Interpreting Research and Studies...Don't believe everything the media tells you.

Last week my local news channel did breastfeeding a major disservice. They ran a story that was a clip lasting less than 5 seconds, showing bf mom footage, and the news story voice over was saying that in breastfeeding moms with asthma, "Studies show that their babies have decreased lung capacity".I immediately contacted the news room at News 12 and challenged them. I asked the person on the phone to tell me what study they referred to so I could read it, and he told me he did not know. So I told him that I am disappointed that in a less than 5 second clip, the message that gets across is that breastfeeding moms should not breastfeed. I asked him to think about how good and reliable studies have shown that breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of asthma to the baby, and to consider the idea that maybe the lung capacity is related more to the genetics of being born to an asthmatic mother, and had nothing to do with breastfeeding.He did not have an answer, just told me it wasn't their news story, they were just quoting the article, then took my info and said they would contact me if they went further with the story. After I hung up I sent a follow-up email, and then set out to find that study, and here it is:http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3133919420071101
Ok, so number one, who funded this study? I heard rumors that it was funded by three major pharmaceutical companies. That would not surprise me at all. Pharmaceutical companies are not big supporters of breastfeeding. Why? you ask? Well evidence shows that breastfeeding prevents illnesses, diseases, hospitalizations, and that certainly does not pad the pockets of the drug companies. Drug companies make their money off of illness and disease,and while I am all for finding cures and recognize all of the important work of drug companies, I much prefer preventing the diseases in the first place. As far as the study, anyone can conduct a study, it is how the study is conducted that is the most important in determining the accuracy and merit of the findings. Differences in research design and analytic methods have complicated the interpretation of many studies, I would encourage my local news and any other media that reports on this to re-examine the study cited in this story and see if its a quality study worthy of air time. I encourage the media to investigate reliable studies that have overwhelmingy shown that breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of asthma to the baby, and to consider the idea that maybe the lung capacity is related more to the genetics of being born to an asthmatic mother, and had nothing to do with breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is especially important if there is a family history of asthma/ respiratory disease, because breastfeeding significantly decreases the risks of passing this on to the baby.As a Health Care Professional that spends so much time trying to promote and encourage breastfeeding with new moms, it is very upsetting to know the message that one tiny clip said will be heard by so many. It would have been better if they had made it longer, with statements from a bf knowledgeable MD, or a lactation professional and asked for their opinion. The most important thing would have been to make sure that the fact that asthma is NOT a contraindication to breastfeeding. There were a few positive things I read about breastfeeding benefits last week as well, how come news 12 did not cover that? For one, here is an article about BF and a higher IQ: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071105/sc_nm/breastfeeding_iq_dc;_ylt=Ags6p
and here is an article on how breastfeeding is good for the heart:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071105/sc_nm/breastfeeding_iq_dc;_ylt=Ags6p.
So as far as News 12, here are my words to you:Do you know that feeding a baby formula increases the risk of asthma, diabetes, ear infections, certain childhood cancers, and SIDS? There is plenty more I can list here as to the benefits of breastfeeding, but I would be typing all day. I encourage you to read the AAP's policy statement on Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. I also ask you to look at these facts-One sudden infant death for every 1000 live birth occurs as a result of failure to breastfeed in western industrialized nations.For every 1000 babies born in the U.Ss each year, four die because they are not breastfed. How would news 12 feel if a baby got sick or died from something that could have been prevented by breastmilk, but mom was an asthmatic, and just watched your story and thought she now had to feed her baby formula? I think it would be wonderful if News 12 would do a follow up, and put a more positive light on breastfeeding, I also think that as the media it is your responsibility to let mothers know the facts here so they can make informed choices regarding their babies.

