Dear All Alert Lactnetters,

In the latest (June 1997) issue of Reader's Digest (don't ask, it's a mom
thing), is a fifteen page "report" from The Advertising Council about the
"crisis" affecting America's children and what to do about it. On the second
page of the "report" is a prominent photo of a man giving a baby a bottle.
There are various advertisements featured throughout this "report," but even
the Johnson and Johnson one doesn't stoop to mentioning or featuring ABM.

The creepy thing about this long document ("report" seems incorrect because
it is, rather, a mishmash of inflammatory attention-grabbing remarks), is
that there is no mention of breastfeeding whatsoever! At one point,
descriptions of a parent education program seems to be approaching the topic,
what with descriptions of a newborn's range of vision being 13 inches (yes,
the distance from breast to mother's eye), and other similar factoids, but
they coyly dance onward without ever ONCE saying a thing. I won't go on about
the contents, as endless topics are covered. At the end of the article is a
list of 22 child-oriented groups that could use our (sic) help. Everything
from 4-H, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the USDA Forest Service (!) is
listed here, but not LLL or anything similar.

I am of course working on a long and reasonable reply, something I have
actually had success with before (those baby toothpaste people used to have a
baby with a bottle on their literature . . . they agreed with me that a
toothbrush was more relevant). I won't print it on Lactnet, you can all just
imagine. But just as with so many other bizarre things that hit the media,
perhaps someone else will want to contact these people.

I don't know if you can obtain a copy of this ad from them, but their web
site says you can request info from :
media [log in to unmask]

Their email for comments is:
[log in to unmask]

Their web address is minimal but has these various email addresses and is:
www.adcouncil.org/May/contact.htm

This "report" is probably in other publications as well.

This yet-another-ugly-article business brings me to another question that has
been a topic of conversation with my closest friend. The mention about
exhibitors at the AAP convention spurred me to include it in this post. Why
was La Leche League not included in this article? Why was LLL not exhibiting
at the AAP convention? Questions of money aside, I am wondering about the
credibility of LLL. And I will mention in case anyone wonders, that I have
more than one volunteer job with LLL and support it wholeheartedly.

But, I am wondering, as do others, why LLL does not have more presence. Is it
because we are seen as overly hung-up on breastfeeding (as someone mentioned,
the "doctors think we are breastfeeding fanatics")? Because the membership is
primarily volunteer, is there a perceived lack of professional credibility?
Or, as my friend asserts, does the extreme caution and conservatism of LLL
impair it's ability to assert authority?

I do not wish to start up an attack on LLL, despite my own personal
impatience, from time to time, with LLL policies. I think this is related to
the credibility of the profession in general, but I am interested in how LLL
is viewed by others in the lactation community.

Now rush out and find those Reader's Digests! Full spam ahead!

LLLLove,
Carol Brussel

P.S. And not a single word about slugs.