This is what I sent to USA Today.  Please, everyone, add your voices of protest!



>To: [log in to unmask]
>From: [log in to unmask] (katherine a. dettwyler)
>Subject: bottle-feeding without guilt
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>Dear Editor,
>        I was very chagrined to see USA Today promoting the "Rush Limbaugh"
of infant feeding circles, the book "Bottlefeeding Without Guilt," written
by Peggy Robin.  The book is a careless hodgepodge of half-truths,
misleading or misinterpreted information, and outright lies.  The author has
no credentials as an expert in infant feeding, and ignores or misinterprets
the scientific literature in example after example.
>        It amazes me that the public, and the media, take the perspective
that mothers should not feel guilty about choosing an infant feeding method
that puts their children at risk of many diseases and even death.
Bottle-fed babies have higher incidences of upper respiratory infections,
gastro-intestinal infections, sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections,
diabetes, Crohn's disease, childhood lymphoma, rheumatoid arthritis, breast
cancer (for the daughters, as adults), orthodontic problems, and the list
goes on and on and on.  Advocates of breastfeeding, like those who fight
against cigarette use, must fight against an extremely powerful, lucrative
industry.  The infant formula industry rakes in over $22 million every day
from the sale of a product that is known to lead to life-long health problems.
>        Would USA today publish an article praising any of the following
hypothetical books: "Cocaine Use During Pregnancy Without Guilt," "Driving
While Under the Influence, Without Guilt," "Smoking in Your Baby's Face,
Without Guilt," or "Not Putting Your Child in a Car Seat, Without Guilt"?  I
certainly hope not.  Yet the issue of infant feeding, backed by the powerful
infant formula lobby, with millions of advertising dollars to spend, is
viewed as a "lifestyle choice" without health consequences.  It HAS
consequences -- for the health of the children, and even for the health of
the mother.  Women who bottle-feed have a much higher rate of breast cancer
than women who breastfeed.  And those of us who work to promote, protect,
and support breastfeeding are labelled as cult members or "breastfeeding
nazis."
>        I urge you to check out either of the two newly published books
that adhere to standards of scientific accuracy for accurate information
about the health consequences of not breastfeeding.  They are "Money, Milk,
and Madness" by Naomi Baumslag and Dia Michels published by Bergin and
Garvey, and "Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives," edited by Patricia
Stuart-Macadam and myself (Katherine A. Dettwyler), published by Aldine de
Gruyter.  I think you will find them highly enlightening.  I will send along
an excerpt from the conclusions of one of my own chapters in the book,
titled "Beauty and the Breast."
>        I suppose those of us who lobby for accurate information about the
adverse health consequences of bottle-feeding, and for a
breastfeeding-friendly society should take some satisfaction in the idea
that our efforts have been successful enough to elicit a backlash in the
form of this hastily thrown-together work by Ms. Robin.  Unfortunately, it
is the children who will suffer in the long run, and parents who read this
book will once again have been denied the right to accurate information on
which to base their own decisions about how to best feed their infants.
>
>
>
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology
Texas A&M University
Specialist in infant feeding and child health
College Station, TX 77843-4352
e-mail to [log in to unmask]
(409) 845-5256
(409) 778-4513