
donations, but that should not be a factor at all. It is possible
that he was manipulated successfully by the Industry PR
professionals. After all, most physicians think so highly of
themselves that they assume they cannot be manipulated. This, in
my opinion, actually makes them more susceptible to certain kinds of
skillful manipulation, and I am sure the PR folks sent their
best.
But I don't want to burn bandwidth with a diatribe against the AAP. The Bush administration is responsible for the actions of the Department of Health and Human Services; therefore, most of the blame goes to them. The Secretary of HHS is Tommy Thompson. How qualified is he to make scientific judgments? He has a B.S. (1963), and a J.D. (1966) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Here is part of his bio, from the Whitehouse.gov site:
Health
and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson is the nation's leading
advocate for the health and welfare of all Americans. He is the 19th
individual to serve as Secretary of the department, which employs more
than 60,000 personnel and has a fiscal year 2001 budget of $429 billion. Secretary Thompson has dedicated
his professional life to public service, most recently serving as
governor of Wisconsin since 1987. Secretary Thompson made state history
when he was re-elected to office for a third term in 1994 and a fourth
term in 1998. During
his 14 years as governor, Secretary Thompson focused on revitalizing
Wisconsin's economy [...]
So he is a successful attorney/politician who emphasizes economic matters. The darnedest thing about this is that the decision to water down the breast-feeding ad campaign is directly contrary to the stated goals of the Republican Party, including the ecomonic goals. Sure, they are pro-business, and Dr. Jay Gordon is on record as having speculated that the ad campaign would have cost the formula manufacturers "hundreds of millions of dollars." However, this economic cost is microscopic, compared to the benefits. According to the Economic Research Service of the US Dept. of Agriculture (in a report prepared during the Bush administration):
A significant amount of the money saved would come by reducing health care costs:
The report states that their $3.6 billion figure probably is a misunderestimation. So even if the ad campaign cost the infant formula industry hundreds of millions of dollars, the economy as a whole still would be better off with higher rates of breastfeeding. One of the planks of the Republican platform is that they advocate improving the economy, and here they go, shooting themselves in the wallet.
Another tenet of Republican policy is their supposed pro-life stance. Breastfeeding is associated with lower infant mortality rates. From the British Medical Journal:
To clarify, in medical parlance, the term morbidity refers to illness that stops short of causing death. From the AAP's policy statement:
To expand on the health benefits of breastfeeding, and provide additional evidence for reduction in health care costs, I cite also this article:
NICU stands for neonatal intensive care unit. The cost of NICU care is well over $1000 per day. Clearly, if you are pro-life, and favor economic expansion, you also must advocate breastfeeding.
Part of the Republican platform, regarding health care, is the recognition of the seriousness of the obesity epidemic. From the GOP.com statement on the Republican platform:
In conclusion, we see that the Administration has deliberately watered down the impact of their breastfeeding advocacy program, apparently in response to lobbying from the infant formula industry. Although this is superficially consistent with their pro-economic-growth platform, closer examination reveals that the action actually contradicts their policies in many ways. Not only that, but it was a dumb thing to do.
Some final words:
The fact that the Administration has established a
pattern of misusing, manipulating, and distorting science is old
news. See the Union of
Concerned Scientists' web site for background on this.
I've looked through their updated report, though, and it appears that
they have not yet listed this particular example. For that
reason, I will be submitting this post to them.Likewise, the allegation that infant formula companies engage in unethical promotion of their products is not news. See this BMJ article for more information on that subject.
Some of the material used by Dr. Myers came
from an article in the Valley Advocate. More details are present
in the ABC News story, which was distilled from a 20/20 program by
Brian Ross and Jill Rackmill. Feeding Frenzy
How big business and politics conspire against breastfeeding mothers
by Maureen Turner - April 15, 2004
Ask
any healthcare professional and they'll say that there's no healthier
way to feed a baby than breastfeeding. Human breast milk is a living
substance that changes to supply a growing baby what he needs at
various stages of development; no matter how much formula companies
refine their product, it doesn't come close to matching breast milk.
