MHS:   Source date is:     02-Jun-95 12:18:00 -0300 EDT

Before I signed off for my last trip, Kathy A. had sent a message  asking
for some ideas about writing or faxing Congress people related to foreign
aid.  Support for breastfeeding is classified under the part of foreign aid
that is humanitarian assistance, as is most of the rest of USAID health and
population work.  There is also development assistance which has to do with
private sector, developing markets, etc. as well as military assistance.  In
general military assistance doesn't get cut -- although if Congress were
aware of a sizeable group of people who thought that it should be, perhaps
they might revisit it.  So the cuts will come from development and
humanitarian assistance.  We don't know whether humanitarian assistance as a
whole will shrink as a result of the cuts (that is get a SMALLER PIECE of
the now smaller pie) or whether the proportion will remain the same while
the entire pie shrinks.  In that humanitarian assistance, breastfeeding is a
VERY SMALL piece of a pretty small pie (foreign aid-that is-development and
humanitarian assistance) is something like 1% of the budget and most people
when polled think it is 15-20% or more and think that it should be 3-4%).

So - the question could be framed in terms of maintaining the absolute
amounts allocated to humanitarian assistance (which would probably represent
giving it a larger proportion of a shrinking pie) or with maintaining the
committed levels of $$ support for bf both domestically and internationally
(which would mean that bf would have a bigger % of the pie).  You all know
the arguments as to the critical importance of bf:

Prevents larger number of births worldwide than all other forms of
contraception combined

cuts health costs:  in US, non-breastfed babies 15 times higher risk for
hospitalization during the first year of life.  In developing world up to 25
times higher risk of death from diarrhea and anywhere from 2-14 times the
risk of illness from diarrhea and acute respiratory infection

a renewable resource that does not add to environmental contamination

specifically adapted to enhance brain and central nervous center development

diminishes risks for breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers, for osteoporosis,
etc.  Did anyone see article in NY Times that seems to refer to greater
protection from breast cancer for breastfed women than breastfeeders?  If
so, would love to have it faxed to me (202-298-7988).

Enhances maternal-infant bonding and the associated benefits for the
developing infant.

As federal support to WIC has been important to increasing breastfeeding
rates among disadvantaged populations in the US, USAID support has been
crucial to increasing access to health care and to better informed health
care in the developing world.  In particular, in the area of infant health,
sometimes it is the only thing that has stood between the formula companies
and the population.  For example, in the Central Asian Republics, USAID
responded to a request for support for developing an infant formula
production plan with an MCH seminar that highlighed breastfeeding and was
crucial to five countries developing policies that were supportive of
breastfeeding and having at least core teams exposed to some of the issues
related to lactation management.  After that, UNICEF was also able to give
Baby Friendly Hospital training to many of these countries, but USAID moved
quite quickly on this issue.

The feeling in Congress seems to be that no one cares about foreign aid, but
I suspect that there would be a constituency for humanitarian assistance at
the very least.  If there were some way that we could move our networks and
have them let Congress people know that at the very least humanitarian
assistance should be preserved, it could be crucial.  We have a resident
advisor from a Latin American country here right now and he spoke with a
reporter from a San Diego paper yesterday.  One of the things that he said
was that cutting foreign aid increases the possibility of revolutions in
developing countries because it decreases access to health and educational
services. In the long-run revolution will be far more costly to the US than
what foreign aid costs us now.

You are all familiar with the argument that what we spend on arms in one day
would solve the world's population problem, so you can draw your own
conclusions about what cutting out or drastically cutting down the small
portion of this that is dedicated to foreign aid and especially to
humanitarian assistance.

About 10 years ago, a small fax campaign helped get administrative language
into the foreign aid bill that supported breastfeeding for the first time,
so your faxes and phone calls can make a difference for bf.  Thanks.

Judy Canahuati
Fax 202-298-7988
e-mail: [log in to unmask]