http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20523460/
Under pressure from infant formula lobby, appointees dilute campaign
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.
The ads ran instead with more friendly images of dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops, to dramatize how breast-feeding could help avert respiratory problems and obesity. In a February 2004 letter, the lobbyists told then-HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson they were "grateful" for his staff's intervention to stop health officials from "scaring expectant mothers into breast-feeding," and asked for help in scaling back more of the ads.
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.
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.
Political interference?
"This is a credible allegation of political interference that might have had serious public health consequences," said Waxman, a California Democrat.
The milder campaign HHS eventually used had no discernible impact on the nation's breast-feeding rate, which lags behind the rate in many European countries.
Some senior HHS officials involved in the deliberations over the ad campaign defended the outcome, saying the final ads raised the profile of breast-feeding while following the scientific evidence available then -- which they say did not fully support the claims of the original ad campaign.
But other current and former HHS officials say the muting of the ads was not the only episode in which HHS missed a chance to try to raise the breast-feeding rate. In April, according to officials and documents, the department chose not to promote a comprehensive analysis by its own Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) of multiple studies on breast-feeding, which generally found it was 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.
'No media outreach'
Wanda K. Jones, director of the women's health office, said agency media officials have "all been hammering me" about getting Haynes to stop trying to draw attention to the AHRQ report. HHS press officer Rebecca Ayer emphatically told Haynes and others in mid-July that there should be "no media outreach to anyone" on that topic, current and former officials said.
Here's my thought on this. I think the original ad campaign would have been a lot more powerful in convincing women to choose to breastfeed. But at the same time, the ads would have heaped a lot of guilt on mamas who have already ff or had to stop breastfeeding for whatever reason. I don't think an ad campaign like this could really be effective in getting women to sustain breastfeeding. Not when there are so many doctors, who women rely on to help them make the best decisions for their babies, that are completely unsupportive of bfing. I think they need an ad/education campaign targetting doctors about the benefits of breastfeeding and how when a problem comes up, the first suggestion shouldn't be switching to formula.
But obviously, that's not the reason this ad campaign was watered down. It's bs that the formula companies have enough power to make sure women aren't properly educated on the benefits of breatfeeding so that they can make more money.
I can't believe people go thru the lengths they do to stop women from doing something that their bodies are made to do and that is sooo incredibly healthy for their children. I believe women should have the choice to ff or bf but should have all the facts of both laid out before them. Hiding something like this is totally and completely ridiculus, but I agree CanadianMama that that ad campaign would have made some mothers feel bad. I don't think that the drs will change their minds on it if they are pro-formula tho. They are drs and know all the benefits of bfiing but still choose to be pro-formula. I think leaflets or something to that effects should be handed out with all the pros and cons of both ff and bf especially in low income ares where it is actually cheaper and more benefical to bf.
On one level, yes there'd be mama guilt. But on another level, if the formula companies are giving $ to the pediatricians to say formula is just as good, and we can't seem to stop them from doing it (especially in lower income offices where money is short and needs are high) maybe a really hard hitting marketing campaign could give moms the information and strength to look at the doctor and say NO could be really helpful.
There's guilt to go along with every parenting choice, are we going to let that get in the way of promoting more healthy kids?
Not that anyone did let that get in the way, politics are taking that job.
No I wasn't really saying that they shouldn't have used the ads because mamas would have felt guilty. I just mentioned the guilt factor in passing. My main point was that, with doctors still on the side of formula companies, I don't think the ad campaign would be effective at increasing the amount of women who sustain breastfeeding past 1 month, 6 months, or a year (all timeframes that different doctors will tell you was "enough" to give your baby the benefits of breastfeeding and that any more isn't really beneficial to them).