Evenflo To Become The First Code Compliant Baby Bottle Manufacturer

****Evenflo has also pledged to become the first baby bottle manufacturer in the U.S. to achieve compliance with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes.This is a definite positive for breastfeeding. Especially after Gerber sold out to Nestle.EVENFLO ACQUIRES LEADING BREASTFEEDING PRODUCT LINE AMEDACombined Company Resources and Commitment to BreastfeedingCreates `Best-in-Class' BusinessVANDALIA, Ohio – October 18, 2007 – Evenflo Company, Inc. has entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement to acquire Ameda Breastfeeding Products from Hollister Incorporated of Libertyville, IL. It is expected that the deal will close in January, 2008 pending completion of contractual requirements.The acquisition of Ameda represents a defining moment in Evenflo's ongoing strategy to deliver products and services that are "Best for Baby" and moms. Extensive scientific research worldwide shows that breastfeeding is the preferred feeding method for newborns and infants. With the addition of Ameda, a leading maker of hospital grade breast pumps and accessories, Evenflo is elevating its commitment to breastfeeding."Evenflo is dedicated to developing and marketing products that are `Best for Baby' and, by extension, best for mothers too," said Rob Matteucci, CEO of Evenflo. "We want to support moms with the highest-quality breast pumps and accessories to make it as easy as possible for moms who want to breastfeed to do so. The addition of Ameda to our family of products further expands our ability to provide moms the widest range of options to enhance their breastfeeding experience."Evenflo will retain the Ameda brand name, which is widely respected within the professional breastfeeding community and among lactation experts. Under the Evenflo umbrella, Ameda will continue to serve its core institutional market, while expanding its reach into the premium consumer retail market. The combined resources of the two companies create a "best-in-class" breastfeeding business, integrating Ameda's product development expertise and strong reputation in the professional medical sector with Evenflo's strong retail and consumer marketing experience, leading to significant synergies.Evenflo plans to retain the Ameda employees to maintain industry knowledge, and to open a dedicated Ameda office in the Chicago area to enable continuity and minimal disruption to the business.To further underscore its commitment to breastfeeding, Evenflo has also pledged to become the first baby bottle manufacturer in the U.S. to achieve compliance with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. The WHO Code was created in 1981 as a guide for marketing practices of infant formula, bottle and nipple manufacturers to ensure that breast milk substitutes, feeding bottles and nipples are not marketed inappropriately.As part of its pledge, Evenflo will immediately take the following three steps: 1) discontinue all bottle/nipple advertising directed to consumers; 2) change our feeding packaging to align with WHO Code guidelines; and 3) remove bottle/nipple images from our Web site. At the same time, Evenflo will continue to innovate in its core bottle and nipple products, and work closely with retail partners to ensure broad-scale availability for moms who do not breastfeed or do not breastfeed exclusively. Ameda already meets all the requirements of the WHO Code."The WHO code is designed to promote and protect breastfeeding around the world, and Evenflo's decision to help support this important objective by becoming Code compliant is to be congratulated,congratulated," said Marsha Walker, ExecutiNational Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy. "I believe Evenflo's actions will help encourage moms and remove barriers to breastfeeding in the U.S. I'm gratified to see Evenflo and Ameda delivering on their promise to develop and market products in a manner that will not interfere with or impede breastfeeding,manner said."This is an exciting time for Evenflo and Ameda," Matteucci said. "After months of intense studying and planning, Evenflo's management team and our board of directors, as well as Ameda's management, are convinced that this acquisition represents a value-added combination which will grow Evenflo's and Ameda's business and enable us to become leaders in the fast-growing breastfeeding category."About EvenfloHeadquartered in Vandalia, Ohio, Evenflo Company, Inc. is a privately held leading manufacturer and marketer of infant and juvenile products. Evenflo was founded in 1920 and is a top supplier of infant and juvenile products to key retailers such as Toys "R" Us, Babies "R" Us, Wal-Mart, Target, and K-Mart. The company's product offering spans a broad range of essential infant and juvenile product categories, including car seats, strollers, portable play yards, feeding supplies, carriers, stationary activity centers, and safety gates. Evenflo's premier brand name has 97 percent awareness with new mothers, and the company enjoys 1 or 2 market share positions in 10 important product categories. For more information on Evenflo, visit www.evenflo.infoAbout AmedaAmeda has been the first name in breast pumps for over 60 years. First developed by Swedish inventor and civil engineer Einar Egnell to mimic a baby's natural nursing rhythm and intensity, Ameda used this innovative technology to create a breast pump that was simple, comfortable, and efficient. Today, Ameda breast pumps continue to utilize Einar Egnell's breakthrough technology—along with advanced features that today's mothers expect. Ameda is currently part of Hollister Incorporated, an independently-Hollister Incorporated, an idevelops, manufactures and markets healthcare products, servicing over 90 countries. For further information on Ameda, visit www.ameda.com.

