Dear all:

As near as I know I have never read anything on Lactnet that was untrue about formula.  

On the other hand, the most distressing thing I ever discovered when I shifted from working to International Nutrition to working in the United States was a brochure in a hospital that was written by one of the companies that markets formula.  Every other sentence was completely misleading and had been thoroughly debunked by the research I had read way back in 1984 when I was at Hopkins, let alone in 2000 when I read it.  The misleading statements still continue basically unchecked today.  Every time I turn around some journalist with no training whatsoever in epidemiology drags out a few cherry picked studies that show no effect (a feat that is brilliantly easy to achieve) and ignores the huge body of work that exists.  Any epidemiologist worth her salt can tell you that if you want to make sure no one knows your product causes risk, just do a study with a smaller sample size, use vague definitions that lead to lots of misclassification and choose multicausal outcomes.  

The strategies is very clearcut when Clayton Yeutter, LLP, for the IFC wrote to Tommy Thompson the then Secretary of Health. 

#1) Question the evidence.  From his letter he writes about the Ad Council campaign "the voice inappropriately cites recent studies purportedly demonstrating increased vulnerability to various diseases not breast-fed than for those who are breast-fed.  The infant formula industry and others question the scientific validity of these claims, and they certainly generate skepticism from me as a father and grandfather".  Does being a father and grandfather qualify one to make statements about epidemiology.  Then he goes on to state "The concerns lie not with the underlying substance, for the industry fully supports breastfeeding and is in no way opposed to a positive campaign to promote breastfeeding.  They lie with the supposed "risk based" focus of the campaign. 

#2) Claim to protect women from guilt.  On April 21, 2004 Clayton Yeutter, LLP wrote  "it would be most unfortunate if HHS were to send a risk-oriented message to these women that most of them would find incompatible and would at best confuse them and at worst frighten them " on behalf of the IFC.  I would argue that WITHHOLDING evidence is deception and takes choice away from women.  Furthermore, Paula Meier debunked that notion. She found if you told them the truth and provided a means of providing human milk for their babies they felt EMPOWERED not guilty.  And New York City's own data shows that you can tell adults the truth about risks in their smoking campaign and they DO change practices -- as long as the support structures are in place.  

#3) In a letter on February 17, 2004, Clayton Yeutter, LLP  actually reveals the real concern about the Ad Council Campaign "I am also concerned that this campaign will increase class action lawsuits against the medical community and the industry."  Their own words influencing our politicians for the benefit of women who are too fragile to know the truth about their choices. 
 
If Mr. Stanley Barringer were to speak with me, I would give him an earful about how he needs to correct all the false, negative misleading information that is put out by Mead Johnson about breastfeeding.

Sincerely, 
Susan E. Burger

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome