More Boobies!!

sawaboof's picture

The Ad Council. Have you heard of them? I'm sure you have. Smokey the Bear works for them to prevent forest fighters. Though now retired, Rosie the Riveter supported women in war jobs. And I'm sure we've all seen McGruff the Crime Dog take a bite out of crime!

If you've ever watched a public service announcement (PSA), chances are it was paid for by the Ad Council.

A few years ago, the Ad Council set aside a large portion of their budget to take up the noble cause of breastfeeding awareness. The pictures you see above were part of the original campaign, headed by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Attention-grabbing and informative, health officials everywhere were excited to launch these ads!

However, lurking in dark alleyways were people who didn't approve.

The Infant Formula Industry sent in their lobbyists.

The Ad Council's budget is $35 million per year. Sound like a lot? It's not. That 35 million is the Ad Council's entire operating budget for the year. That is all the money they are allotted for everything they do. Let’s put some perspective on this. In 2005, McDonald's spent $1.5 billion on global marketing. That's not their operating budget. That's just what they spend on marketing their products around the world—in these United States, they spent $765 million. That's why McDonald's commercials are better than, oh... the good nutrition ads. Have you seen those ads? They're stupid. I digress.. Anyway, Nestle, a major distributor of infant formula, spent $561 million on marketing in these United States in 2005.

People with money have power. Formula companies, who are mostly divisions of major pharmaceutical companies (who donate lots of campaign money), have money; the Ad Council does not.

Back to the lobbyists. The formula industry, for unknown reasons, didn't like the idea of women seeing a link between bottle-feeding and diabetes. What did they do? They hired Clayton Yeutter, former Republican Party Chairman, to talk to Tommy Thompson, the then Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (remember, they were in charge of the Breastfeeding campaign). After a few meetings and letters, the Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign went from nipples on inhalers to:


Cute, huh? Not what the Department of Health and Human Services had in mind. Especially after they made the original ads after hiring professional ad agencies who told them positive messages weren't going to work. They needed the shocking images if they wanted to have a positive change. And they were right. During that campaign, despite the changes made, formula industries increased their own marketing budgets. After launching this campaign, the number of women breastfeeding didn't increase. It didn't even stay the same. It went down. Which means formula sales went up.

The formula industry didn't stop this campaign, but they changed it enough to make them happy. So happy that their lobbyist wrote Mr. Tommy Thompson a letter or two expressing his extreme gratitude for taking their interests into consideration.

Political interference much? It’s being investigated because of Richard Carmona's testimony that the Bush administration repeatedly allowed political considerations to interfere with his efforts to promote public health. Remember Richard Carmona? He was the surgeon general who was not reappointed. Because he didn't base his agenda on The White House's agenda. He didn't like the idea of suppressing things like reports on global health and prison health just because they were politically sensitive topics, and the Bush Administration didn't like his inability to be influenced.

And that is pretty much the story of how the Formula Industry successfully annihilated the breastfeeding campaign. You can read more about it here That article even links to the letters of gratitude written to Tommy Thompson.

Big industries are everywhere. They are in your Food Pyramid. They are in your Dietary Guidelines. They are in your medications and your health care and your school lunch programs and your education. And now, they are in your newborn's only source of nutrition. You think your government works for you? They don't. They work for the people who have the most control over them.

The people working for you send recommendations to the government. The government holds meetings to discuss the recommendations before publishing. Major industries send their people into these meetings. Words like "eat less red meat" are changed to "choose foods low in saturated fat" in your dietary guidelines because the Agriculture Industry has a lot of money and doesn't want people to know that eating a lot of cattle is bad for them. Things affecting you get changed and you never even know because you never see the original ideas. And major industries like it that way.

Steal the control from major industries! Vote for congress representatives who will represent you and your community! Write to officials and get others to write as well! Be your own lobbyist!



My other Boobies!! post can be found here.

AttachmentSize
breastfeeding campaign 1.gif163.93 KB
breastfeeding campaign 2.jpg34.41 KB
breastfeeding campaign 3.gif54.05 KB
breastfeeding campaign 4.jpg309.33 KB
Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

This is a great blog series. People need to more about not only breastfeeding, but also the extent to which the government is persuaded to work against people's best interests.

I for one plan on breastfeeding any and all of my future children. *Big thumbs up* Keep up the great work!

Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person

sawaboof's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

Thanks! There is definitely more to come. Worry not. I have many many publications laying around my living room from a 14-page report I just finished writing. ;-)


"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Read my Blog!

fallon's picture
Managing Director of Progressive U

Anyway, Nestle, a major distributor of infant formula, spent $561 dollars on marketing in these United States in 2005.

Is that supposed to be $561 or was a million supposed to go behind it?

Aside from that question... well done, sawa!

-----
~Fallon~

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.- Russell
-----

sawaboof's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

definitely a million behind it...

which is also a little misleading since all of that is not spent on marketing their infant formula but... still. They have money. :P

Thanks! :-)


"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Read my Blog!

bridge's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

You make me feel smarter, sawaboof. I feel I know more now about boobies than ever before...

I wonder why those ads there in the middle--the "dandelions" and "ice cream"--didn't work so well? It's probably a question for a psychologist, or someone who thinks about ink blots on a daily basis, but I wonder just the same.

~ *~
This is a signature, an automated thingy that pops up when I comment, not a demand to see my blog!

Mind Control is Easier Than You Think

sawaboof's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

Thanks! I like being informative. :-)

As far as the ads go...

