Formula companies making health care policy?
A few years back, the department of Health and Human Services planned an ad campaign meant to encourage women to breastfeed by referencing research that breastfed infants are much less likely to be diagnosed with diabetes and asthma. The ads were meant to startle: One featured a syringe covered with a bottle nipple; another had an asthma inhaler similarly topped.
But we never saw these ads. Instead the HHS campaign released ads with images of dandelion fields and cherry-topped ice cream scoops (wha? sounds porn-y), as a way to dramatize that breastfeeding may help curb respiratory problems and obesity.
Why the switch? Ask the formula lobbyists, who subsequently wrote to then HHS director Tommy Thompson expressing their gratitude that his staff stopped health officials from “scaring expectant mothers into breast-feeding.”
The formula industry’s intervention — which did not block the ads but helped change their content — is being scrutinized by Congress in the wake of last month’s testimony by former surgeon general Richard H. Carmona that the Bush administration repeatedly allowed political considerations to interfere with his efforts to promote public health.
It goes something like this: Former high-ranking government officials became lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies who also manufacture and market baby formula. These pharmaceutical companies are big time political donors. So the lobbyists get the ears of current high-ranking government officials, like the director of Health and Human Services. And suddenly you get a much softer, less “offensive”, and arguably less effective, pro-breastfeeding campaign.
Duane Alexander, head of the government’s National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, defended pulling the more aggressive ads, noting that he was concerned that the claims being made by the ads had no basis in science. But those behind the HHS breastfeeding outreach project strongly disagree:
Speaking to the International Lactation Consultant Association in 2005, [Suzanne] Haynes, of the HHS women’s health office, said she was “overruled.” Veteran pediatrician and breast-feeding researcher Ruth A. Lawrence of the University of Rochester, who was on the initial advisory committee brought together by Haynes, said the science undergirding the ads was “entirely convincing. Everyone on the committee had to agree on a finding before it was approved. We were very distressed by what happened.”
Here are two of the original ads:
And here’s one from the revised campaign:
Oh yeah, them dandelions really grab ya! And see how they look like boobies?
And the controversy continues. This past April, HHS decided not to promote the analysis of its own Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality, which found that breastfeeding is associated with fewer ear and gastrointestinal infections, as well as lower rates of diabetes, leukemia, obesity, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome.
The report did not assert a direct cause and effect, because doing so would require studies in which some women are told not to breast-feed their infants — a request considered unethical, given the obvious health benefits of the practice.
A top HHS official said that at the time, Suzanne Haynes, an epidemiologist and senior science adviser for the department’s Office on Women’s Health, argued strongly in favor of promoting the new conclusions in the media and among medical professionals. But her office, which commissioned the report, was specifically instructed by political appointees not to disseminate a news release.
Look, we’re not stupid. We know that lobbies basically run things in Washington. So why not just get it over with and mandate formula feeding once and for all?
(See also, Who Wrote the Breastfeeding Ads?)
Posted by MommaSteph.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
OR…
Those first two ads quite frankly suck. I didn’t even make the connection with the nipples, and surely wouldn’t have read the accompanying text (I would’ve assumed they would’ve been about insulin or asthma inhalers, and moved on). The boob flowers caught my eye. Porny? Ok. But it worked.
Additionally, who’s to say that negative reinforcement (breastfeed, or else Very Bad Things will happen to your child) is more effective that positive reinforcement (do this, and it’s more likely that Very Good Things will happen to your child), and that the only possible reason for the change was due to corporate greed? (Surely seems counter to current psychological thinking, no?) Seems to me that they did whomever came up with the original ads a favor.
Finally, my latest hot button is when the breastfeeding advocacy is treated like it’s this altruistic David standing up to the Goliath formula companies. Please. As someone who spent over $1,000 trying to breastfeed, let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that there’s not a burgeoning industry sprouting up around it. Just because it’s smaller certainly makes it no less pure in terms of intent.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Oops… last sentence, I mean no more pure. Preggo brain.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I think I’ve said this many times before - as a twice-failed breastfeeder, I was grateful to have formula for my babies.
But whether or not the older ads sucked is beside the point. I don’t want the formula lobby with its big campaign dollars insinuating its way into health care policy decisions, period.
I don’t want Madame Formula Feeders Are Victims/Lazy/Stupid in there either, by the way.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Tex, I have to disagree with you. I’d say most women spend very little to get breastfeeding established (perhaps one or two visits with an LC, say $150, and another $300 for a good pump at the MOST). It’s a far less lucrative “business” than formula, which assures a much higher amount than $450.
