Dear Mr. Kelly:

I was little flabbergasted by your response. Before I wrote you back with rash
words, I forwarded it to some of my friends who have been working in the field
of breastfeeding promotion for much longer than I, asking for their advice on
how to respond.  You may have heard from some of them by now.

I am glad to hear that you favor breastfeeding.  It is an important child
health issue -- important enough that the federal government has issued a goal
of 75% of babies being breastfed at discharge from childbirth facilities
(Healthy People 2000 goals).  Many millions of taxpayer and private insurance
dollars (not to mention parental time and energy) are spent caring for
children suffering from the illnesses that are commoner among formula-fed
children than breastfed children (e.g., ear infections, gastrointestinal
infections, bronchitis, pneumonia, allergies, asthma).  I have on my web page
citations to numerous medical journal citations to epidemiological studies
that demonstrate that point.

You say that I have read too much into the illustration.  However, you have
read quite a bit into my letter that I did not say.  After all, I did not
accuse you of being part of the "military-industrial-Nestle-baby formula
complex" or any such thing.  My letter was merely an attempt to inform you
about the implications of the practice of routinely portraying babies with
bottles.

Increasing breastfeeding is an important health issue that needs to be
addressed by everyone in our community, including the media.  Images that
perpetuate the bottle=baby myth are counter-productive to the goal of
increasing the awareness of everyone in this society that the healthy and
normal way to feed babies does not require the use of a bottle.

>
> Dear Ms. Hamlet:
>
> It's really too bad that breast-feeding has been tarred by the lunatic
> fringe. I suppose that's a natural overcompensation to the shameful way
> breastfeeding was suppressed earlier this century, but still...
>
> I am a big fan of breasts in general and breastfeeding specifically. I was
> breastfed, as were my two daughters. If anyone were to ask my opinion, I would
> recommend breastfeeding. It's obviously better than the alternative. But I
> find some breastfeed-or-die proponents to be tiresome. When I read, as I have,
> that children can be breastfed until they're 3 or 4, my reaction is, "Ooo,
> gross."
>
> And when I read in your note that the "obvious" implication of a
> cartoon-like illustration incorporating two bottles is that a baby can't be
> seen without a bottle and, ergo, that bottlefeeding should be the norm and
> that I am somehow part of the military-industrial-Nestle-baby formula complex,
> I just have to scratch my head. (I won't even ask if you've heard of breast
> pumps or bottled breast  milk.) I suppose the obvious implication of the blue
> teddy bear, blue pacifier and yellow rattle is that no baby can do without
> these, either.
>
> Thank you for reading Weekend, but please do not read too much into our
> illustrations.
>
>
> John Kelly
J. Rachael Hamlet
Author, The Breastfeeding Advocacy Page
http://www.clark.net/pub/activist/bfpage/bfpage.html