"There are so many things in breast milk that aren't in formula," said Ruth Stevens, a lactation consultant at Cooley Dickinson Hospital. "There are over 200 different constituents in breast milk, and maybe 30 of them they've gotten into formula."
Breast milk contains antibodies that provide valuable immunities. Numerous studies conclude that breastfed babies have fewer colds, allergies, ear infections and other diseases, are less likely to suffer from respiratory problems or diarrhea and are less prone to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Long-term, they have higher IQs and are less likely to develop diabetes, asthma, obesity, coronary artery disease, digestive disorders like Crohn's and cancer. Women who breastfeed have lower rates of osteoporosis and certain cancers.
There are environmental benefits; breastfeeding doesn't involve the production and waste that formula does. It's cheap -- in fact, free. It's convenient -- no formula to mix, no bottles to warm or wash.
[...] "There's no excuse for the numbers we have in this country," said Dia Michels, co-author of Milk, Money and Madness: The Culture and Politics of Breastfeeding . She's unimpressed by the breastfeeding goals set by the federal Department of Health and Human Service's "Healthy People 2010" program. That calls for 75 percent of new mothers to initiate breastfeeding, 50 percent to continue to six months and 25 percent to make it to one year.
"Seventy-five percent -- what kind of shit-ass goal is that?" asked Michels, reeling off a list of other countries where the overwhelming majority of babies are breastfed.
[...] Last fall, Health and Human Services was poised to launch a major pro-breastfeeding public service campaign, with ads that focused on the risks of opting not to nurse and emphasized that formula was not comparable to breast milk. But before they ever aired, the campaign came to a screeching halt.
It seems the formula companies got wind of the ads and took their complaints about the campaign's "negative" tone to the government and to the American Academy of Pediatrics -- an organization to which, it's worth noting, they're heavy donors. Their strategy apparently worked; AAP President Carden Johnston sent a letter to DHHS expressing concern about the campaign. That angered the AAP's Section on Breastfeeding, whose chairman wrote in a letter to other pediatricians that the incident "raises many questions about the leadership of the AAP and the influence of formula companies on AAP activities."
In the end, the government pulled the plug on the ads.
"There are so many things in breast milk that aren't in formula," said Ruth Stevens, a lactation consultant at Cooley Dickinson Hospital. "There are over 200 different constituents in breast milk, and maybe 30 of them they've gotten into formula."
Breast milk contains antibodies that provide valuable immunities. Numerous studies conclude that breastfed babies have fewer colds, allergies, ear infections and other diseases, are less likely to suffer from respiratory problems or diarrhea and are less prone to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Long-term, they have higher IQs and are less likely to develop diabetes, asthma, obesity, coronary artery disease, digestive disorders like Crohn's and cancer. Women who breastfeed have lower rates of osteoporosis and certain cancers.
There are environmental benefits; breastfeeding doesn't involve the production and waste that formula does. It's cheap -- in fact, free. It's convenient -- no formula to mix, no bottles to warm or wash.
[...] "There's no excuse for the numbers we have in this country," said Dia Michels, co-author of Milk, Money and Madness: The Culture and Politics of Breastfeeding . She's unimpressed by the breastfeeding goals set by the federal Department of Health and Human Service's "Healthy People 2010" program. That calls for 75 percent of new mothers to initiate breastfeeding, 50 percent to continue to six months and 25 percent to make it to one year.
"Seventy-five percent -- what kind of shit-ass goal is that?" asked Michels, reeling off a list of other countries where the overwhelming majority of babies are breastfed.
[...] Last fall, Health and Human Services was poised to launch a major pro-breastfeeding public service campaign, with ads that focused on the risks of opting not to nurse and emphasized that formula was not comparable to breast milk. But before they ever aired, the campaign came to a screeching halt.
