Well, of course it interferes women's choice just like banning cigarette advertising interferes with choice and banning the advertising of hard liquor on TV interferes with choice.  Everyone knows how effective these bans are since no one has any choice of cigarette brands or hard liquor.


Now tongue out of cheek...  Argument #1:  The bans on advertising to vulnerable populations does not reduce choice, it reduces demand.  Of course that is the problem.  The manufacturers are very afraid of the reduction in demand.  I think this might be the time to point out that restricting advertising does not reduce choice, it reduces demand.  The entire purpose of advertising is to help people think they need things that they did not realize they need.


Alternative argument:  If the formula companies really want moms to have a "choice" how about making sure that there is a sample of every formula in the market in the advertising bag.


Just musing on a Friday evening.  I really hope you ladies in Massachusetts can make this stick.  You have all done such a good job in paving the way for the rest of the country.

Linda Pohl, IBCLC, RLC
temporarily in VA

[log in to unmask] wrote: The opposing side is stating that it interferes with women's  choice. 

		
---------------------------------
 
 What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos 

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

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(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html