Jennifer wrote:

> But, if these were the only babies who
> received a substitute, the only financially viable sustitute would be banked
> breastmilk. Otherwise making an AIM would be like making drugs for ophan
> diseases--there are so few people who have the need that the drug company
>

Absolutely Jennifer. If no one bought it, no one would make it. It's the
quintessential capitalist tenet. In this case, if no one made formula, we
would rely on banked milk. As a business, it would flourish (or perhaps be
more like the blood banking system, supported primarily by donations but sold
on the open market).

Formula companies will only improve their products through investment in R&D
so long as there is a strong market demand. If demand were to slow, so too
would R&D. In that case, formula companies would redouble their marketing
expenditures to re-ignite demand thereby feeding the R&D machine. Either way,
babies will be sicker and dumber (as so often said here) and the
pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders richer. This is one of the
few cases where I truly believe the government has a duty to step in and
regulate marketing, and perhaps R&D. Free market forces can only smother the
greater good (healthy breastfeeding rates). I can't think of any other
product category where the manufactured good is superior, non-taxing to the
environment and FREE and where the primary loser is an infant.

Rolling my eyes in Los Angeles,
Martha Schatzle
Breastfeeding volunteer, mother of 2 amazing boys, writer and former ad
executive

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