There's a breast-sucker born every minute
Last week, The New York Times reported prominently on a new government campaign to guilt-trip women into breastfeeding. Apparently it's not enough to inform women that breast milk is healthier than formula (which no one is denying). The campaign claims that formula is actively dangerous. Really dangerous: it compares not breastfeeding to smoking or riding a mechanical bull while pregnant.
Others have pointed out some of the political and sociological problems with this campaign, but now Stats.org explains that it (and the Times article) are based on a flawed reading of the data. For instance:
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), breastfeeding leads to a 21 percent decrease in the death rate of babies in an age range over one month and under one-year old.I don't think anyone's arguing that bottle-feeding causes children to run into chainsaws, so there's clearly a correlation is not causation thing going on here.But turn to the AAP’s source. The scientific study used to support this claim found that babies who are nursed are less likely to die… of injuries!
And that seems to be the case throughout. The women who are more likely to formula feed are also more likely to be poor, have worse health coverage, smoke, etc. No wonder their kids aren't as healthy. In one of the few studies that looks only at affluent mothers, the only differences found between breast- and bottle-fed babies is that the former have fewer ear infections and less diarrhea. Not exactly mechanical bull territory.
What's more, Radosh.net childcare correspondent (and proud breastfeeder) Marjorie Ingall points out that "formula is different now than it was in the 80s, when most of these studies were done. essential fatty acids (which help brain development) were added in 2001, making formula MUCH better now than it was in the 80s." And Momsquawk notes that the Times used a misleading statistic to imply that too many women don't know the benefits of breastfeeding. In fact, "when you look at the full results of the CDC survey in their proper context... only 16.6% of Americans believe that babies should not be breastfed for at least the first six months." In other words, as Marjorie says (and this is why she's our correspondent in these matters): "DUDES! IF WE **KNOW** WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT, YOUR ASSWIPE GUILTMONGERING CAMPAIGN HAS NO PURPOSE! FUCKTARDS!"
Comments
OMG, that photo.
Seared on my brain forever.
At least the next 10 minutes or so.
Make it stop.
Posted by: randee | June 21, 2006 4:24 PM
Ow. My ey!
Posted by: Abby | June 21, 2006 5:07 PM
I'd like to send this to my wife, but she'll never get past the photo...
Posted by: space2k | June 21, 2006 8:48 PM
That photo is fabulous! Does anyone know who took it?
Posted by: John Lewis | June 22, 2006 3:58 AM
The photo -- the only kind of cat-blogging you'll ever see here -- is courtesy of Eros Blog, purveyors of intellegent smut (smutty intelligence?) since 2002.
Posted by: radosh | June 22, 2006 9:54 AM
Who cares if they fudged a couple numbers here or there? The cause is right - after all, baby formula is a $20 billion industry in this country.
Posted by: Vance | June 22, 2006 10:30 AM
At least you cropped out the bottom half of the photo, where the human baby was suckling on one of the cat's teats. Because that was disturbing.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2006 11:43 AM
"Who cares if they fudged a couple numbers here or there? The cause is right [...]"
Why care? Because if your cause is right, you'll do more damage to it by lying (excuse me, "fudging") than by working with the truth.
Don't believe me? Ask Dan Rather about "Fake but accurate."
Keep in mind how playing fast and loose to support a "worthy agenda" is affecting the HPV/Condom issue, as noted by Daniel in http://www.radosh.net/archive/001560.html
My take on breastfeeding is summed up here http://chaplin.nu/archives/000199.html
Posted by: Michael | June 24, 2006 7:22 PM
You see Vance, this is why people use emoticons. ; )
Posted by: radosh | June 24, 2006 8:52 PM
Aw, crap. Did I mis-read AGAIN?!?
Y'know, I'm so damned careful about driving post-call, I should start doing the same about *posting* post-call.
Posted by: Michael | June 24, 2006 10:07 PM
How did this happen? Didn't nature give us females breasts to nurse our children? Some years ago, in a Dear Abby letter, a woman wrote in to say that she absolutely refused to breast feed. She asserted emphatically that she was,"NOT A COW." I could then assume only that this woman actually believed the bovine female was created to feed human children. I'm not certain just what she thought HER breasts were for.
It occurs to me that the more sophisticated a person believes one's self to be, the more likely they are to have fallen prey to the sophists among us. Those who bombard us with misinformation over so long a period of time that the majority believe it as fact without regard for what is natural or ligical.
On NBC's TODAY, it was stated that smoking decreased male fertility. OH Yeow. Well then, how come more babies were born between 1946 AND 1966 THAN ANY OTHER TIME IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY, and a time when the percentage of smokers here was at its zenith? They even claimed that breathing second-hand smoke for 20 minutes was the same as smoking a pack a day. Now, you have to be an IDIOT (or true cancer-phobe)if you believe that! Who ARE these people. Some of them have been trying for years to find something bad about coffee.
Many of them were giddy over the advent of AIDS, a Godsend in their war against guilt-free sex.
Posted by: TA | March 13, 2007 2:52 PM
Is that good for the cat?
Posted by: Fillup | January 6, 2008 9:36 PM
Well atleast I have another alternative source for my cat...
Posted by: lol | March 22, 2008 2:52 PM
see youtube breastfeeding for
the cat.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 9:28 AM