Also, I disagree with you about the effectiveness of the ads. I think women have been conditioned into believing that if you formula feed it’s good, but breastfeeding is better so “why not give it a try.” I’m not sure that scaring women is the right approach, but making a mockery of breastfeeding, which I belive the dandelion boobs do (and I noticed right away the ridiculous symbolism before even reading mommasteph’s comment), in no way supports breastfeeding as the best way to feed your baby either. And pictures on the ads aside, just look at the wording - the top two ads have actual statistics, the bottom ad just has a weak phrase “help reduce your child’s risk of respitory illness.” Doesn’t really hit home to me.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“But whether or not the older ads sucked is beside the point.”
You’re right, it is beside the point… sort of. A letter was sent from the formula industry, and some changes were made to the campaign. Some assert a cause-and-effect relationship there… but frankly, all of those people are so bogged down in their own political agendas that absolutely none of them can be trusted. (This whole thing is part of a larger political attack on the Bush administration. To me, the larger foul to be cried here is that it seems NOTHING is off-limits when it comes to manipulating facts for political reasons.)
It could also be that these two things are completely unrelated, too, could it not? That a letter was sent, and the ads were changed, and the two were completely unrelated? I’m not saying that lobbyists don’t have power, but in this particular case — when the ads (IMO) simply weren’t good, I think it’s prudent to just stop and think for a minute before taking the explanation handed at face value.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
To Pager12’s comments… regardless of whether or not the amount I spent was representative of an average expenditure, the fact still remains that there are an increasing number of people who make their living from the business of breastfeeding, and to ignore this because they’re the alleged “good” guys simply doesn’t make sense to me.
As far as your personal interpretation of the ads… everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion on the topic, but as a woman who did breastfeed, the ads are obviously not (or at least, hopefully not) intended for you as an audience. For example, the fact that the top ads had statistics (which, incidentally, the HHS claimed they were uncomfortable defending, which is part of the reason they claimed to pull the ad) in no way makes it universally a good ad. It makes it more appealing to YOU… but chances are, people who are compelled by statistical research will already be breastfeeding, no?
I will admit that how one interprets the ads in terms of quality is highly subjective, and as such, there is little to be gained in arguing specifics, particularly as we are not the target audience. But here’s what I do know: for those interested in statistics/research and that make decisions based on logic and reason, the facts are MORE than out there. Yet some women still don’t breastfeed. Why dump more of the same argument on them? It’s obviously not working. Maybe they need to see dandelions as boobies to catch their attention, who knows. (Ideally, someone would know, because they would’ve bothered to stop and ask these women why they’re still not breastfeeding, despite all of the information out there. But the problem is that advocacy groups such as this one are so busy being *right* that they’re not concerned with being *effective*. But alas, I feel like I’ve been down this road before…)
August 31st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“Some assert a cause-and-effect relationship there…”
I’ll follow the hearings and see what comes out. But as the President’s own former Surgeon General complained that he was pressured to suppress health information on politically sensitive topics, it’s not a stretch to believe that the formula lobby sent a thank you to Tommy Thompson because they achieved their aim not through odd serendipity - or because they had really good advice that was gratefully integrated into the campaign - but because they have money and access, and they made it happen, against the wishes of the actual doctors, scientists, and health care experts who reviewed the research.
If there’s a link between formula feeding and diabetes, the science should stand on its own merits and should be put out there. If suddenly it’s learned that there is no link, I don’t want the nursing bra manufacturers to have any part in suppressing the findings.
August 31st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
“the fact still remains that there are an increasing number of people who make their living from the business of breastfeeding…”
I suppose that’s true, but the formula companies are sort of a united front all with the same agenda - to sell their product. Those that make a living to promote breastfeeding are more a disjointed group of individuals - I don’t see them as a group that pools their resources in order to further some political agenda. At least that’s how I see it.
“Why dump more of the same argument on them?” I see it as flooding the population with a message to drill the point home. The more one hears it, the more it seems “normal.” kwim? Just like the more people breastfeed in public, the less turned-off people will be by it. I think women continue not to breastfeed b’c they still don’t see it as the norm. I believe in my heart of hearts that formula companies are to blame for this.
