BIRTH Vol. 12:3 Fall 1985 175

A couple of years ago, I showed my bias to a new mother when I asked, “Why are you going back to work? You have such sweet little babies. Why would you want to leave them with a sitter everyday?” I was embarrassed when she replied that her husband’s salary did not even cover their house and car payment. Her husband was assistant manager a t Super X and their house and life- style were modest. (I do home visits on all postpartum couples, so I can evaluate their lifestyles.)

This family’s situation is not unique to middle-class America; it is commonplace. No one believes in breast- feeding more than I do, but I now feel that using formula occasionally is a necessity for many families. Therefore, as a professional childbirth educator, I have a responsibility to know about the different formulas available and be able to teach the proper use of formula and bottlefeeding. I, like most childbirth educators, have little experience in bottlefeeding. I need to look to out- side sources for the facts. If Birth is to be my professional resource publication, it has the responsibility to provide me with that information. Therefore, I appreciate and welcome the inclusion of bottlefeeding. I may not accept all that is written about bottlefeeding in Birth. However, as a professional, I am able to evaluate bottlefeeding material and use what I need. I will continue to teach breastfeeding as the best form of infant nutrition, and I will also do everything possible to promote exclusive breastfeeding while a mother works. However, I commend Birth for making this conscientious change in policy. It reflects a sensitivity to the changing world of childbearing couples and childbirth educators.

Margery Simchak, RN, ICEA, CCE 2302 W. Greenway Kd.

Phoenix, AZ 85023

To the Editor: I predict that you will hear howls of rage over your

formula ads. So, here’s a word to those evangelical ladies who go on and on about breastfeeding. They perhaps don’t realize that they are elitist; they’re speaking to a relatively small group of privileged women, middle and upper class women who are fortunate, indeed. They aren’t speaking to the majority of women who breast- feed for a month or two, but then have to make the sacrifice, to make a living. We question what was done to our mothers; now is the time to question what is being done to us-to what purpose we are made to feel like lepers, and by our “caregivers,” yet?

These are the same ladies who believe that somehow, if they never mention formula feeding, the companies will go bankrupt or start dealing wholesome foods. They feel strongly that if they never attend a conference where Ross or Mead Johnson or Wyeth is exhibiting, the reps will feel abashed and go to work for National Public Radio. Yes, they “take a stand” and cancel their subscriptions to magazines that have infant formula ads in the belief that, by denying themselves the sales mes- sage, it is effectively silenced for the journal reading

public. Sure, it “feels good” to be so purist and activist, but

is it effective? No. Does it help mothers? No. It just feels good to believe (the stronger the better). It isn’t nearly as much fun to teach mothers how to keep the infant formula out of the baby’s ears, how to play with the baby during formula feedings, how to keep the bottles and formula from filling up the baby with bacteria. But that would be giving care.

Marcy Greg 1314 S. King St.

Honolulu, HI 96814

To the Editor: Some readers have expressed legitimate concern that

Birth now features infant formula ads. I have two com- ments. First, Birth attracts readers from “inside mater- nity care”-providers who are often new to the critical and alternative approach to perinatal care, who might think Michel Odent were mad if they did not read Birth. Advertising pays for Odent’s appearances at Birth con- ferences, and it brings in other international speakers who favor low-tech childbirth.

Second, among the women’s culture journals that ap- peared in the 1970s, only one survived. Today, MS Magazine is frequently criticized for its smoking ads, while Chlysalis and other fine ad-free publications have disappeared entirely, Despite the ads, MS continues to encourage women to believe in themselves and gives us such delightful features as “Stories for Free Children.”

Birth’s formula advertising reflects economic and political realities of both publishing and early mother- hood. I find it possible to overlook the ads and enjoy the only multi-disciplinary medical journal that empha- sizes low-tech perinatal services.

Margot Edwards, RN, MA 1207 Presidio Dr.

