>As a competitor in a retail field, I find that bowing out
>isn't the answer, more aggressive advertising is...
>
>Equal or more breastfeeding banners (would) prove Dr. Sears is serious about
>what he wishes to convey--that breastfeeding is best.

The difference is, we're not dealing with comparable products here.  We're
dealing with something that "advertises" nothing more than ordinary everyday
health, and something that is *always* damaging to ordinary health, even if
that damage is sometimes no more than an altering of normal gut flora.  It
would be like a "healthy living" site running ad banners for exercise,
fruits and vegetables, low fat foods... and cigarettes.  The site really
couldn't argue that since the banners for "good" products outweighed by 3 to
1 the banners for "bad" products, it was clear that the site was serious
about what it wished to convey.  It would instead be clear that the site was
*not* really serious.

Suppose the site owner understood that some people are unable to quit
smoking and therefore need access to the least damaging cigarette possible.
Would he run an advertising banner for that company?  Or would he discuss it
*within the body of his site,* perhaps telling people where to get the least
damaging cigarettes, but embedding that link in a strong reminder that this
was not equivalent to quitting, that cigarettes of all kinds remain
damaging, that as an advertising site the link would contain marketing
information that wasn't necessarily accurate, and that people should return
to *his* site for more information on quitting?

Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC  Ithaca, NY
www.wiessinger.baka.com

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