>You wrote: "Now if we can just get the "F-word itself introduced..."
>I am wondering, do you mean as in "If a woman uses formula, it raises
>their risk of ovarian cancer and breast cancer."?  In a class on advertising,
>they taught not to use the "competition's" name because that put *that*
>word/name/idea in the audience' mind.  The only word/name/etc. you want to use
>in advertising is the name of the thing you *want* the audience to use.  If
>that theory is still in use in the advertising field (and it might not be,
>times do change), then I think the wording of the statement is probably the
>better way to do it.

Good points!  Still, imagine all the health walk-a-thons and phone-a-thons
you've ever seen.  A phone-a-thon for Muscular Dystrophy phone-a-thon, a
diabetes walk, an Altzheimer's walk, a breast cancer walk... and a
breastfeeding walk?  Notice how all the others target the *problem*, and we
never even *mention* the problem.  We target the normal condition, like a
walk-a-thon for walking.  I was in a diabetes walk last year, and noticed
several babies with bottles.  I thought how much that was like having women
with burkas take part in an osteoporosis walk, and I wondered if those
babies would have had bottles at all had their mothers *ever* been told that
the contents of the bottles is linked to an increased risk of diabetes.

The first time I posed this question of "which way we should face" was in a
League meeting about 15 years ago.  "Should we maybe be talking about the
hazards of formula instead of the so-called benefits of the normal
condition?"  And one of the regular mothers got mad.  "I give my baby
formula sometimes," she said.  "There's nothing wrong with my baby.  And
there's nothing wrong with formula."  She'd been coming to us for months for
"information and support," and she didn't know that her casual, wholly
unnecessary use of formula had diminished her baby's health.  Were we doing
our job??  The very fact that she got mad made me realize that we perceive
"benefits of breastfeeding" to be totally different from "hazards of
formula-feeding," and by extolling the one we are *not* warning against the
other.

As to marketing and politics: There is a trend toward naming the competitor.
"More pain relief than Advil or Bayer" or whatever.  I think there was a
gentleman's agreement before.  But it makes sense that Brand X will have
more punch if it says it's better than the brand *you're* using, rather than
just saying it's a good brand.

People move toward a "better" option if it doesn't take much work, but
they'll work vigorously to avoid a "worse" option.  They may not bother to
climb a tree for the view, but they'll sure as heck stay out of a hole in
the ground.  And all we've ever told mothers is that there's a lovely view
from the top of the breastfeeding tree.  When it turns out the tree is
sometimes hard to climb... well, it's no wonder our initiation rates are
pretty good (deciding to climb the tree) but duration is pretty poor (oh, I
guess it's not worth it after all).  What would the rates be if there were
an explicit warning label on the formula cans, and if the newspaper linked
the F-word, not the B-word, to IQ and morbidity/mortality rates?

>Also, I still come across so many people (I live in the Midwest
>[USA] and things are *so* slow to change here) who aren't comfortable using the
>words "breast" and "breastfeeding".  So if the word gets used over and over,
>such as in the statement, perhaps those people will become de-sensitized and
>more comfortable with the words.  Then, if they can hear the word without
>cringing, perhaps they would be willing to begin to entertain the idea of
>actually

A very good point.  But we have even more discomfort with phrases like
"lower IQ", "higher rates of SIDS" and so on, especially if they're linked
to a majority-use product for innocent little babies.  It's incredibly scary
to say, hear, read.  So scary that we ourselves have to be careful with it.
It's like gun powder, and you don't direct it casually at individuals.

I'm totally taken with the idea of getting research journals to require
normal research phrasing from *all* studies submitted, *even if they're
about infant feeding*.  If the researchers just apply good science to how
they frame their studies - with formula-fed babies as the experimental group
- that's how the media will pick up the studies.  The media love it, of
course, for the very gunpowder issue.  But then it hits the public without
targeting pregnant or nursing mothers, or mothers who are struggling.  It
hits taxi drivers, shoe salesmen, greeting card manufacturers... and
suddenly there's a whole different attitude toward formula.  It's not the
reliably safe product everyone thought it was.  Wow!  Who wants to buy a
card with a baby bottle on it?  Doing so makes you look like an ignoramus.

We have to be careful not to say "formula causes," though  That would be a
whole new set of studies that I don't think have ever been done (except for,
say, diabetes and cow milk formulas).  In large part it could be the *lack*
of human milk that "causes", and the SIDS rates and all the rest would be
just as high - maybe higher - if the babies were fed Gatorade.  But infant
feeding isn't one of those things where you can provide it or not provide it
and look at the difference.  Babies have to eat *something*; the
experimental group can't not eat.  And the best thing there is, so far,
seems to be formula.  That's as good as it gets, and that's what virtually
all the non-breastfed babies in the studies eat.  And we see big problems
*linked to* the feeding of the best the companies can provide.

It's a whole lot easier/simpler just to look at the normal food and praise
it.  But it's inaccurate, and the public just plain doesn't pick up on the
very real flip side to all that praise.  Let's get those journals to phrase
their studies right, get the F-word in the news, and use it cautiously and
compassionately ourselves while the public is catching on!

I won't be getting my mail for a couple days, but I'll catch up shortly...
--
Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC  Ithaca, NY
www.wiessinger.baka.com

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

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(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html