FROM: Sturgess, Frances Coulter
TO:[log in to unmask]
SUBJECT: Re: WOmens issues
DATE: 03-04-97 14:28 EST
PRIORITY:
FYI--ref. inquiry through a Healthed listserv from Ms. Bickford re: collecting
info to share with Pres. Clinton regarding womens health issues. This is her
response to my letter, and acopy of my letter--as you see she is still
interested in feedback.
---------------------------------------
------------------------------------
REPLY FROM: Sturgess, Frances Coulter
WONDER/PC HEADER:
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 97 10:57:21 EST
From: "Lydia Bickford" <[log in to unmask]>
Encoding: 60 Text
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Return-Receipt-To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: WOmens issues
---------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Ms. Sturgess-Thank you so much for responding, I really
appreciate it. Please send me your mailing address so the
White House can send you a thank you note. And please
encourage your friends and colleagues to participate. I
would like to widen the circle. Take care. Lydia
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: WOmens issues
Author: [log in to unmask] at ~internet
Date: 2/18/97 7:13 PM
FROM: Sturgess, Frances Coulter
TO:[log in to unmask]
SUBJECT: WOmens issues
DATE: 02-18-97 19:01 EST
PRIORITY:
Dear Ms Bickford,
I am a Public Health Nutritionist working in Family Maternal and Child Health
in COntra Costa County California. I advise OBs and perinatal programs on
nutrition issues affecting pregnant and postpartum women and their infants.
These issues range from food policy and access to the latest research on
nutrient needs. My particular interest and advocacy relates to attaining the
Healthy 2000 goals for breastfeeding initiation and support for 6 months
postpartum.
Please advise President and Mrs Clinton and Vice President and Mrs Gore that
lack of breastfeeding is of incredible personal, family, and social cost.
The
forums on infant development and early childhood education that I think the
President proposed in his State of the Union Address will be sadly deficient
if breastfeeding support is not addressed as part of the issues. What many
people do not realize is that artificial milk (aka formula) does not support
the development of intelligence and parental/social bonding that
breastfeeding
does, and it is often presented as "a highly acceptable substitute" without
regard for the much higher rates of infant illness that it fosters. And it
is
often forgotten that "infant illness" translates to increased doctor visits,
increased loss of parental work time, child school time, increased suffering
and pain for the infant and for the parents, and is more than just words or
numbers. Aside from those costs, the "milks" themselves are overpriced and
various companies have been convicted of price fixing and obliged to give
significant supplies of their product to Food Banks in a small attempt at
reparation.
Kaiser Hospitals of N Carolina released a study last year indicating that it
cost them 1400$ more per year per infant to care for artificially fed infants
than their breastfed peers. This comes to over 100$ per month. Artificial
milk costs 80-100$ per month also, so figure about 200$ per month per
kid---in
our county alone (10,000 births/yr) that amounts to about 24 Million Dollars
a
year spent on artificial milk and its consequences, let alone bottles, etc.
Of course not all these kids are artificially fed--the rate of exclusive
breastfeeding runs about 10 percent, so this figure is a little high.
I have several references that address these issues, including cost benefits,
the relation of infant feeding methods to family violence, and recalls the
FDA
has issued over the years regarding infant feeds. I would be happy to share
them with you.
|