It seems the formula companies got wind of the ads and took their complaints about the campaign's "negative" tone to the government and to the American Academy of Pediatrics -- an organization to which, it's worth noting, they're heavy donors. Their strategy apparently worked; AAP President Carden Johnston sent a letter to DHHS expressing concern about the campaign. That angered the AAP's Section on Breastfeeding, whose chairman wrote in a letter to other pediatricians that the incident "raises many questions about the leadership of the AAP and the influence of formula companies on AAP activities."
In the end, the government pulled the plug on the ads.
This
print ad was part of the government's original campaign but was later
dropped. It says that if a baby is not breast-fed, there is an
increased risk of diabetes. Advocates Say Government Pressured by
Formula Companies to ‘Water Down’ Breast-Feeding Ads
By Brian Ross and Jill Rackmill; ABCNEWS.com
June 4, 2004—
The U.S. government has unveiled a new advertising campaign to promote
breast-feeding, after months of fierce lobbying to change its approach,
ABC News has learned.
The campaign, announced today in Washington, D.C., is much different than what was first produced.
In what has been called a battle between mother's milk and corporate power, the companies that make infant formula put intense pressure on the government to change its approach.
ABC News has obtained the ads that were produced but never aired. One of the ads showed pregnant women at a roller derby violently competing and then the message: "You wouldn't risk your baby's health before it's born. Why start after?"
The other spots obtained by ABC News include pregnant women at a logrolling contest and riding a mechanical bull. They ended with a list of diseases that the ads said were more common among babies not breast-fed, including diabetes, leukemia and ear infections.
The ads were sponsored by the government and produced by the Ad Council, a nonprofit group that produces, distributes and promotes public service announcements. The ads were set to be released last December, but some formula companies complained after getting an early sneak preview of the ads before they hit the airwaves.
A spokesperson for the International Formula Council, the trade group for the formula industry, said they support breast-feeding and only objected to the commercials because they felt they were too negative in tone and inaccurate. No company official would talk to 20/20 about the efforts to kill the ads. In letters to the Department of Health and Human Services, the lobbyists praised the merits of breast-feeding while adding concerns over the message the ads would send to mothers.
[...] "The fact that they managed to get this campaign watered down is evidence that money can influence good medicine, and that large amounts of money can influence even good doctors," said [Dr. Jay] Gordon.
He suspects the campaign would have cost the formula manufacturers "hundreds of millions of dollars."
The campaign also killed a series of print ads that claimed that babies not breast-fed were at greater risk of certain diseases. The changes were so substantial that the ad agency that first conceived the campaign no longer wants to be associated with it.
The campaign, announced today in Washington, D.C., is much different than what was first produced.
In what has been called a battle between mother's milk and corporate power, the companies that make infant formula put intense pressure on the government to change its approach.
ABC News has obtained the ads that were produced but never aired. One of the ads showed pregnant women at a roller derby violently competing and then the message: "You wouldn't risk your baby's health before it's born. Why start after?"
The other spots obtained by ABC News include pregnant women at a logrolling contest and riding a mechanical bull. They ended with a list of diseases that the ads said were more common among babies not breast-fed, including diabetes, leukemia and ear infections.
The ads were sponsored by the government and produced by the Ad Council, a nonprofit group that produces, distributes and promotes public service announcements. The ads were set to be released last December, but some formula companies complained after getting an early sneak preview of the ads before they hit the airwaves.
A spokesperson for the International Formula Council, the trade group for the formula industry, said they support breast-feeding and only objected to the commercials because they felt they were too negative in tone and inaccurate. No company official would talk to 20/20 about the efforts to kill the ads. In letters to the Department of Health and Human Services, the lobbyists praised the merits of breast-feeding while adding concerns over the message the ads would send to mothers.
[...] "The fact that they managed to get this campaign watered down is evidence that money can influence good medicine, and that large amounts of money can influence even good doctors," said [Dr. Jay] Gordon.
He suspects the campaign would have cost the formula manufacturers "hundreds of millions of dollars."