August 31st, 2007 at 6:20 pm
“but chances are, people who are compelled by statistical research will already be breastfeeding, no?”
hmmm, I’m not sure what target audience to which you refer. It seems you are talking strictly from your experience, which is you tried and tried, spent $1000, and still couldn’t get bfing to work. I don’t think that is who these ads are targeting either. I believe they are targeting those that decide from the moment they get pregnant that breastfeeding “isn’t for them.” It is this kind of mentality that breastfeeding advocates would like to change, and I believe they think the right way to do this is to inform them not only of the benefits of breastfeeding, but of the dangers of not.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
First, regarding this:
“Those that make a living to promote breastfeeding are more a disjointed group of individuals - I don’t see them as a group that pools their resources in order to further some political agenda.”
Yeah, I disagree. I do believe there are some BF advocates who seem to promote BF for the sake of the benefits of BF, and that’s great. But unfortunately, a lot of times the “promotion of BF” seems to be part of a larger anti-capitalist agenda, and that’s what’s hard to swallow. My original point was that the post in its original form seemed to be a version of that position, and I was simply asking that a little more critical thinking be applied before leaping to such conclusions. (The author has since satisfied my concerns in this regard… LOL) I do agree that the BF advocacy is not nearly as well-organized or resource rich. But there are definitely some factions of it where I don’t believe they are without a larger agenda, and certainly it’s not a pure one.
I agree with you here:
“I believe they are targeting those that decide from the moment they get pregnant that breastfeeding “isn’t for them.””
I think where we disagree is that I don’t automatically assume that this decision is because the women don’t understand the health benefits of breastfeeding.
For example, I just read recently somewhere (can’t remember where) that there’s some faction of women who don’t breastfeed who come from impoverished backgrounds where formula feeding is perceived as a symbol of prestige, as it demonstrates the mother has the financial wherewithal to spend frivolously on her baby.
If that’s true, you can “flood” them with as many health arguments as you want… it’s simply just not going to matter. In fact, it’s very well possible that these women know full well that breastfeeding is healthier, but that’s not their top priority. And unless the formula companies are in these communities putting up billboards of blingy mommies formula feeding blingy babies, I fail to see how they’re responsible for this mentality.
(I don’t know what percentage of non-breastfeeding women this represents, but sadly, I don’t think anyone else does, either, which is what bugs the heck out of me about the BF advocacy. It’s Marketing 101, folks… understand your audience. People assume far too often that everyone else thinks like them, and thus would be compelled by the same things by which they are personally compelled. That just isn’t so. But I digress…)
“I think women continue not to breastfeed b’c they still don’t see it as the norm. I believe in my heart of hearts that formula companies are to blame for this.”
Yeah, this is another one of those issues that remains subjective in interpretation because the BF advocacy hasn’t got their shiznit together to do the research to figure it out. (Which makes me question either the underlying intelligence or motivation of its leadership… but again, I digress.) I can only speak from my own experience here (as can we all, given the absence of good research), but I’ll freely admit to saying that while I do see breastfeeding as the norm, I don’t see it as necessary. This has NOTHING to do with the formula companies, but rather having raised a daughter who ultimately did just fine on formula. Again, with the lack of truly valid insight into the people about which we’re talking, though, it really is one of those places where you just have to agree to disagree.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
“I was simply asking that a little more critical thinking be applied before leaping to such conclusions.”
Ahem. Just because we disagree doesn’t mean I am not using critical thinking.
“a lot of times the “promotion of BF” seems to be part of a larger anti-capitalist agenda” — Hmmm, anti-capitalist? Because they believe the formula companies should stop pushing their product on new moms? Yup, I guess I’d have to agree with you there. And while I’m a big proponent of capitalism, this is one area where I’d have to say…too bad.
Your example about formula feeding being a symbol of prestige…I guess I’d like to see the source. If it is true that some do think like that (which I don’t doubt there are, sadly), it is I guess one more area where education is needed. You might not think educating people will matter, but I do.
“People assume far too often that everyone else thinks like them…” Um, are you talking about yourself here? LOL. Because I think you are forgetting about the thousands and thousands (millions?) of less fortunate women who really and truly aren’t educated about their choices, and are easily swayed by commercials they see on TV, and the free formula handouts they get at the hospitals. I also think that some women hear the benefits of breastfeeding, but then they also hear about how great formula is (not saying it isn’t a safe alternative, but again it shouldn’t be the norm) and for those that can’t be bothered with breastfeeding b’c they see them as equal, this is troubling. The fact is, like it or not, formula is not equal to breastmilk. If it were, then they wouldn’t keep coming up with “better” formulas with chemicals that are “most like breastmilk.” This doesn’t mean you can’t raise a healthy child on formula, but I really believe babies were meant to drink breastmilk and formula should be the last resort.
I’m curious, why do you think opinions about breastfeeding have changed over the last 100 years?
March 15th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
ylrojaes…
ylrojaes…