FROM: Sturgess, Frances Coulter
TO:[log in to unmask]
   [log in to unmask]
SUBJECT: Childrens TV and breastfeeding
DATE: 03-16-97   01:53 EST
PRIORITY:


(The following is my letter to PBS regarding bottles/spponsors etc--had
beenbothered by "Arthur" for some time, finally nudged into writing by others
on Lactivist--any of you that would write too, would be welcome!!! as
mentioned before, email for PBS is www.pbs.com)



I and several of my health professional colleagues are increasingly concerned
about the sponsorship of various childrens programs by companies that
manufacture infant and toddler formulas.  It is against the World Health
Organization Code to advertise these formulas to the public because of the
known effects on breastfeeding, and while this does not have the force of law,
it is excellent public health policy.  To say that they only sponsor, without
advertising, is untrue, as there are ads at the ends of each program, and they
have increased in length over the years.

We have noticed that many programs, including the very popular Sesame Street,
and Arthur, feature babies with bottles very prominently.  This is even more
peculiar when the babies are not "human" (although truth to tell I still don't
know if Arthur is a mouse or hamster or what).  Social marketing studies have
confirmed (no big surprise here) that advertising  of formulas or artificial
milks, works--formula samples and bags and rattles etc given in the hospital
result in more women giving up breastfeeding than when no such samples are
given.  Formula, or bottles, used as icons to represent babies (eg in airport
diaper changing station signs, or elevators, or in catalogs AND in Childrens
TV) provides *free advertising* for this manufactured product and perpetuates
the association that formula/artificial milk is the norm and is as good as
Mother Natures.  It isn't.

Evidence continues to accumulate that breastfeeding is healthier for Mom and
Baby and Family---there are lots of Websites with documentation of this. Some
have shown as much as *40%  fewer ear infections in breastfed groups vs.
artificially fed. But somehow that gets lost.  Think about it this way
though--is it worth one ear infection?  That trip to the doctor that may not
have been needed? Those nights of interrupted sleep and anguish with an
inconsolable baby before it is decided it *is* an ear infection?  The search
for a teeny tiny vein in that little arm, with three people holding the baby
down, because that fever *might* be meningitis and the only way to diagnose it
is with blood?  While it is true that artificial milks have saved lives of
abandoned or sickly infants who had no source of breastmilk, they should never
have been promoted to the point of replacing breastfeeding for healthier
infants.

It is always hard to find sponsors, and pledge drives sometimes drive viewers
away--but I personally am beginning to wonder more about perhaps undue
influence given the amount of blythe and blatant bottlefeeding that is shown
in Childrens TV.  It can be difficult to be grateful for sponsorship and at
the same time remain impartial and truly socially responsible without great
conscious effort.  I hope that the frequency of bottles associated with
infants of all creations was an unconscious reflection of the unfortunate
status of breastfeeding in the US and many other countries.  I hope also that
this will change, given the reputation of PBS and Childrens TV as socially
responsible entities.

Sincerely,
Frances Coulter Sturgess, MPH, RD