The campaign also killed a series of print ads that claimed that babies not breast-fed were at greater risk of certain diseases. The changes were so substantial that the ad agency that first conceived the campaign no longer wants to be associated with it.
One point that should be emphasized is that the American Academy of Pediatrics does not oppose breastfeeding; most of the material on their web site actively promotes it. Their own official Policy Statement is unequivocal:
- Human milk is the preferred feeding for all infants, including premature and sick newborns, with rare exceptions.75-77 The ultimate decision on feeding of the infant is the mother's. Pediatricians should provide parents with complete, current information on the benefits and methods of breastfeeding to ensure that the feeding decision is a fully informed one. When direct breastfeeding is not possible, expressed human milk, fortified when necessary for the premature infant, should be provided.78,79 Before advising against breastfeeding or recommending premature weaning, the practitioner should weigh thoughtfully the benefits of breastfeeding against the risks of not receiving human milk.
- Breastfeeding should begin as soon as possible after birth, usually within the first hour.80-82 Except under special circumstances, the newborn infant should remain with the mother throughout the recovery period.80,83,84 Procedures that may interfere with breastfeeding or traumatize the infant should be avoided or minimized.
But I don't want to burn bandwidth with a diatribe against the AAP. The Bush administration is responsible for the actions of the Department of Health and Human Services; therefore, most of the blame goes to them. The Secretary of HHS is Tommy Thompson. How qualified is he to make scientific judgments? He has a B.S. (1963), and a J.D. (1966) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Here is part of his bio, from the Whitehouse.gov site:
Health
and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson is the nation's leading
advocate for the health and welfare of all Americans. He is the 19th
individual to serve as Secretary of the department, which employs more
than 60,000 personnel and has a fiscal year 2001 budget of $429 billion. Secretary Thompson has dedicated
his professional life to public service, most recently serving as
governor of Wisconsin since 1987. Secretary Thompson made state history
when he was re-elected to office for a third term in 1994 and a fourth
term in 1998. During
his 14 years as governor, Secretary Thompson focused on revitalizing
Wisconsin's economy [...]So he is a successful attorney/politician who emphasizes economic matters. The darnedest thing about this is that the decision to water down the breast-feeding ad campaign is directly contrary to the stated goals of the Republican Party, including the ecomonic goals. Sure, they are pro-business, and Dr. Jay Gordon is on record as having speculated that the ad campaign would have cost the formula manufacturers "hundreds of millions of dollars." However, this economic cost is microscopic, compared to the benefits. According to the Economic Research Service of the US Dept. of Agriculture (in a report prepared during the Bush administration):
A
minimum of $3.6 billion would be saved if breastfeeding were increased
from current levels (64 percent in-hospital, 29 percent at 6 months) to
those recommended by the U.S. Surgeon General (75 and 50 percent).
A significant amount of the money saved would come by reducing health care costs:
This
figure reflected approximately $3.1 billion attributable to preventing
premature deaths (necrotizing enterocolitis), and an additional $0.5
billion in annual savings associated with reducing traditional medical
expenditures (for example, doctors’ or hospital visits, laboratory
tests, among others) and indirect costs, such as lost earnings of
parents.
The report states that their $3.6 billion figure probably is a misunderestimation. So even if the ad campaign cost the infant formula industry hundreds of millions of dollars, the economy as a whole still would be better off with higher rates of breastfeeding. One of the planks of the Republican platform is that they advocate improving the economy, and here they go, shooting themselves in the wallet.
Another tenet of Republican policy is their supposed pro-life stance. Breastfeeding is associated with lower infant mortality rates. From the British Medical Journal:
For
several decades we have known that artificially fed infants have
much higher rates of morbidity and mortality than those who are
breastfed. Breast milk contains immunoglobulins, phagocytes, T
lymphocytes, enzymes such as lysozymes, and many other factors which
help protect the infant against infections,4 including cells, antibodies, hormones, and other
important constituents not
present in infant formula.
