Pharmageddon

Unfortunatly, the ads put out by the DHHS in regards to the risks of not breastfeeding (blunt and a tad shocking) were turned into ads acknowledging the benefits of breastfeeding (soft and more like background music)...

 A research company spent quit a bit of time concluding that soft and fluffy benefits wouldn't motivate folks to nurse their newborns as much as a bit of fear and legitimate science would, i.e. showing higher rates of diabetes, respiratory problems, obesity,etc.

However, once the "politically powerful" infant formula companies ("...mostly divisions of large pharmaceutical companies...") got the news, no doubt in fear of losing money, they swayed the DHHS, basically from the inside out, to use the soft and fluffy approach. Which ultimately did nothing and, I assume, cost a ton of money. Not to mention the health of who-even-knows how many babies.

I definitely think the more raw, shocking, and scientific approach would benefit society better than dancing around with the formula companies. They get plenty. Fuck them. Breast milk is by far a superior way to feed your baby. If you are in a position to be able to nurse or get breastmilk into your child, you should do just that. Milkbank information, along with the striking ads that highlight what can happen if no breastmilk is given, in conjunction with education to the general public in schools and even churches, could potentially eliminate a lifetime of pointless struggles. Life has enough challenges. If we already know that certain lifelong illnesses can be prevented through breastmilk, then why wouldn't we want everyone to know the hard facts? It might stimulate more woman to donate milk if they could. Or woman that cannot nurse could make plans for their babies with a wet nurse or at least they would be making educated choices. 
No mother should be made to feel guilty about how she feeds her baby but no mother should be made ignorant of her choices either. Shame on anyone for diluting such an essential truth and ultimately a human right to be healthy.

Discussion Week 8

The breast-feeding ad that was launched for the Department of Health and Human Services targeted mothers everywhere in order to help them see the benefits of breast-feeding over any of the alternatives. The part that was particularly controversial, I think, is that they used fear as a tactic of persuasion. The ad discussed the detriments that could occur on one’s health if they didn’t breastfeed and that stirred up some disagreements. Breast-feeding can lower risks of many chronic illnesses and other health issues and the ad used this information in their favor. The people who opposed the ad or were offended by it were formula companies, women who probably couldn’t breastfeed, and those who just disagree with breastfeeding in general. The DHHS ad was pretty heavy and could have definitely been delivered in a different way but the fact that they used that way in particular to influence the public was their choice. Would it have been as effective had they gone about it a different way? Probably not. 

I agree with the fact that breastfeeding has health benefits and is overall better for both mother and child but as a woman who will never be able to breast feed, I found myself almost offended by the ad because they didn’t take into account the fact that there are people that physically can’t do this thing that they’re striking fear into us for. In the future, DHHS should consider that bit of the population and also probably consider toning down their ads. 

Breastfeeding Ads

My thoughts on this ad were very mixed. The Department of Human Health Services (DHHS) ad attempted to grab mothers' attention towards why they should breastfeed and if they didn't, their babies would face real health risks. The DHHS was trying to show the benefits of breastfeeding. When showing this ad, I feel like they were very bias and harsh towards mothers who chose not to or can't breastfeed. Yes, there may be some benefits to breastfeeding, but in the end, it is up to the mother. I also think that they were just trying to be honest on what could happen if a person doesn't breastfeed. When the DHHS was explaining risks to not breastfeeding, such as "babies who aren't breastfed are 40% more likely to suffer Type 1 diabetes", it is a true fact. I just think that they could've approached the ad a little differently.

Breastfeeding Ads

The breastfeeding campaign was created by health officials in the Department of Health and Human Services. The breastfeeding ads where intended to spread awareness by showing graphic pictures similar to texting and driving campaigns. The goal of these ads where to try to increase the breastfeeding rate of women in America by showing some of the health risks to children that are not breastfed. However, the formula industry intervened and lobbied to make the HHS change the ads to make them less intense. The ads that aired instead showed more friendly images that illustrated the health benefits instead of the health risks of breastfeeding. The formula industry opposed these informational ads to prevent the loss of business. They didn’t want people to be more informed because then, more people would start breastfeeding instead of using formula, which could cause them to lose money. I don’t think that is right that large industries can have control over the information given to the public, especially about public health. However, I also don’t agree with the original approach of the HHS for these ads. The original ads were going to be scare tactics to guilt mothers into breastfeeding. I think the best way to display this information would be to show the benefits instead of the risks of breastfeeding. I think the HHS needs to continue this campaign to give the public the knowledge they need to decide which choice would be the best for their children.

Breast Feeding Ads

The controversy surrounding the DHHS advertisements for the benefits of breast feeding may seem confusing to the public. If these advertisements are supposed to be beneficial, then why were they changed? Unfortunately, when the DHHS released ads that shed a negative light upon formula, the Industry pushed back harder. The baby formula industry specifically hired lobbyists and worked to change the DHHS itself. Their pressure was great enough, and the adds were changed to even promote baby formula. I think the changing of this ad is an affront to the public as it portrayed the opposite intended message. In the future, I would hope that another event like this would be resolved either by just removing the adds if they are seen as problematic or in the best possible scenario the government would value its citizens health more than a few lobbyists' words. These ads are truly in the best interest of the public, and should be ran more. The only issue is dealing with the negative feedback of those profiteering off of whatever it is that may be harmful.

