breatfeeding segment on 20/20
On Friday night at 10 pm Eastern Time, ABC 20/20 is expected to do a segment on the controversies surrounding the National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign. They've apparently taken a very aggressive approach and the
results should be of great interest to anyone supportive of breastfeeding. As is always the case with the media, there is a possibility that the segment will be pulled at the last moment.
"What Controversy?" some of you might be asking. The article below appeared in the last issue of Breastfeeding Matters (Volume 6, No. 1, March 2004), the newsletter of the Breastfeeding Coalition of Washington.
After much controversy and debate leading to delays during the fall of 2003, it was announced at the United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC) meeting in January that the US Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign would be launched in
the spring.
As previously reported in Breastfeeding Matters (Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 2003) the Advertising Council and the government's Office of Women's Health (OWH) was scheduled to launch a three year National Breastfeeding Media Campaign.
This creative and well-researched campaign was scheduled to start during World Breastfeeding Week (August 1-7, 2003) and was pushed back to December. The December launch date was scrapped after representatives from two major
formula companies complained about the campaign to two members of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Executive Committee. Soon thereafter, Dr. Carden Johnston, the newly appointed President of the AAP, wrote a letter to Tommy Thompson (Secretary of Health & Human Services) asking that the campaign's emphasis be changed to reflect the positive effects of breastfeeding rather than the risks of not breastfeeding. The campaign focused on the "risks associated with not breastfeeding" and included statistics from studies that have found that babies fed formula have a higher risk of developing asthma, diabetes, leukemia and other illnesses.
The messages contained in the campaign were designed based on 36 focus groups that were conducted around the country. Information gathered from the focus groups indicated that it was essential that the health consequences of not breastfeeding be clearly communicated in the campaign.
The formula companies were worried that the campaign would "give the impression that infant formula is unhealthy and potentially dangerous." This "benefits" type of campaign does a disservice to public health by framing infant feeding as a life style choice, rather than a health issue.
As Amy Spangler, Chair of the US Breastfeeding Committee explains, "We do not, for example, persuade people to wear seatbelts by saying they are "even safer" than wearing no seatbelt, or that using a car seat is "even safer" than holding an infant on one's lap, or that quitting smoking is "even healthier" than not smoking. Nor is there any concern about inducing guilt in people who smoke, or don't wear seatbelts or use car seats."
At this point in time, the risk-focused strategy remains but the relative risk statements and the references to leukemia and diabetes have been removed. One of the strongest points in the campaign is that the ads will feature the importance of exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months. This is fully supported and backed by HHS and NIH. While the ads targeting childhood diabetes and leukemia have been removed, HHS has committed to further study of the risk relationships between these diseases and not breastfeeding. The theme of the campaign was also confirmed at the USBC meeting: Babies Were Born to be Breastfed!
Kimberly Radtke, Program Coordinator
Breastfeeding Coalition of Washington
11000 Lake City Way NE, Suite 301
Seattle, WA 98125
206.281.8032 (p)
206.270.8891 (f)
www.hmhbwa.org
Promoting, protecting and supporting breastfeeding as a vital part of the health and development of children and their families.