Australian Breastfeeding Association Ad

I wish they had ads like this in the USA!

Breastfeeding Shown on Sesame Street

This clip is from 1977, how did we end up going so backwards to muppets bottlefeeding their muppet babies? Sesame street needs to bring back the boob!

Cute Cartoon loaded with lactivism....

Just thought I would share:

Infuriatingly Ignorant Hippocrate Bill Maher....

Infuriatingly ignorant Bill Maher

I never cared for him, and now I never will. Here is a link to a clip of his show,
drag the fwd thing to 3:35, thats where he starts his bf rant.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3DXxgralYF8



Updated for irony:

This has come to my attention:

Bill Maher is PETAS spokesperson for Breastfeeding!!!!!


http://www.milksucks.com/baby.asp

Forget Writing to Bill Maher! Write to PETA, Demand an apology or request that he be removed from the campaign!!!!!

HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads

First item of interest:

This article appeared on the front page of the Washington Post last week (you can also go here Dr Jay is awesome! and see an item from 20/20's archives, Milk Money w/ one of my favorites, Dr. Jay Gordon):

HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads
Formula Industry Urged Softer Campaign
By Marc Kaufman and Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 31, 2007; A01
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.

"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.

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.

Both HHS and AHRQ ultimately sent out a few e-mail notices, but the
report was generally ignored. Requests to speak with Haynes were turned
down by other HHS officials.

Regarding the changes made to the earlier HHS ad campaign, Kevin Keane,
then HHS assistant secretary for public affairs and now a spokesman for
the American Beverage Association, said formula companies lobbied hard,
as did breast-feeding advocates.

"We took heat from the formula industry, who didn't want to see a
campaign like this. And we took some heat from the advocates who didn't
think it was strong enough," Keane said. "At the end of the day, we had
a ground-breaking campaign that goes further than any other
administration ever went."

But the campaign HHS used did not simply drop the disputed statistics in
the draft ads. The initial idea was to startle women with images starkly
warning that babies could become ill. Instead, the final ads cited how
breast-feeding benefits babies -- an approach that the ad company hired
by HHS had advised would be ineffective. The department also pulled back
on several related promotional efforts.

After the 2003-05 period in which the HHS ads were aired, the proportion
of mothers who breast-fed in the hospital after their babies were born
dropped, from 70 percent in 2002 to 63.6 percent in 2006, according to
statistics collected in Abbott Nutrition's Ross Mothers Survey, an
industry-backed effort that has been measuring breast-feeding rates for
more than 30 years. In 2002, 33.2 percent of women were doing any
breast-feeding at six months; by 2006, that rate had declined to 30 percent.

The World Health Organization recommends that, if at all possible, women
breast-feed their infants exclusively for at least six months.

* * *
The breast-feeding ad campaign originated in a formal "Blueprint for
Action on Breastfeeding" released in 2000 by David Satcher, who had been
appointed surgeon general by President Bill Clinton. The Office on
Women's Health convinced the nonprofit Ad Council to donate $30 million
in media time, and it hired an ad agency to work alongside scientists
from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, and elsewhere.

Officials met with dozens of focus groups before concluding that the
best way to influence mothers was to delineate in graphic terms the
risks of not breast-feeding, an approach in keeping with edgy Ad Council
campaigns on smoking, seat belts and drunken driving. For example, an ad
portraying a nipple-tipped insulin bottle said, "Babies who aren't
breastfed are 40% more likely to suffer Type 1 diabetes."

Gina Ciagne, the office's public affairs specialist for the campaign,
said, "We were ready to go with our risk-based campaign -- making
breast-feeding a real public health issue -- when the formula companies
learned about it and came in to complain. Before long, we were told we
had to water things down, get rid of the hard-hitting ads and generally
make sure we didn't somehow offend."

Ciagne and others involved in the campaign said the pushback coincided
with a high-level lobbying campaign by formula makers, which are mostly
divisions of large pharmaceutical companies that are among the most
generous campaign donors in the nation.

