Formula Campaign

     The DHHS is supposed to be held responsible for providing accurate information on their website regarding any issue involving human health or services, along with the surgeon general and a few other public offices. I think they could post anything involving our children's health on that web site, but I do not agree that all of our children should view a lot of the explicit contents that may impact their future in negative ways. If a child sees needles on the television every night  while watching a program, they may associate it with the local meth ads, which personally piss me off!!! Maybe scare tactics do work better on adults but how do they influence the children that see them? Someone should research how the ads teaching our children everything about drugs and addiction influence their decision making, but no matter the outcome, I am filled with anger every time my children are exposed to such explicit content, because I do not think they should see these things at such a young age!
     The formula companies have become a huge industry just as pharmaceutical companies. The problem with this is that doctors pass out prescriptions on a daily basis and even get paid to do so, while the trusting patients are the one's left paying the price.With this being the case, do we really want the formula companies to do the same thing to our children? It's bad enough that the FDA allows false and phony labels on the products we purchase out of trust! Nestle is tied into the formula companies, and anyone that has truly researched this company, would instantly be turned off by the brand name alone. My son is 9 and has not drank chocolate milk or had one of his favorite candy bar's since last year when I did research on child slavery and linked it to this company. The fact that he is not going to promote innocent children being abused for our gain says a lot, but it would say a lot more if we researched every label we buy. It would be a real eye opener!
     I do believe this article on nursing ads screwed up when calculating their numbers and have since then revised the documents. No matter, it is the money that influenced the ad, not the safety or education for our benefit!

Sucks to Suck

Nursing is shown to be beneficial to infants, and the United States has very low nursing rates. To remedy this, the DHHS wanted to make breastfeeding a public health issue and planned to use "edgy" ads akin to meth ads or any of those driving safety (pro-seatbelt/anti-texting-and-driving/anti-drunk driving, etc., etc.) ads that would show nursing vs. not nursing as a high stakes issue that could have serious consequences for infants. The DHHS had shopped around for an advertising company that could produce ads that made a difference, and found that fear-inducing ads are more effective than the friendly, gentle alternative.  However,  the formula industry was not at all pleased when it caught wind of the proposed ad campaign, and used its political clout (via expert lobbyists) to intervene. The softer ads were run, and the DHHS saw no real change in the nation's breast feeding rate while the Formula companies continued to profit.

It was disappointing but not at all surprising to see that the formula industry (which includes companies that are divisions of big pharmaceutical companies) was able to manipulate the situation in its favor, because it didn't think it would be "fair" to have some competition. This is clearly yet another issue that was more about money/ego soothing than the actual health of our citizens. Incredible.

The DHHS should certainly consider these topics in the future, because the health of infants is an important issue. Also, while it is important to use effective advertising, the DHHS should aim to use more than just fear tactics to see results. The DHHS should increase education about the benefits of nursing, alongside their scary health issues ad campaign, to temper the fear with knowledge--scare 'em into paying attention, and then teach them about health risks and benefits for breastfeeding vs. formula feeding for their children.

Prompt for week 10/07/13

The original ad was revamped to provide positive information in a manner that was not as offensive to individuals who chose not to breast feed and the makers of infant formula.  The attention grabbing ad was pulled because of the photos used and the insinutation that if you didn’t breast feed you were causing damage to your children.  The infant formula companies opposed the ad because it could have a huge impact on their business and implied that infant formula was not as good for your children as breast milk.  The ad was changed to make its statement in a calmer fashion allowing the message on breast feeding benefits to be spread across the country.

It is important for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide accurate useful information regarding the benefits of breastfeeding to the public.  It is their job to provide this information so individuals can make an informed decision without feeling pressured by one side or the other.

In the future the Department of Health and Human Services should look as all aspects of an ad before they move forward with a specific campaign.  If they can argue every point they want to make without using harsh or negative attention grabbing tactics they may be more successful in the long run.

Breastfeeding and the Failed Campaign

I believe that the battle between formula and breastfeeding is a lot more complex than the article stated.  One item that was touched on briefly in the breastfeeding article is the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby’s immune system.  For the first six months, the baby’s immune system is non-existent.  The baby is vulnerable to a slew of infections that can compromise its developing body.  Breastfeeding prevents ear infections that can destroy a baby’s ability to hear.  Other illnesses that are prevented include pneumonia, meningitis, and urinary tract infections.  Even after when the baby transitions from the pre-natal phase and into early development, the baby still has to fight to live, and the smallest infection can lead to serious health issues or even death.  Breastfeeding provides the best health options for newborns.http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/breastfeeding/pages/Breastfeeding-Benefits-Your-Baby's-Immune-System.aspx

 The article also pointed out the frightening messaging campaign that the Department of Health and Human Services was a frightening messaging campaign.  This message was toned down after an aggressive campaign.  You cannot frighten a public into trusting you, it’s too Orwellian.  The government failed to recognize in a post 9/11 world, the public was already frightened; it didn’t need to be frightened any further.

