Hi all I suppose I should not have been surprised to read that those with a financial interest in breastmilk substitutes watch LACTNET but I was. If the manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes are concerned primarily with engendering brand loyalty amongst mothers who choose not to breastfeed (as they occasionally claim) - and not with influencing their choice to breastfeed or not - why would the conversations that take place on lactnet be of any interest to them anyway??? By monitoring this list they declare that they are in competition with breastfeeding and aim to reduce breastfeeding rates. If a company that makes meds for cardiac patients actively sought to increase their market by encouraging people to overeat and remain sedentary the outcry would be heard in every corner of the developed world. I read with interest Anna Greenberg's defense of the research she did and the IFC's press release. I am sure that the work she did rigorously addressed the research question that the IFC provided her. And therein lies the problem. Science is not objective. We have to examine the questions we ask before attempting to answer them. We have look at the ideological assumptions they contain and a good way to flush these out is to ask a very old question - 'cui bono?' (Who profits?). The IFC has much to gain in finding support for their efforts to provide free samples of their products to mothers. The members of the IFC want to provide samples to mothers in an effort to increase sales of breastmilk substitutes. Increased sales necessarily mean decreased breastfeeding rates. I wonder if it has occurred to Ms Greenberg that she and her firm have been used. Her company's reputation has been sullied by its (albeit luctrative) relationship with the IFC. To illustrate the point, in years gone by much rigourous scientific research was directed at answering the question, 'What makes non-caucasion persons inferior?'. See the assumption? Bad question equals bad science. The IFC commissioned research found that mothers do not think that their infant feeding decisions are influenced by marketing. Yet the IFC members continue to engage in these practices and fight hard for the right to do so. Seems to me that they have some other, perhaps unpublished, research that suggests that although mothers do not believe they are influenced, in fact, they are. I wonder if Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research would like address a different question. Rather than asking mothers if they believe they are influenced by IFC member's aggressive marketing, perhaps they could ask, "Are mothers, in fact, influenced?" This would mean examining the feeding behaviour of mothers who have been subject to this marketing and compare it with a control group who are not subject to such marketing. (They may need to fly to PNG where such marketing is proscribed by legislation to find such a group.) Nina Berry BA/Bed(Hons) Dip Arts(Phil) Breastfeeding Counsellor PhD Candidate - "Ethical Issues in the marketing of 'Toddler Milks'" *********************************************** To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest) To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet All commands go to [log in to unmask] The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R) mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html