LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Diane Wiessinger <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:49:47 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
I can't stand it.  Maybe I'm finally feeling too old to get pushed around.  I was recently at a conference at which a formula company salesman gave a talk on its various products, many of which now contain DHA and ARA.  Sure enough, for the first time the babies' blood levels were similar to those of breastfed babies - as the speaker said, the gold standard.  And the IQs at roughly 3 years weren't too far off the mark.  But the table demonstrating this didn't quite get covered in detail.  It seems that the *control* (listed only as "control") in the study wasn't breastmilk (which was called breastmilk in the table).  It was the *same formula without DHA/ARA*.  

Now, if you're being expected to pay more than before for, say, air freshener, do you want to hear that it freshens the air really well... or that it freshens the air better than the previous, less expensive version?  Well, in this particular table, the new formula *underperformed the old one* by 2 of the 3 measures listed (though not by much).  It improved on the old formaul by only one measure and that one not significantly.  Huh?  No wonder it was labled simply "control" and not "our previous less expensive version".  I talked to one of the salesmen afterwards: By what measures does the new formula outperform the old, besides blood levels?  He wasn't sure.  Now, this was just one slide that I caught.  I can't say that the DHA/ARA version *doesn't* outperform the old formula in *some* way - maybe even in ways that they hoped it would - but wouldn't you think that if it did the salesman would have that information right at his fingertips and ready on his lips?  

But it's not just those guys, folks.  The question of whether a certain new style of rental-quality pump does or does not extract more milk *than the old style* has been bothering me.  The table at this conference wasn't staffed by company salesmen, but the volunteers there were quite certain that, indeed, the new pump has been shown to yield more milk.  I checked the brochure, which had some figures and charts - none relating to volume - and a testamonial from a woman who did, indeed, get more milk than with "any other pump", though no other pumps were named in the one-person comparison.  So I finally called the company.  The salesman with whom I spoke couldn't immediately come up with figures.  (Why on earth don't I do this kind of thing more often?  I think I hate to embarrass people, which is a silly reason.)  

Now, again, if your company had produced a pump that performed *better than its previous best* in the only area that really, really matters to mothers, wouldn't you have that information at your fingertips?  Maybe the study really has been done and this particular salesman couldn't access it immediately... but that seems just as unlikely as the formula scenario.

No matter what company we're talking about, folks, business is business, so be ***very*** aware of whether a company is actually making the comparison you need to hear about, or is making some other sounds-good comparison while camouflaging the one that really matters.

And while I'm at it (hey, I've been off lactnet for a long time now), the formula talk *began* with the salesman relating her own very positive breastfeeding experience, by way of reminding the group that, after all, breastfeeding is clearly the best choice.  Now, if the true purpose of the talk was not to decrease breastfeeding rates but simply to compare one formula to another... well, let's put it this way.  Suppose you were talking to a group of cardiologists about margarines, specifically about how one has fewer transfats than another and is thus preferable if someone wants to use margarine, but you genuinely want to decrease overall margarine sales in favor of, say, olive oil, would you *begin* your talk with a reminder that olive oil is healthier than either of the margarines you're discussing, and is the only *truly* healthy choice... or would you *end* it with that?  

Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC, with a much cleaner house and happily married last child in Ithaca, NY

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome

ATOM RSS1 RSS2