The ad agency they hired said that people wouldn't respond to a positive message because they already knew breastfeeding was good. One of the problems, though, is that people have the mind set that formula is just as good, and it's not. Breastfeeding is a gold standard and anything else is inferior. So the ads were supposed to get people to rethink formula feeding, because it has negative effects. and a shocking image would have been the best way to do that. Pretty and positive just doesn't have the same effect as shocking and negative when you're trying to modify an existing behavior.

It's kind of like smoking. Telling people smoking causes lung cancer with a picture of a tarry lung is probably more effective than showing someone a picture of a person happily jogging with the phrase "not smoking increases lung capacity" or something plastered on.


"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Read my Blog!

bridge's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

Good points, all of these. I must agree that "scary" ads are more noticeable and leave a more profound effect than the happy ads. I'll more likely remember an ad that shocked me rather than some random lady livin' it up without her cancer sticks.

I can't believe I just used "cancer stick" in a serious sentence. Sheesh.

~ *~
This is a signature, an automated thingy that pops up when I comment, not a demand to see my blog!

Mind Control is Easier Than You Think

kinkatia's picture
Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

You are a very informative person. And this is a wonderful blog entry. Hopefully it will get people to start thinking a little more. I want to say something else, but it might have to wait, as my brain is just a tad fried at the moment.

And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!

sawaboof's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

Thank you. :-)

And I hope your brain is unfried before you forget what it is you wanted to say! I know my brain doesn't even have to be fried for that to happen to me... ;-)


"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Read my Blog!

kinkatia's picture
Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

I believe it was something about how I really liked those first two ads... there was a distinct why, but that's lodged itself somewhere in forgetfulness. I agree with what's been said about the need to use shocking images to get a point across, though. People can be rather unmotivated to do things that will be beneficial to them and their families unless they're shocked into it.

And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!

I was not breastfed, and i have asthma.

kinkatia's picture
Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

I wish I could join you in using myself as an example, but I got the wrong end of the gene pool, so having breastfed didn't do much in preventing the asthma or the allergies and whatnot. Of course, my mom's smoking didn't help much there, either.

Message to all women who may one day be mothers: Breastfeed your children and do not smoke! It will be good for them!

And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!

OxonGlass11's picture

I suppose that title of your got many (mostly men haha) to read this article.

It is interesting how companies possess such a large monopoly over such things. Perhaps with the onset of the next election, these monopolies will become a thing of the past.

-OxonGlass11

Apparently children who aren't breast-fed don't develop strong relationships with their mothers and are said to have a harder time with committed relationships and getting close to people, further down the road. I don't know who the test subjects were for these studies but I wasn't breast-fed and none of that holds true for me. Maybe these studies are bogus or maybe I'm a fluke.

Either way, I remembered these studies after reading this blog entry. I know it doesn't really pertain but I thought I'd post it.

I don't think that I believe that data on Type 1 diabetes. It is hereditary. My mother was a Type 1 diabetic, and whether or not she passed that gene on to me could not be prevented by anything, according to my physician. Not to mention that she couldn't breastfeed because I was born prematurely (8 weeks early).

~Violinstef

sawaboof's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

What is genetic is a predisposition to Type 1 diabetes. The prevailing belief is that it takes an environmental trigger or multiple triggers to actually set it off. Clinical research has shown that, not only does breastfeeding decrease the risk of Type 1 diabetes, but also that introducing cow's milk (including infant formula) actually increases the risk.

And breastfeeding premature or low-birth weight infants is actually highly encouraged, as it improves physical and neurological development, and helps fight off infections that these babies are at a high risk for.


"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Read my Blog!

mvenus929's picture
Managing Director of Progressive U

You know, a baby's immune system is entirely dependent on the mother for the first 6 months, during that breastfeeding stage. Just giving the baby small amounts of breastmilk, even in a bottle, will help that immune system develop much more than formula, which has no antibodies for the baby to have. Diabetes, especially type 1 diabetes, is an autoimmune disease, caused by a malfunctioning immune system. So, I can entirely see why not breastfeeding might lead to type 1 diabetes.

Fallon's niece was born extremely premature (I think she was born around 24 weeks, which is 16 weeks early). While she didn't exactly breastfeed, her mother did give her breastmilk at one point. Since I'm sure you were a great deal larger, I see no reason they would ban your mother from giving you breastmilk, even if you were contained in the NICU.

~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!

fallon's picture
Managing Director of Progressive U

She was 26 weeks. Before she could actually feed from the breast, they'd put it in a syringe and it'd be delivered via the feeding tube which is typical for NICU.

In addition to the immune system issues you mentioned, it's easier to digest than formula which is a huge deal for preemies. It also contains growth factors that aren't found in formula that are beneficial to preemies because of the low birth weight issues they have to contend with. Some doctors though, are still of the mindset that formula is just as good, if not better, than breastmilk despite all the evidence to the contrary. Little Princess had one of those.

It took sis screaming at him to finally get him to stop giving Little Princess formula. She did better when the formula was completely stopped... came home faster than they expected too. Alo's respiratory therapist said she had the same problem with that particular neo. He kept telling her that her daughter was allergic to breastmilk and would give the baby formula instead. She wasn't; it just ensured he could do what he wanted.

Needless to say, the hospital caught hell from sis.

And I sincerely hope the dillhole was fired.

-----
~Fallon~

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.- Russell
-----

mvenus929's picture
Managing Director of Progressive U

Yeah... your sis had an idiot doctor. I promise not to be that kind of doctor :)

~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.