Katie you wrote, "When the infant formula companies focus their efforts on competing with one another, they are forthright in their intent and message ("Buy our baby formula. It's healthier than the other brand for reasons X, Y, and Z.") But when the industry competes with its *real* market competitor, breastfeeding, these companies are disingenuous." I am not sure I understand. Are the marketing messages between particular infant formula companies forthright? I have never seen an ad by a particular infant formula company that compares itself against another infant formula. I don't watch alot of TV so I may have missed that media. But in print media, I have never read an ad by an infant formula company that specifically states that their product is better than another infant formula company's. If you could point me in the direction of the ads you have seen where this is done, I'd like to see them. Why would a company clearly state that they want to put the competitor out of business or as in the infant formula industry want breastfeeding to disappear as a relic of our primitive past? In my opinion the tactics they use are common market place tactics. The major difference that appears to me to be very important and not to be underestimated is that the infant formula companies have banded together in an alliance. It is called the International Formula Council (used to be the Infant Formula Council) and is located in Atlanta, Georgia. Why they are located in Atlanta is ground for some debate in my head--close proximity to the CDC or just a common location for huge corporate offices? Maybe it is because this industry doesn't seem to have true competition between the various companies. What we seem to be dealing with is one huge monopoly--they have already been in trouble for price fixing in regard to the WIC program. Dependent on your political beliefs, you may believe that government should step in and regulate industry or you may believe in the free market system (no regulation). My understanding is that the head of the Department of Health is a political appointment. Thus the Presidential elections effects a broad-range of organizations. I believe that how we vote in the upcoming Presidential elections will effect whether or not the infant formula industry will be more firmly regulated. Although I also think that the head of the Department of Health should not be a political appointment. It is relatively useless to blame the infant formula industry. What we need to hold accountable is decisions that are made that make it an "easy street" for this industry. That means that the head of the US Health Department needs to be held accountable for the changes made to these ads. How do you fight industries that makes billions of dollars? I think we can do so by individually standing up and speaking out in our hometowns (write letters to the editor--I am known for my comments on breastfeeding to my local paper) and our places of employment. If we can't have a media campaign on the risks of infant formula, then lets each of us start talking about the risks of infant formula in our home towns and places of employment. Have the references available. I remember buying 100 copies of Marsha Walker's paper on the "risks" from ILCA and giving them out to administrators, docs, and mothers. Send the risks to your Congressmen and ask them if they support a media campaign on the risks of infant formula. I agree with Virginia, don't wait for someone else to step forward, just take one small step forward and write a letter. Valerie W. McClain, IBCLC *********************************************** To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest) To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet All commands go to [log in to unmask] The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM) mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html