As if it weren't enough that Applebee's in Lexington pushed a mom out of their restaurant for breastfeeding her baby in a back corner booth. (So much for that Kentucky law that states breastfeeding in public is legal. Of course, why we need laws for this I'm unclear, but that's for another post).
Now the federal government has toned down its ads to promote breastfeeding. You read correctly, toned down its ads, even though media relations experts advised them against softening the ads, because they wouldn't increase breastfeeding. I mean, why would the federal government want to increase breastfeeding rates? Who cares about the study published this year by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (yes, an agency of the federal government) that showed breastfeeding contributes to good infant AND maternal health? According to this AHRQ study, children who are breastfed get fewer ear and respiratory infections, GI illnesses, and skin rashes. They're also less likely to have asthma, obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and childhood leukemia, and less likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
As for moms - women who breastfed were less likely to have type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer. Conversely, women who stopped breastfeeding early (before 6 months) or never breastfed at all were more likely to have postpartum depression.
So why are we spending money on an ad campaign for breastfeeding that will essentially have no effect on a mother's decision to breastfeed? Talk to your neighborhood pharmaceutical company - apparently it was the infant formula/pharmaceutical lobby that got the Department of Health and Human Services to tone down its ads, because they need to keep those revenues up. And not just in infancy mind you. They want to make sure kids keep needing their prescriptions well into childhood to take care of the asthma, ear infections, and diabetes they develop.
Are we really making health policy based on an industry that does better when people are unhealthy? I say nurse-in at Applebee's today - big PHRMA tomorrow.
Now the federal government has toned down its ads to promote breastfeeding. You read correctly, toned down its ads, even though media relations experts advised them against softening the ads, because they wouldn't increase breastfeeding. I mean, why would the federal government want to increase breastfeeding rates? Who cares about the study published this year by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (yes, an agency of the federal government) that showed breastfeeding contributes to good infant AND maternal health? According to this AHRQ study, children who are breastfed get fewer ear and respiratory infections, GI illnesses, and skin rashes. They're also less likely to have asthma, obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and childhood leukemia, and less likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
As for moms - women who breastfed were less likely to have type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer. Conversely, women who stopped breastfeeding early (before 6 months) or never breastfed at all were more likely to have postpartum depression.
So why are we spending money on an ad campaign for breastfeeding that will essentially have no effect on a mother's decision to breastfeed? Talk to your neighborhood pharmaceutical company - apparently it was the infant formula/pharmaceutical lobby that got the Department of Health and Human Services to tone down its ads, because they need to keep those revenues up. And not just in infancy mind you. They want to make sure kids keep needing their prescriptions well into childhood to take care of the asthma, ear infections, and diabetes they develop.
Are we really making health policy based on an industry that does better when people are unhealthy? I say nurse-in at Applebee's today - big PHRMA tomorrow.
2 comments:
I've often wondered why the benefits to mothers aren't given more press. Beyond the health benefits you described, the relative convenience and minimal expense of breastfeeding are significant positives.
Both of my girls gave it up on their own at about 5 months, and I wished they had kept up, not just for the sake of their health and mine, but also because I loathed spending all that money on formula.
I think it reflects the general trend of focusing on children. Unfortunately, I think as a society we miss an important element to children's well-being - their parents' well-being. It's why I study women's health and not children's health. I often cite the airplane oxygen example - first place the air mask on yourself, then help children and disabled passengers. If as a society we really want our children to thrive, we need to make sure their caretakers are healthy, both physically and mentally.
Post a Comment