Breast feeding ads

Whatever happened to being honest and having it be ok? I am a strong believer in being truthful, honest, and getting to the point. Myself, am blunt honest to the point where people don't ask me for advice anymore. Enough of the sugar-coating bs that takes over peoples minds, seeing only artificial makeovers of the truth. Breast feeding is beneficial and essential in my eyes and I don't understand how that could be argued. Isn't it already obvious that breast feeding is the way to go? So why with the ads that have to describe and allocate breast feeding, I thought it would be understood that breast feeding is best. If ads are going to be out to the general public I would want them honest and to the point, the feeling of fear might actually jumpstart people into doing the right thing. Offending people is going to happen regardless of any situation so just put out ads that will get a general point across. People are not going to be happy but maybe the ad will do its job if its completely blunt to the point where you do have to critically think about the issue. Having a good image would be nice, but it will never be accessible. For the HHS I could see it being important, but I would want the image to also be truthful I would much rather have an honest somewhat offending ad campaign then to be know as a nice liar.

After reading the article, I had a better idea of the politics behind pulling and toning down the breast milk ads. I must say, it didn't surprise me. It really didn't change my opinion on the matter either. The idea that mothers could be "scared into breastfeeding" based on shock jock style advertising , I felt, was a little ridiculous. Advertise it however whichever sponsoring backer wants to. If the DHHS wants extreme ads in favor of breast feeding, so be it. The same to the formula companies.The idea of breastfeeding is pretty much cemented before baby is ever born. Benefits for breastfeeding are not something that just crop up after giving birth. Whims subject to whomever has an advertisement. All the reasons why it will positively affect your baby's development have already been gone over, in great detail, during the check-ups preceding the actual birth. Pamphlets, discussions with your doctor, research done by the parents (especially first time parents) all lead to an awareness of benefits of breast milk. Having said that, the mothers either will or will not (for various reasons) breastfeed.  The formula companies clearly have an invested interest the publics' favorable view of their products, and the HHS has an interest in the public having healthy babies. I don't feel like the ads needed to be toned down, it is up to the general public (parents in particular) to decide for themselves. If something is relevant to you, you research it yourself. Ideally, you are not basing your actions on something you saw on TV. And if you are, it's not up to the rest of the world to correct you.

Response to Oct. 7th Prompt.

     I believe the original ads in the article were a little bit harsh.  Mothers tend to panic greatly when they feel they are doing something wrong that will harm their child in any way.  If there are harsh images like insulin syringes and inhalers with nipples and pretty much saying that, if you don't breast feed you child will end up with something, parents will freak out.  Putting out there softer like they changed to, which states the benefits, instead of harsh pictures will prevent these worries and immediate decisions.
     Also from the formula manufacturers point of view the earlier ads, in around about way, say that formula was not good for babies.  If the earlier ads would have their way mothers would have jumped and not bought formula and budget, business wise for formula companies it would not have been a good thing.  These businesses would have lost mega money, so they were only defending themselves. 
     As for weather the ad campaigns should go on or not.  I believe they should but not as harshly as the images.  They should just keep educating and teaching about how breast feeding can be a very helthy and important part of a babies life.

Nursing Ads

I think both sides have decent points in this situation. I feel that the commercials should not be graphic because that will cause a guilt factor to women who can not breast feed or that choose not to for good reason. At the same time I think the DHHS should put the information out there for people. People should have the right to openly know that breast feeding reduces certain disease and can increase a babies health.

The fact that formula companies still wanted them to tone down the commercials after they toned them down once shows that  they want to completely hide this information from the public. The formula companies have greed and want to take away as much women as they can from breast feeding. They were thankful for the commercials getting toned down, but they were still not fully satisfied until commercials were not aired at all.

Toned Down Advertisement Not Effective

The way this graphic ad, including “photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples” depicting the increased health risks of diabetes and asthma without breastfeeding, designed by the HHS was water[ed] down with less offensive images seemed to defeat the purpose of this ad. 

Opposition from the formula companies, Joseph Levitt (former director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition food safety center), and Clayton Yeutter (an agriculture secretary under the Bush administration). 

The milder images included dandelions and cherry-topped ice-cream scoops meant to dramatize the increased risk of respiratory issues and obesity without breastfeeding. This change of content obviously did not reach or affect mothers as intended according to statistics collected in Abbott Nutrition’s Ross Mother’s Survey of the proportions of mothers who breastfeed between the years of 2002 to 2006, mothers who breastfeed in the hospital after their babies were born dropped from “70 percent on 2002 to 63.6 percent in 2006”.

I think that these images were intense but striking enough to get their scientifically proven point across to new mothers. 

Responce to october 7th promt.

