Hi All,
  I have responded personally to Attie on what I think she should do but
wanted to respond to the list to say how the point of the article misses
the real point of the human milk vs formula issue. Formula is and can be
a necessity in SOME cases but what many are missing is that the cases or
situation where formula is REQUIRED are minimal. The recent AAP
guidelines and Ruth Lawrence's paper both indicate that human milk is
the better choice in most situations. And using phrases such as 'using
the children of the poor as cannon fodder in their holy war,' 'there is
no loud, organized voice speaking up for the rights of hungry babies'
and 'cheerfully breastfeeds' all are more activist oriented than any
fact presented by a breastfeeding advocate I have read. I work for the
best interests of the child and the mother (and ultimately the family
and society), not for the profits associated with formula sales. Perhaps
if more people realized that formula manufacturers were not in it for
the social, health and welfare aspects but rather for the profits, more
of them would not be spouting the formula companies' mantra.
   This is why when we encounter negative (especially misinformed and
misinformation) in the public media concerning breastfeeding and human
milk, we have an obligation to respond. I would just like to add that a
few years ago, our local military paper ran an article on dental
problems in infants that was horribly written and had much
misinformation on breastfeeding. I wrote to point out that clumping
human milk in with soda, juice and cows milk, not to mention formula was
inappropriate and that there are differences between bottle feeding and
breastfeeding. Last year, another article appeared on the same subject
and this time, the article was well done and did mention that
breastfeeding and bottle feeding were different. So response can make a
positive difference.

Leslie Ward
Vine Grove, KY