Jeannie Babb Taylor: The problem with breastfeeding
10/03/07
Jeannie Babb Taylor
What if doctors discovered a substance so potent, it could prevent
dozens of diseases and even reduce the risk of cancer? What if these
benefits extended not only to those who partake of this amazing
substance, but also those who serve it? If a pharmaceutical company had
developed it, it would be a billion-dollar industry. Breast milk,
though, is free. Without a visible profit stream, it also lacks a
marketing team.
Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both
givers and receivers --- yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no
campaign statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study
(147,000 participants) found that American women could cut their breast
cancer risk by 33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding
from three months to thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The
ACS concluded that significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was
"unrealistic" and instead continues to focus on mammograms, cancer
prevention drugs and other methods that put money in the pockets of
physician groups and pharmaceutical companies.
Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child
Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education.
Instead, the NICH organized the "Back to Sleep" campaign encouraging
parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor
of the Back to Sleep campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food
manufacturer. Is it any surprise there is no financial backing to
promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention tool?
Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to
the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is "as important
to preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat
use, and proper infant sleep position." Yet a recent AAP survey found
that 45 percent of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and
breast-feeding as equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the
money to understand this phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples,
perks, and gifts from formula companies --- a practice condemned by the
World Health Organization (WHO.)
Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of
breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year
tripping up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician' s office,
the hospitals where babies are born, and the pediatrician' s office.
Formula makers ensure that every mother goes home with a couple of cans
of formula, so it will be available in the middle of the night when the
baby is crying, she is exhausted from lack of sleep and she is
vulnerable to the insecurities American society has pressed on her day
after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers start breastfeeding,
within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 11.3% of babies
are still exclusively breastfed at six months.
It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed,
when everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women
in most other developed countries, American women receive no paid
maternity leave. Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them
through the first months of mothering. Women who support themselves are
forced to return to work, where it is often impossible to bring an
infant, and pumping opportunities may be few and far between, with
unsanitary conditions.
Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding
Promotion Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
protect breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives
employers a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees
with equipment, dedicated space and consultation for pumping breast
milk. The bill establishes standards for breast pumps, and creates tax
breaks for women who purchase breast pumps in order to maintain employment.
Maloney says, "I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired
for trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill
clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding
under federal civil rights law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or
discriminated against in the workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or
breastfeeding during breaks or lunch time."
At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed
--- after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of
infants in terms of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and
learning disabilities. Yet the formula-makers find these mothers, too.
Government programs take away one of the incentives for breastfeeding by
shelling out $600 million per year to put low-income infants on the
bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased healthcare cost
of these children.
The U.S. government has certainly been slow to recognize the fountain of
youth. Reagan and the first Bush both refused to ratify the World Health
Organization' s breastfeeding code, designed to protect new mothers from
formula makers' guerilla marketing tactics. The code was not recognized
by the U.S. until Clinton signed it in 1994, and it is still not enforced.
Recently, a handful of individual states sought to enforce the code.
They especially want to stop hospital formula marketing, because once a
baby receives a bottle, the mother and baby are confronted with a whole
host of problems including nipple confusion and inadequate milk supply.
If successful breastfeeding is not established within the first few
days, formula-makers are practically guaranteed a new customer.
In Massachusetts, it was Governor Mitt Romney who struck down a ban on
hospital marketing. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced that he
had secured the construction of a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in
Devens, Massachusetts. The plant is owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the
largest formula manufacturer in the world.
Outside the U.S., things are no better. Nestle actually targets babies
in developing countries, where breastfeeding has the greatest potential
for good. Babies are routinely hooked on formula in third world
hospitals and sent home without ever establishing breastfeeding. Back in
the village, families soon discover that the cost of buying formula is
higher than their entire wage.
As a result of Nestle's tactics, sub-Saharan Africa has a breastfeeding
rate of only 32%; Asia, 35%; Indonesia, 39%, Vietnam, 19%, and Thailand,
5%. According to WHO and UNICEF, approximately 1.5 million babies die
each year because they were started on formula instead of breast milk.
American women who breastfeed should expect resistance from a society
that depicts over-sized breasts on magazine covers and billboards, yet
rejects the breast's highest function. Numerous polls show that the
majority of Americans are comfortable seeing women breastfeed in public;
yet, a few shrill voices continue to insist that it is improper.
American women have been harassed or thrown out of libraries,
restaurants and public parks for the simple act of breastfeeding. One
woman was even expelled from a Vermont Delta Freedom flight for
breastfeeding her child, resulting in nurse-ins at Delta counters across
the nation.
Most recently, comedian Bill Maher praised Appleby's for discriminating
against a nursing mother, asserting that women who breastfeed in public
are lazy and narcissistic. Maher's other comments, which are too crude
to be printed in the county paper, illustrate that what bothers some
people about breastfeeding isn't that it is perceived as sexual, but
rather that it is not. Hooters, wet T-shirt contests and Playboy
magazines are just fine with people like Maher, who believe that breasts
are not for babies, but for men.
Although doctors agree that "breast is best," their own licensing board
does not follow their recommendations. Breastfeeding mother and aspiring
doctor Sophie Currier had to sue the National Board of Medical Examiners
for the right to take pumping breaks during her nine-hour licensing
exam. In typical anti-feminist fashion, the judge told Sophie she would
just have to take the exam when her child was older and finished
breastfeeding. She would have lost her residency in clinical pathology
at Massachusetts General Hospital and derailed her career. Sophie
appealed the decision, and won.
The "problem" with breastfeeding is that it lacks a corporate profit
stream. It profits mothers and babies tremendously. It profits families,
the government and taxpayers. The USDA estimates that $3.6 million in
healthcare costs could be saved if more U.S. babies were breastfed.
Unfortunately, nothing much happens in America unless it lines the
pocket of a corporation. WHO cares about breastfeeding, but corporate
America never will.
We live in a culture that despises human bodily fluids --- even as we
feed our children cow's milk and use pregnant mare urine (Premarin) to
balance menopausal hormones. Canadian researchers are even developing
medicines based on genetically- engineered pig semen. The market for
animal fluids continues to grow, because there is a profit stream
associated with it. If formula companies maintain control of doctors and
legislators, a day may come when humans are no longer classified as
mammals. Mammals, after all, are defined as animals that have hair and
suckle their young.
Jeannie Babb Taylor is a local business leader and author. She also
teaches Sunday school, educates her children at home, and engages in
Georgia politics. Jeannie may be contacted at jeannie@babb. com, or you
can leave a public comment on her blog OntheOtherHandColum n.blogspot. com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Winter solstice party
5 hours ago
