Formula company influence over breastfeeding campaign back in the news - with a new twist.

Some of you may remember seeing the breastfeeding public awareness campaign from a few years back.  Many of you probably don't because it was so mired in controversy that virtually no one saw them. 

The campaign's TV spots featured images of pregnant women riding mechanical bulls and log rolling.  There were also some posters, billboards, and radio spots.  I'm showing a few of the posters here.  Part of the controversy had to do with the ads themselves, since they were the first to talk about the risks of not breastfeeding, versus the benefits of breastfeeding.

But the larger controversy had to do with the formula industry's intervention in the campaign.  This was pretty big news in 2004, and I remember seeing a very pointed piece about it on 20/20.  Thanks to Dr. Jay Gordon, who is interviewed in the story, you can see the 20/20 story here. I hope you'll watch it all the way through.

This issue is back in the news now because of the oversight that Congress is doing in response to accusations, made by former Surgeon General Richard Carmona, that the Bush administration stymied his efforts to promote public health when that agenda ran afoul of the administration's political friends. 

Last week the Washington Post ran a story retelling the ad campaign debacle.  It goes beyond the 20/20 story in identifying the political connections of the lobbyists hired to water down the campaign.  It also points out that during the years when the ads ran the formula industry increased its advertising budget from $30 million to $50 million.  Advertising is very effective for the industry; the CDC reported this year that the percentage of women who say that formula is just as good as breastmilk nearly doubled from 1999 to 2003.

But here's the part of the story that caught my eye:  the Post alleges that the administration has sought to quash the distribution of a recent report which quantifies the reduction in risk of certain diseases and conditions for mothers who breastfeed.  Or, put another way, the increase in risk for these conditions for mothers who don't breastfeed.  The report states, for example, that breastfeeding is associated with a 36% reduction in the risk of SIDS.  It's a really good report, and I've mentioned it here, and here.

I had heard that there was some pressure on the department not to publicize this report, but was shocked to read what the Post had dug up:

In April, according to officials and documents, the department chose not to promote a comprehensive analysis by its own Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) of multiple studies on breast-feeding, which generally found it was associated with fewer ear and gastrointestinal infections, as well as lower rates of diabetes, leukemia, obesity, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome.

A top HHS official said that at the time, Suzanne Haynes, an epidemiologist and senior science adviser for the department's Office on Women's Health, argued strongly in favor of promoting the new conclusions in the media and among medical professionals. But her office, which commissioned the report, was specifically instructed by political appointees not to disseminate a news release.

Wanda K. Jones, director of the women's health office, said agency media officials have "all been hammering me" about getting Haynes to stop trying to draw attention to the AHRQ report. HHS press officer Rebecca Ayer emphatically told Haynes and others in mid-July that there should be "no media outreach to anyone" on that topic, current and former officials said.

Both HHS and AHRQ ultimately sent out a few e-mail notices, but the report was generally ignored. Requests to speak with Haynes were turned down by other HHS officials.  [my emphasis added]

I probably shouldn't be surprised, but I was.  This is a David and Goliath (or Godiva vs. oatmeal cookie) fight, and you don't have to know much to know that money talks.  It just still amazes me that anyone could justify keeping information like this from the public, for the sole purpose of making more money. 

It would be nice to win one for mothers and babies one of these days.

Want to get email updates from the Motherwear Blog?  Subscribe here.  Want an RSS feed? Click here.

Comments

[Half Pint Pixie]

great article, it is so frustrating to see this.

I know we shouldn't be surprised at the depths the formula companies will sink to but what really gets me is that there are people involved here, it's not just the company, individual people in them make the choices to suppress potentially lifesaving information for the sake of profits. It shouldn't surprise me, but it disappoints me...

[Milk Mama Cate]

Tanya, You rock! Great blog on this subject. You're my role model!
Cate

[ginaciagne]

Thanks for including this on your blog (and doing so in the past as well). I am happy to see it making the rounds and getting pickup by other media so those who don't get the Washington Post can read about it as well. I had hoped (silently back when I was working on the campaign while at HHS)that the whole story would come out eventually and this resurgence resulting from Carmona's testimony has helped tremendously. This is just another example of how so much is being distorted and who is distorting it behind the scenes. Thanks!! Gina

[Tanya Lieberman]

Gina,

Thanks so much for speaking out in this article, and also here!

Tanya

[redpanda75]

I've been following this story, and it makes me seethe. But it's not really anything new. Under the Bush administration, health policy has been set back immensely. Where we used to have effective anti-tobacco programs, we now have well-funded special-interest groups. Where we once had effective sex education, we now have abstinence-only programs. It's unspeakably sad.

The fact that the marketing professionals were outright telling them that the "campaign" they went with wouldn't be effective--it brings to mind the "anti-drug" campaign ads that were run post 9-11 that did nothing but instill fear of terrorists. (That was their job, of course. Who cares about drugs?)

I just have to wonder--when will it stop? When will people say ENOUGH is ENOUGH?

[kstina]

Along this topic - did anyone see the article in Parents? It had myths vs truths. I believe it was the August issue. It said that formula was just as good as breastfeeding and that the jury was out on the issue! Everyone is too concerned with being so politcally correct these days so that they don't offend anyone, but they wind up covering up the truth about breastfeeding! It's great to see that others are upset about this cover up.

[Robnt]

This is unfortunate because some women just will not take an individual's say-so. It actually takes official research to convince them that something is true.

I have nursed our six children for a year to 2.5 years each and am still hesitant to voice my true opinion about formula because of the offense women take. They want to believe what they believe and they have been thoroughly duped in my opinion!

[Mandy]

I remember seeing this ad campaign when my daughter was an infant, and it outraged me. I believe very strongly in the benefits of breastfeeding (both to mother and baby) and am proud of my choice. However, I was furious to see choosing not to breastfeed compared to riding a mechanical bull or taking part in a log rolling race while pregnant.

Some women can't breastfeed, despite valiant efforts, and some simply don't have the support needed to have a successful breastfeeding relationship. I'd have rather seen ads that focused on the benefits instead of belittling those that couldn't or wouldn't breastfeed.

I called and wrote to say exactly that.

Regarding the Bush administration and his health 'policies' - he's a scumbag and I can't say the move surprises me, but it abosolutely saddens and infuriates me.

My daughter nursed for just over two years, and I consider myself very lucky to have been able to give her that gift - and have it be a gift to myself as well.