Dear Norma,
I got all het up when I read the article by Charlotte Allen, but luckily
when I got ready to put it into a file I found I already have a copy. I
think this article first came out in the LA Times in June 2005. I was afraid
the Independent Women's Forum was mounting a new attack on breastfeeding
activists, but instead Allen's piece was one of that flurry of articles that
IWF did when WHA (World Health Assembly) was debating the need for warning
labels on powdered infant formula.
For instance, in April 2005 the president of IWF made this statement:
"Infant formula is an excellent form of nutrition for infants, and an
important alternative given the reality that many women simply cannot
breastfeed due to physical conditions or workplace obligations. Infant
formula has been critical to enabling woman to achieve more in the
workplace, by creating choice and greater flexibility," said Nancy M.
Pfotenhauer,
president of the Independent Women's Forum. "We are alarmed by reports that
the UN and its agencies are actively working to remove bottle-feeding as a
viable option for women around the world. Women deserve the right to decide
how to care for their infants, and the UN certainly is not in the position
to impose baseless restrictions upon new mothers."
Do these phrases have a familiar ring?
This pro-formula industry stance travels in the disguise of a pro-woman
stance. Basically it says that breastfeeding is just too hard--women have
physical problems that "can't" be fixed (like mastitis, or low milk supply)
or "life-style problems" that "can't" be fixed (like no maternity leave, no
nursing breaks at work, no child care near the workplace, poverty, single
parenting, and a cultural lack of support for breastfeeding). Instead of
attempting to fix the problems--and admittedly some of them are not easy to
fix--let's just assure women that it doesn't really matter if their plans to
breastfeed exclusively get torpedoed. If her doctor doesn't know how to
identify and treat mastitis appropriately, or how to help her increase her
milk production, if she can't get sufficient rest, if she's separated from
her baby because of work...not to worry, because formula makers will gladly
sell her a product that is "an excellent form of nutrition for infants."
I have reached my peace with formula. I can comfortably speak the following
words: "Formula provides adequate nutrients for growth and development to
babies who have no access to human milk." The issue here is the access--a
mother should certainly feed formula to her baby IF she does not breastfeed
and IF she does not provide her own expressed milk and IF she has no source
of safe human milk from another mother or a milk bank. But let's try to fix
a world in which women who want to breastfeed are stuck "choosing" a product
that lacks so many of the elements that help babies grow and develop the
best they can.
Last spring IWF was saying that to inform women that there might be a risk
to using formula takes away a woman's right to choose formula. Now in the
Massachusetts case, opponents are saying that the failure to give women a
free sample of formula takes away women's right to choose formula. Why am I
having such difficulty seeing the logic of this?
Let's try an analogy.
Suppose the high school (or the church youth group, or the YMCA...) puts on
a sex education program for adolescent males, where they explain about all
the options for responsible and safe sexual behavior, including abstinence,
monogamous marriage, negotiation with partners about safer sex, respect for
women, etc. At the end, each boy gets a gift pack that includes condoms. He
doesn't have to use them, but they are there if he chooses to do so.
1. Do we want him to use them? Well, yes, if he's sexually active. But he
won't need them if he decides to be abstinent.
2. Will giving him the gift pack influence his behavior? Will he be more
likely to have sex because we gave him condoms? Well, maybe yes. But will he
be more likely to have SAFER sex because he has the condoms in his pocket?
We sure hope so.
So how is this situation similar to formula packs, and how is it different?
The responsible health authorities would prefer the boys to be abstinent,
but if they are not, then to practice responsible, mutually agreed-upon,
safer sex. The worst choice would be unprotected and irresponsible sex.
The responsible health authorities would prefer the mothers to breastfeed
exclusively*, but if mothers don't, then to put mom's milk in a bottle or a
cup for the baby, and if they don't do that, only then to give formula. The
worst choice would be straight cow's milk or Coca-cola in the bottle.
*I wish I could believe that this was 100% true. But we definitely have
stronger support for exclusive breastfeeding from many high-up voices and
influential bodies than we did 30 years ago.
The odd thing is that in today's U.S. culture, very few public figures would
support giving the condoms to the boys, but just look at them lining up to
support giving the formula to the mothers! Yet I don't think that new
mothers would have any difficulty buying formula if they make the decision
that that's what they want to feed their babies. Heck, half the babies in
the USA can get it free at WIC!
I think it's pretty clear that giving sample condoms to young men would
indicate that we wanted them to be used if the need arose. Isn't it just as
clear that giving formula to breastfeeding mothers sends the same message?
Linda Smith said it best, years ago. If you want to have MORE breastfeeding,
then it follows that you're going to have LESS formula feeding. Funny that
no one acknowledges that this is why formula companies are feeling
threatened and fighting back.
Chris
Chris Mulford, RN, IBCLC
LLL Leader Reserve
working for WIC in South Jersey (Eastern USA)
Co-coordinator, Women & Work Task Force, WABA
***********************************************
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
|