Breastfeeding?

            The campaign of promoting breastfeeding became a lot more complicated than the Department of Health and Human Services had probably anticipated. Their portrayal of the negative effects of not breastfeeding a child had originally been considered a good idea until they were confronted by the formula industry, who claimed that their ads were guilt-based and unethical. The advertisements were later changed to contain less aggressive images that approached mothers in a different way.

            The health of a child will always be a concern and if breast feeding helps prevent some of the bad things, then I think that there should always be advertisements for it. But I’m not sure that using all the ways things could go wrong if mothers don’t breast feed is the right way to approach it. As the article said, there are a lot of legitimate reasons that mothers don’t breastfeed. So, I think that simply ensuring mothers are aware of the pros and cons of breastfeeding is the way to go.

Breastfeeding Campaigns

                The decision to breastfeed for an expecting mom is tough and personal one.  As a mom, you want to take care of your baby the best you can.  You get advice from almost everyone around you and they are not afraid to tell about the good, the bad and the ugly experiences.  As we talk about the ad campaign that was revamped because some very influential entities found out about it, I find it disturbing that the makers of infant formula, concerned about their bottom line, were able to manipulate a government entity to change an ad campaign.  However,  I don’t believe the HHS scare tactic is the way to go. I feel like shaming mothers into breastfeeding is not the way to increase the numbers, as there are more factors that play into the decision.  Providing education, presenting the statistics and allowing the families to make the best decision for them is more important than showing a “nipple-tipped insulin bottle” with the verbiage “40% chance of suffering Type I diabetes” (Kaufman & Lee, 2007).

                Interestingly enough, there was a recent campaign here in town where life size cardboard cutouts were placed in public areas with moms breastfeeding. They were not revealing or crude. They had moms holding their babies in the 'breastfeeding position' with blankets around their shoulders.  While some thought the campaign was great and spurred conversations, there were complaints logged by women and men alike.  They felt uncomfortable and felt that the cutouts were inappropriate for public display, demanding they be removed.  This is a positive approach to normalizing breastfeeding.  What do you think? 

Kaufman, M., & Lee,C,. (2017,August 31). HSS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads. Washington Post, Article 7,PARS International

Breastfeeding

            This advertisement was meant to inform mothers of the benefits of breastfeeding.  The formula companies tried to change the message of the breastfeeding ads and tried to manipulate the information that was given.  The ads were decided to be toned down, and weren’t shown as much as they were prior to the uproar.  I believe the ads should be shown more to inform mothers and other individuals about the health benefits of breastfeeding rather than the formula milk approach.

2/26 Breastfeeding Ads

The article regarding  ad campaigns for breastfeeding left me with a few contradicting opinions.
Essentially, the DHHS was intending to use scare tactics as a way to grab mothers attention and
inform them of the health benefits of nursing. In reaction to this, the formula companies and
pharmaceutical companies argued that these ads were inclusive and did not take into
consideration the needs of mothers who cannot breastfeed for medical reasons and what not.
Furthermore the formula companies suggested using positive ads so that mothers wouldn’t
feel guilty or responsible if they were choosing not to breastfeed (Kaufman & Lee, 2007).

Obviously, the formula companies are invested in this ad campaign because it would directly
affect their profits and sales. On one hand, I agree with the DHHS’s ad campaign in that it will
be an effective way to quickly increase breastfeeding rates. However, I strongly disagree with
the DHHS’s advertising campaign. Because this organization is intended to promote the health
and well being of a society I find it inappropriate that they would ostracize woman who cannot
breastfeed without offering healthy alternatives or other options. The strong images and slogans
they chose to publicize would not only enhance breast feeding rates but in doing so it would create
a culture that is disgusted by people who choose or cannot breastfeed. If this culture then takes
off, those specific populations who cannot breastfeed are then seen as being “abusive parents”
or putting their child at risk. I understand that is an extreme reaction, however with such a
powerful organization backing it up, it could be entirely possible.

In the end, the DHHS decided to tone down their breast feeding ads (Kaufman & Lee, 2007).
Although it pains me to side with companies like the formula industry, I do think that more
positively targeted ads would be the best route to take by an organization such as the DHHS.
If as an alternative, the DHHS was working alongside other companies or industries to improve
quality of formulas or with organizations that take donated breast milk… I may feel differently.
In that situation, the DHHS could argue a strong stance like that while providing healthy
alternatives for populations who cannot breastfeed.

Kaufman, M. & Lee, C. (2007) HHS toned down breast-feeding ads. The Washington Post, Article 7:
PARS International

Prompt for the week of February 25th

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?