It seems that special interests were able to take what might have been an effective PSA about breast feeding that changed so it was not. The formula companies fear of loss of profits caused them to ask congress men and women to step in and change the add so it was softer.

My thoughts are that US health and human services does have an obligation to help to inform people of the benefits of breast feeding. The US government helps to pay for add about, the dangers of smoking, drinking and driving, meth, texting and driving as well as other things that could be seen as detrimental to peoples health.

I think that if ads like the first were to be put out they would have to accompanied with local educators as well as an acceptance of breastfeeding. If you place an ad about the benefits of breast feeding before society is ready to accept breast feeding it does not seem like it would be a very effective add campaign.

The Breastfeeding Equivalent of Monsanto

The outright decimation of the Department of Health and Human Services truthful, helpful, and absolutely necessary ad campaign by big industry lobbyists is not only an embarrassment to the functionality of the American government but an extraordinary disservice to the American people. Henry Waxman, a democratic representative from California, says in the article that this interference "might have had serious public health consequences."



Enfamil Infant Formula Nutrients and Ingredients

Mirroring Monsanto's, a company who monopolized the agriculture industry by genetically modifying their crop to express a Round-Up gene among other potentially carcinogenic introductions, reign in the US Department of Agriculture; the 'purchase' of the DHHS by infant formula companies is practically criminal. We did not have ample time and opportunity to study what Monsanto's GMOs will do to us before they went to mass production and distribution in our country. We do know however, that unmodified corn and soy is just fine; possibly not as profitable, but it has actual health benefits.

The same goes for infant formula. Look at the label for Enfamil, a popular brand; who the heck knows what disodium uridine 5-monophoshpate, choline chloride, and magnesium oxide are besides something you might have learned to draw in Organic Chemistry? And why would you want to feed your baby highly processed chemicals from an unknown source? Everyone knows sodas like Pepsi and Coca-Cola aren’t exactly drinks of choice for a nutritious and balanced diet. Formula is like the baby equivalent of drinking soda instead of water.

So similar to the Monsanto situation, not enough time has passed since the introduction of formula to know the long term health effects. But again, what we DO know is that breastfeeding is healthy for both the mother and infant. How then, can we justify allowing lobbyists paid by the industries to face the most gain or loss, influence our decisions on educating the public with TRUE information. How many more people will be offended by NOT telling the truth about breastfeeding than will be by telling it. I’m sure the mothers incapable of breastfeeding will understand if it means that their sisters’, cousins’, and daughters’ babies will be healthier.

I absolutely think that ad campaigns should continue. Education is power. Properly educating people, especially via radical ad campaigns, has helped control drug usage and STD outbreaks. I feel that there is no better reason for similar measures to be taken than to protect future generations from a potential lifetime of disease and illness.

Response to prompt of Oct 7th

I believe that this proposed ad campaign and it's subsequent reduction is a microcosm of the problems we have in Washington.  I'd love to digress and spend a page or two bitching about that, but I will instead attempt to stay focused.  First off the government, DHHS, yet again decides to allocate money to attempt to convince Americans of what is right and proper.  While I happen to agree to that breastfeeding is beneficial and should be practiced whenever possible, I'm irritated that the government is allocating tax dollars to attempt to educate the public.  These ads were designed to be shocking and upfront with information about the possible negative side affects of not breastfeeding.  Once the politically powerful infant formula companies got wind of the purposed ad campaign their lobbyists went into high gear to ensure removal or reduction of the ad's content.  Heaven forbid the message go out and help parents make the right decisions, not at the expense of the bottom line!  If the kids are healthier than the formula's parent companies, pharmaceutical companies for the most part, will take two hits to their budget.  Both in formula sales and then later in life from less drugs needed for the children.  Admittedly the last two statements are said somewhat bitterly and hopefully they are inaccurate but somewhere, someone was probably thinking along those lines.  
The result was a new and softer approach to advocate breast feeding.  The approach that was settled on was ineffective, and the HHS was advised that this approach would be ineffective!  Yet because of political concerns they decided just to waste a bunch of time and money on useless ads. Wonderful.  
Personally I'd really like it if we decreased government spending and quit wasting money on the hundreds of ad campaigns and other, in my opinion, wasteful allocation of our money.  However since they're going to continue with these programs regardless of my feelings on the topic I would like to see the DHHS revisit the topic.  However if the past is any indication of the future then we're not likely to see the needed ads aired.  After all, money does the work in Washington D.C.

Prompt for October 7th

In a recent reading you saw the reaction to a Breast-Feeding Ad as part of a campaign for the department of Health and Human Services.  The designers of this original advertisement intended for the message to be one of public awareness concerning the research on the benefits of nursing.  Write about your thoughts on what happened to this ad, who opposed it, and what was later put out for public consumption.  Also talk about whether the DHHS should consider these topics and ad campaigns in the future.  Why or why not?