Dear Mad About You producers,
I was very disappointed in this week's episode. As a very popular
television show, you have a responsibility to your viewers to provide
accurate information. Just as you hopefully would not mislead people about
the cause of diseases (claiming that Down Syndrome was due to eating peanuts
during pregnancy), or about infant safety (stating that it didn't make any
difference whether a parent uses an infant car seat or not), so should you
not mislead people about breastfeeding. Infant formula is NOT nutritionally
equivalent to breast milk, nor is nutrition the only thing going on when a
baby is breastfed. In addition to being the only nutritionally appropriate
*food* for human babies, human breast milk also includes numerous
immunological factors that lead to normal immune development -- factors that
infant formula does not have (yes, I am saying that formula-fed children do
not have normal immune development; that is why their risk of many diseases
is higher). Breast milk contains many factors that contribute to normal
brain growth -- factors that infant formula does not have (yes, I am saying
that formula-fed children do not have normal brain growth; that is why they
have lower IQs and lower school performance and more attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities). Breastfeeding is also a
very different process from breastfeeding, and no one is entirely sure which
of the many detriments of formula-feeding come from the different product,
and which come from the different process of delivery.
In this week's episode of Mad About You, it appeared as though the
father poured boiling water directly into a bottle with powdered formula,
and then gave it to his child. If he had really done this, the baby would
have had third degree burns on its face, mouth, throat, and esophagus, and
would have to have been rushed to the hospital. Less importantly, perhaps,
it was clear that the baby is not a good actress! That baby was not
particularly hungry. Also, a baby who has only been breastfed for the first
three months of its life is not going to take to a bottle the way you
depicted. A hungry breastfed baby wants its mother, not a hard plastic
bottle, a rubber nipple, and awful-tasting formula. The baby would more
likely have refused to take the bottle, even if extrememly hungry. Finally,
Jamie, if truly caught in the subway and way overdue for a feeding, would
have been leaking milk, her breasts would have been very full, and she would
have demanded the baby as soon as she walked in the door. Not to mention
that a real baby would have turned immediately to its mother's voice and
spit out the bottle in favor of a soft, warm breast.
When the American Academy of Pediatrics has just released new
recommendations that every baby receive breast milk for at least the first
twelve months of life, your insinuation on your show that formula is
nutritionally equivalent is unforgiveable. To suggest that there is
something so "touching" about a father giving his child a bottle that it is
worth risking the child's health, intelligence, and emotional development is
ridiculous. If Jamie were really that baby's mother she would have (1)
taken the baby with her (2) left expressed milk to be given to the baby in a
cup if she were delayed and (3) grabbed the baby as soon as she got home and
put her to the breast.
It is fine with me if you use breastfeeding to make jokes on this
show, as long as the information you provide about breastfeeding is
accurate. Please do your homework next time. I will be glad to serve as an
unpaid consultant if you like!
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University
Co-editor of the book "Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives," and author
of the chapter "Beauty and the Breast: The Cultural Context of Breastfeeding
in the United States."
http://www.prairienet.org/laleche/dettwyler.html
(409) 778-4513/home
(409) 845-5256/work
|