To clarify, in medical parlance, the term morbidity refers to illness that stops short of causing death. From the AAP's policy statement:
Epidemiologic
research shows that human milk and breastfeeding of
infants provide advantages with regard to general health, growth, and
development, while significantly decreasing risk for a large number of
acute and chronic diseases. Research in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and other developed countries, among predominantly
middle-class populations, provides strong evidence that human milk
feeding decreases the incidence and/or severity of
diarrhea,1-5 lower respiratory
infection,6-9 otitis media,3,10-14
bacteremia,15,16 bacterial meningitis,15,17 botulism,18 urinary tract infection,19 and
necrotizing enterocolitis.20,21 There are a number of
studies that show a possible protective effect of human milk feeding
against sudden infant death syndrome,22-24 insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,25-27 Crohn's
disease,28,29 ulcerative colitis,29
lymphoma,30,31 allergic diseases,32-34 and
other chronic digestive diseases.35-37 Breastfeeding has
also been related to possible enhancement of cognitive
development.38,39
To expand on the health benefits of breastfeeding, and provide additional evidence for reduction in health care costs, I cite also this article:
[...]
Premature breastmilk contains different amounts of some nutrients than
term breastmilk, more suited to the needs of premature babies.
Necrotizing Enterocolitis, a serious bowel inflammation, is very rare
for breastfed infants. And of course they get the same immune
protection, which may be even more critical for prematures, and has
been shown to reduce the risk of sepsis in these babies. Suckling at
the breast, and digesting breast milk, cause less stress for the
premature infant than bottle-feeding does; so most prematures can go to
breast as soon as they are able to suckle. Because of the reduction in
infections and the shorter time to full feeding, breastfed premature
infants can usually leave the NICU sooner. For some babies,
breastfeeding is a life-and-death matter. In addition to its known
benefit where water supplies are unsafe or food supplies erratic,
breastfeeding lowers the risk of SIDS in all populations. [...]
NICU stands for neonatal intensive care unit. The cost of NICU care is well over $1000 per day. Clearly, if you are pro-life, and favor economic expansion, you also must advocate breastfeeding.
Part of the Republican platform, regarding health care, is the recognition of the seriousness of the obesity epidemic. From the GOP.com statement on the Republican platform:
Children's Health. The huge strides we have
already made in improving children's health must be balanced against
sobering statistics. Asthma affects nearly five million children, and
the incidence is dramatically increasing. Childhood obesity has jumped
100 percent in the last 15 years and can be a forerunner of the most
serious illnesses later in life. Diabetes is now the second most common
chronic disease in children. [...]
Although the evidence for the role of breastfeeding in reducing the
risk of obesity is inconclusive,
it is strong enough that a recent article in the Archives
of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine recommends breastfeeding as a
way to reduce the risk of obesity. Thus, it would stand to reason
that the Republican Party would support breastfeeding promotion to the
fullest extent. I suppose the Platform for 2004 won't be finalized
until the convention, so perhaps we should give them a little more time
to include breastfeeding. Perhaps someone from the La Leche League will
give a speech during the convention.In conclusion, we see that the Administration has deliberately watered down the impact of their breastfeeding advocacy program, apparently in response to lobbying from the infant formula industry. Although this is superficially consistent with their pro-economic-growth platform, closer examination reveals that the action actually contradicts their policies in many ways. Not only that, but it was a dumb thing to do.
Some final words:
"That
ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her
consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance
of her glory."
-- Isaiah 66:11
"Thou art He that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's womb."
-- Psalm 22:9,10
"the breast may be waved for a wave offering before theLord ."
-- Leviticus 7:30
"Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."
-- Proverbs 9:15
"Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies."
-- Song of Songs 4:5
"I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare."
-- Ezekiel 16:7
-- Isaiah 66:11
"Thou art He that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's womb."
-- Psalm 22:9,10
"the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the
-- Leviticus 7:30
"Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."
-- Proverbs 9:15
"Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies."
-- Song of Songs 4:5
"I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare."
-- Ezekiel 16:7
(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
Comments:
Post a Comment