The campaign the industry mounted was a Washington classic -- a
full-court press to reach top political appointees at HHS, using
influential former government officials, now working for the industry,
to act as go-betweens.

Two of the those involved were Clayton Yeutter, an agriculture secretary
under President George H.W. Bush and a former chairman of the Republican
National Committee, and Joseph A. Levitt, who four months earlier
directed the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition food safety center, which regulates infant formula. A
spokesman for the International Formula Council said both were paid by a
formula manufacturer to arrange meetings at HHS.

In a Feb. 17, 2004, letter to Thompson, Yeutter began "Dear Tommy" and
explained that the council wished to meet with him because the draft ad
campaign was inappropriately "implying that mothers who use infant
formula are placing their babies at risk," and could give rise to
class-action lawsuits.

Yeutter acknowledged that the ad agency "may well be correct" in
asserting that a softer approach would garner less attention, but he
said many women cannot breast-feed or choose not to for legitimate
reasons, which may give them "guilty feelings." He asked, "Does the U.S.
government really want to engage in an ad campaign that will magnify
that guilt?"

He also praised Keane, the HHS public affairs official, for making
"helpful changes" and removing "egregious statements," but asked that
more be done. Two months later, Yeutter wrote Thompson to thank him for
meeting with a group that included Levitt and an official of the
council. The group members supported breast-feeding, he said, but they
wanted HHS to use "positive visual images."

The formula companies also approached Carden Johnston, then president of
the American Academy of Pediatrics. Afterward, Johnston wrote a letter
to Thompson advising him that "we have some concerns about this negative
approach and how it will be received by the general public."

The letter made a strong impression at HHS, former and current officials
said. But it angered many of the medical group's members and the head of
its section on breast-feeding, Lawrence M. Gartner, a Chicago physician.
Gartner told Thompson in a letter that the 800 members of the
breast-feeding section did not share Johnston's concerns and had not
known of his letter.

"This campaign needed to be much stronger than it was," Gartner said,
adding that in his view, the original ads were backed by solid
scientific evidence.

According to former and current HHS officials, Cristina V. Beato, then
an acting assistant secretary at HHS, played a key role -- in addition
to that of Keane -- in toning down the ads. They said she stressed to
associates that it was essential to "be fair" to the formula companies.

Beato was then serving in an acting capacity because lawmakers refused
to vote on her confirmation because of complaints that she had padded
her official r?sum?. In a 2004 interview with the ABC newsmagazine
"20/20," which described some of the industry's efforts to change the
breast-feeding ad campaign, Beato confirmed that she "met with the
industry, because they kept calling my office, every two weeks." She
said in a telephone interview that their complaints played no role in
her decisions.

"I brought together our top public health people to examine the health
claims, and they examined the science and concluded what should be in
and what should be out," Beato said.

Duane Alexander, head of the government's National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, was among the officials contacted by the
industry who later supported eliminating some of the ads.

"Our concern was that the campaign was going to discredit itself if it
included these things -- these wild claims really -- that had no
sufficient basis in science," Alexander said.

Another top agency official who weighed in on the campaign was Ann-Marie
Lynch, then in charge of the agency's Office of Planning and Evaluation.
Lynch, a former lobbyist for the drug industry trade association PhRMA,
reversed an HHS decision to finance a $630,000 community outreach effort
to promote breast-feeding, according to an e-mail obtained by The
Washington Post. Asked to comment, Lynch said she never discussed "baby
formula issues with baby formula manufacturers" at HHS.

Speaking to the International Lactation Consultant Association in 2005,
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."

After the changes, the advertising company, McKinney + Silver of Durham,
N.C., withdrew from the campaign in protest, according to sources inside
and outside HHS. A company spokeswoman declined to comment. Carmona,
meanwhile, was told that Beato and HHS press officer Christina Pearson
did not want him to become involved in the campaign's launch or in any
public promotion of the underlying themes, according to current and
former HHS officials. Beato and Pearson said they do not recall giving
that advice.

The industry substantially increased its own advertising as soon as the
HHS campaign was launched. According to a 2006 report by the Government
Accountability Office, formula companies spent about $30 million in 2000
to advertise their products. In 2003 and 2004, when the campaign was
underway, infant formula advertising increased to nearly $50 million.

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.