This is the letter I am sending to letters-to-the-editor addresses in any
papers who have run Michelle Malkin's column.  I think it is more effective
if many people, especially local readers of paper editions, respond.  In a
short letter, you could just point out the factual inaccuracies and wonder
what her motivation was.  Malkin has a history of disapproval of health
research money going to AIDS research in the US, and a history of disliking
corporate welfare.  She defines herself as a political conservative.  She
has her own website: www.michellemalkin.com where anyone can go and see what
she stands for.  I found the tone of most of her writing to be similar to
what she wrote on Unicef and formula.  
I weighed the options and decided to leave Nestlé's name in this letter when
I post it to the list, because I am able to back up the statements I make
about Nestlé and I don't think I am placing Lactnet at risk by so doing.

December 12, 2000
To the editor:
I am most disturbed by several factual inaccuracies in the abovementioned
article.  For example, the pasteurized milk referred to ('blithely
supported' by an unnamed Unicef official) is pasteurized HUMAN milk.  There
are methods of pasteurization which any woman possessing the necessary
amenities to bottle feed can use, and which effectively eliminates the risk
of viral transmission while still allowing her baby to receive her milk.  No
woman who lacks the equipment to pasteurize, would be able to give
commercially produced milk safely either.

It is also stated "But in the developing world, iron-fortified formula is
often superior to the milk of sick, malnourished women."  That is followed
by a list of foods which Malkin seems to imply are vital in order for a
woman's milk to be of acceptable quality.
There is no scientific basis for either statement, but they both fit hand in
glove with the new campaigns from the artificial baby milk industry to
provide 'supplements' to lactating mothers, which they may advertise with
impunity, as only infant foods are covered by the code on marketing of
breastmilk substitutes.

I live and practice in Norway, a wealthy country with excellent health
statistics for mothers and babies, where breastfeeding rates have remained
high throughout the past century despite industrialization.  Nearly all
women begin breastfeeding.  Currently 40% of Norwegian children are still
getting some breastmilk at the age of one year.  We are now, in the year
2000, seeing a new initiative on the part of Nestlé to subtly discourage
women from breastfeeding exclusively past four months, even though mothers
have the right to maternity leave at full pay for 10 months after giving
birth, which all of them exercise, and even though they are healthy and well
nourished and would, by the reasoning in the article, be providing babies
with 'high quality' milk.  

Nestlé does not respect the WHO code for marketing of breastmilk
substitutes, at least not in Norway, and the only possible reason they could
have for their behavior here is economic.  Our high breastfeeding rates mean
lost income for them, although I doubt many Norwegian mothers would like to
be called extremists for their breastfeeding practices.  They are just
practicing normal motherhood, Norwegian style.  

I wonder if this same code is the one referred to as 'an inane UN regulatory
code', and I sincerely wish Malkin had researched the history of said code,
because she might want to toss your inflammatory adjectives in a different
direction if she had.  Yes, the WHO code predates the AIDS epidemic.  It
came about to try and stem the tide of needless infant deaths from the
unethical marketing of breast milk substitutes in many of these very same
countries, but the code does not provide one standard for wealthy nations
and one for poor.  It applies equally in all nations.  

To dismiss Unicef's standpoint as a simple 'grudge' which 'dates back to the
1970s, when breast-feeding extremists began a boycott of Nestlé and other
companies,' is a gross revision of history.  It was not 'breast-feeding
extremists' (whatever that means), but dedicated people concerned about the
harmful influence market forces exerted on public health in all regions of
the world, who finally managed to get the code passed, against much initial
resistance from the industry.  One such person, Patti Rundall, was awarded
the Order of the British Empire this spring for her work over decades.  And
the industry now likes to pride itself for participating in self-regulatory
activity in accordance with the code, as well as share the credit for
putting it into place.

I realize it is a very serious thing to accuse a journalist of financial
conflict of interest.  It may be less serious to accuse them of doing a
sloppy job of researching the facts.  The particular bias of this article,
however, makes me wonder whether Malkin's relationship to the industry
involved would stand up to a broad daylight investigation.  For the sake of
her own journalistic integrity, I hope it is only sloppiness that is to
blame.  I am not making any accusations, but I am definitely stating my
suspicion.

Sincerely,
Rachel Myr
Sandloveien 1
Kristiansand, Norway
phone (+47) 38 01 44 20
licensed midwife (Norwegian trained), nurse (BSN), International Board
Certified Lactation Consultant, and editor of professional journal for
midwives in Norway.
Credentials verifiable on request.

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