This is one of the rare times I can't completely agree with Linda, who wrote
on Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:57:25 -0400:
>The ABM companies "support" BF for one reason, and one reason only - because
>it's good business and sells more ABM.  If their "BF promotion" actually
>worked and raised the rates of BF initiation and duration, the companies
>would sell less of their products which would reduce their bottom line and
>therefore be ILLEGAL. ABM companies are not benevolent trusts or charities.
>US trade law requires maximizing profit to the stockholders, and ABM
>companies are in business TO MAKE MONEY. Period.

Couldn't they be labelling their packages, publishing pro-BF handouts, and
sponsoring BF conferences because they're afraid of possible government
intervention is support of WHO, and trying to look innocent?  The "bottom line"
is maximized for the long term by considering trends and the probable future
regulatory environment.  The ABM companies must be just as aware as we
are that the highest BF rates (horrible as they are) are found among the best
educated.  For a corporate worrier, the handwriting may be on the wall!  Also,
ABM isn't the single product of these companies, even though it may now be
the most profitable.  If they believe there is a clear trend toward BFing, it
makes perfect sense to try to salvage a good position with the medical industry
for their other lines.  Consider the present rates of BFing, compared with 10,
20, 30, 40, and 50 years ago.  If I looked at those numbers, I wouldn't want
to stake my job on the ABM market.

(paragraph snipped)

>Every dollar spent on "promoting BF" raises the cost of ABM for those that
>purchase it - mothers and babies, and US taxpayers. Anyone who accepts ABM
>funding for their lunch, dinner, honorarium, etc is actually charging mothers
>and babies for that lunch, dinner, or honorarium. It's legitimate to request
>and accept speaking fees. However, these fees do not have to filter through
>an ABM company where they can redirect the funds and take their share off the
>top.

Is it better to take money from hospitals, who must then pass it on to their
patients?  How about from the patients themselves, when we consult?  We
are giving them their money's worth, and Diane will be giving whoever pays
the bill their money's worth if she does the talk.  Finally, I think raising the
price of ABM is a good thing.  The more it costs, the less people will use it!
Let the ABM companies sponsor EVERYTHING and make ABM cost more
than anyone can afford and we'll see BF initiation rates approach 100%.
(It won't reach 100% because of the one case in a million where the mom
really CAN'T breastfeed)  When ABM is treated as a medicine for that rare
condition, I'll feel bad for the mom, but I won't be angry about it.  Until
then,
let them pay for us, just don't do anything to help push ABM where it's not
needed.

Jonathan