http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?
show=localnews&pnpID=724&NewsID=842971&CategoryID=16783&on=1
Jeannie Babb Taylor: The problem with breastfeeding 
10/03/07
Jeannie Babb Taylor 

What if doctors discovered a 
substance so potent, it could prevent dozens of diseases and even reduce the 
risk of cancer? What if these benefits extended not only to those who partake 
of this amazing substance, but also those who serve it? If a pharmaceutical 
company had developed it, it would be a billion-dollar industry. Breast milk, 
though, is free. Without a visible profit stream, it also lacks a marketing team. 
Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both givers 
and receivers — yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no campaign 
statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study (147,000 
participants) found that American women could cut their breast cancer risk by 
33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding from three months to 
thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The ACS concluded that 
significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was “unrealistic” and instead 
continues to focus on mammograms, cancer prevention drugs and other 
methods that put money in the pockets of physician groups and 
pharmaceutical companies. 
 Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death 
syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child 
Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education. Instead, the 
NICH organized the “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents to put 
babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor of the Back to Sleep 
campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food manufacturer. Is it any surprise 
there is no financial backing to promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention 
tool? 
 Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to the 
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is “as important to 
preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat use, and 
proper infant sleep position.” Yet a recent AAP survey found that 45 percent 
of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and breast-feeding as 
equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the money to understand this 
phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples, perks, and gifts from formula 
companies — a practice condemned by the World Health Organization (WHO.) 
 Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of 
breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year tripping 
up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician’s office, the hospitals 
where babies are born, and the pediatrician’s office. Formula makers ensure 
that every mother goes home with a couple of cans of formula, so it will be 
available in the middle of the night when the baby is crying, she is exhausted 
from lack of sleep and she is vulnerable to the insecurities American society 
has pressed on her day after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers 
start breastfeeding, within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 
11.3% of babies are still exclusively breastfed at six months. 
 It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed, when 
everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women in most 
other developed countries, American women receive no paid maternity leave. 
Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them through the first months 
of mothering. Women who support themselves are forced to return to work, 
where it is often impossible to bring an infant, and pumping opportunities may 
be few and far between, with unsanitary conditions. 
 Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion 
Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect 
breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives employers a 
tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees with equipment, 
dedicated space and consultation for pumping breast milk. The bill establishes 
standards for breast pumps, and creates tax breaks for women who purchase 
breast pumps in order to maintain employment. 
 Maloney says, “I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired for 
trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill clarifies the 
Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding under federal civil rights 
law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the 
workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or breastfeeding during breaks or 
lunch time.” 
 At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed — 
after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of infants in terms 
of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and learning disabilities. Yet the 
formula-makers find these mothers, too. Government programs take away one 
of the incentives for breastfeeding by shelling out $600 million per year to put 
low-income infants on the bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased 
healthcare cost of these children. 
 The U.S. government has certainly been slow to recognize the fountain of 
youth. Reagan and the first Bush both refused to ratify the World Health 
Organization’s breastfeeding code, designed to protect new mothers from 
formula makers’ guerilla marketing tactics. The code was not recognized by the 
U.S. until Clinton signed it in 1994, and it is still not enforced. 
 Recently, a handful of individual states sought to enforce the code. They 
especially want to stop hospital formula marketing, because once a baby 
receives a bottle, the mother and baby are confronted with a whole host of 
problems including nipple confusion and inadequate milk supply. If successful 
breastfeeding is not established within the first few days, formula-makers are 
practically guaranteed a new customer. 
 In Massachusetts, it was Governor Mitt Romney who struck down a ban on 
hospital marketing. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced that he had 
secured the construction of a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, 
Massachusetts. The plant is owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the largest 
formula manufacturer in the world. 
 Outside the U.S., things are no better. Nestle actually targets babies in 
developing countries, where breastfeeding has the greatest potential for good. 
Babies are routinely hooked on formula in third world hospitals and sent home 
without ever establishing breastfeeding. Back in the village, families soon 
discover that the cost of buying formula is higher than their entire wage. 
 As a result of Nestle’s tactics, sub-Saharan Africa has a breastfeeding rate of 
only 32%; Asia, 35%; Indonesia, 39%, Vietnam, 19%, and Thailand, 5%. 
According to WHO and UNICEF, approximately 1.5 million babies die each year 
because they were started on formula instead of breast milk. 
 American women who breastfeed should expect resistance from a society that 
depicts over-sized breasts on magazine covers and billboards, yet rejects the 
breast’s highest function. Numerous polls show that the majority of Americans 
are comfortable seeing women breastfeed in public; yet, a few shrill voices 
continue to insist that it is improper. 
American women have been harassed or thrown out of libraries, restaurants 
and public parks for the simple act of breastfeeding. One woman was even 
expelled from a Vermont Delta Freedom flight for breastfeeding her child, 
resulting in nurse-ins at Delta counters across the nation. 
Most recently, comedian Bill Maher praised Appleby’s for discriminating against 
a nursing mother, asserting that women who breastfeed in public are lazy and 
narcissistic. Maher’s other comments, which are too crude to be printed in the 
county paper, illustrate that what bothers some people about breastfeeding 
isn’t that it is perceived as sexual, but rather that it is not. Hooters, wet T-
shirt contests and Playboy magazines are just fine with people like Maher, who 
believe that breasts are not for babies, but for men. 
Although doctors agree that “breast is best,” their own licensing board does 
not follow their recommendations. Breastfeeding mother and aspiring doctor 
Sophie Currier had to sue the National Board of Medical Examiners for the right 
to take pumping breaks during her nine-hour licensing exam. In typical anti-
feminist fashion, the judge told Sophie she would just have to take the exam 
when her child was older and finished breastfeeding. She would have lost her 
residency in clinical pathology at Massachusetts General Hospital and derailed 
her career. Sophie appealed the decision, and won. 
The “problem” with breastfeeding is that it lacks a corporate profit stream. It 
profits mothers and babies tremendously. It profits families, the government 
and taxpayers. The USDA estimates that $3.6 million in healthcare costs could 
be saved if more U.S. babies were breastfed. Unfortunately, nothing much 
happens in America unless it lines the pocket of a corporation. WHO cares 
about breastfeeding, but corporate America never will. 
We live in a culture that despises human bodily fluids — even as we feed our 
children cow’s milk and use pregnant mare urine (Premarin) to balance 
menopausal hormones. Canadian researchers are even developing medicines 
based on genetically-engineered pig semen. The market for animal fluids 
continues to grow, because there is a profit stream associated with it. If 
formula companies maintain control of doctors and legislators, a day may come 
when humans are no longer classified as mammals. Mammals, after all, are 
defined as animals that have hair and suckle their young. 

Jeannie Babb Taylor is a local business leader and author. She also teaches 
Sunday school, educates her children at home, and engages in Georgia 
politics. Jeannie may be contacted at [log in to unmask], or you can leave a 
public comment on her blog OntheOtherHandColumn.blogspot.com. 

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]