Pacific Grove, CA 93950

To the Editor: We are greatly disturbed by the recent decision to

allow infant formula advertising in Birth. It appears from your editorial in the Spring 1985 edition that the reason behind the decision is a desire to move away from a doctrinaire approach to breastfeeding. But is allowing formula manufacturers to advertise in Birth the way to achieve this aim?

It does not seem to be your intention to promote bottle feeding. Indeed, you express concern that “far too few mothers breastfeed without supplement for the first six months of their infant’s life.” If we understand you correctly, you are aiming to respect a woman’s right to choose whether or not she breastfeeds at all and to deter- mine whether and how long to breastfeed without for- mula supplement.

176 BIRTH Vol. 12:3 Fall 1985

It cannot be denied, however, that the main reason for infant formula advertising is promotion of bottle feeding. Is it not likely that allowing such advertising to appear in Birth (with claims like “Now, even closer to breast milk”) will persuade more mothers to supplement or to abandon breastfeeding in the early months, or not to breastfeed at all? That is undoubtedly what the baby milk companies want. Is that what you want?

Barbara Henry, News Editor Breastfeeding Promotion Group, New Generation

National Childbirth Trust 9 Queensborough Terrace

London, W2 3TB, England

To the Editor: Your editorial on infant formula advertising should

have pointed out that the ads are directed at profes- sionals who can influence patients’ purchases, not at professionals as mothers. These ads won’t change a care- giver’s mind as to whether to breastfeed her own baby. The danger in the ads is that they might silence research and debate on the magnitude of the problems caused by infant formula, and the efforts needed to encourage breastfeeding. Will Birth publish articles showing the tactics of the formula companies in making hospitals and journals and perinatal associations dependent on their money, gifts, and good will? Or will Birth, like all the pediatric and perinatal and maternity journals, carry iittle of importance in breastfeeding f roknow on?

Josephine McCord, PhD Route 1, Sanderson, TX

The Editor Replies: Rest assured that infant formula advertising will not

silence Birth on any worthy research or comment on breastfeeding or artificial infant feeding. We have been dismayed recently at the paucity of submissions on infant feeding, and have offered research and editorial assis- tance and even money grants to authors. We repeat our offer of financial and editorial assistance for studies of breastfeeding and infant formula feedings.

A glance at the volume of advertising in Birth should convince the skeptical that we are not dependent on formula advertising. We screen each ad for potentially misleading claims. Over the years we have refused to carry two advertisements and advised two other com- panies that their copy would have to be re-worded to be acceptable. One withdrew and the other willingly complied.

We view advertisements as part of our service, a cata- log of what is available and why it merits notice. A grow- ing number of our readers do care for mothers who ask about infant formulas. Most of these caregivers will try to help mothers make the most suitable, economical choice among the available formulas. The formula ads we publish provide useful information and some suggest further resources for caregivers to turn to.

In summary, Birth is willing to help. We hope readers are willing to study and write up work they wish to see published on breastfeeding and the infant formula de- bate. We are grateful for your letters and look forward to your articles.

Madeleine H. Shearer Editor

Now, vitamins you can recommend to women who plan to breastfeed.

Introducing Lactalin~,~ the fmt vitamin supplement specifically for nursing mothers. Many obsktricians. gynecologists and

nutritionists recommend that breastfeeding mothers supplement their diets with addi- tional vitamins and minera1s.A 1984 study by well-known dwtorinutritionists at Columbia llniversity. N.Y.. confirmed these recommendations. The rescarchers found that supplementation is important because. given the composition of‘the average Amer- ican diet, ilmothers merely increase their culoric intakeduringlactation. they will not attain the recommended dietary allowan- ccs(KDAs) lor lactating women.

Nursing mothers have different nutritional needs The dietary needs of breastfeeding w e

men differ considerably in several impor- Lint rcspects from those ofpregnant women. Nursingmothsrs. lorexample. need2Cnh morevitaminA25Yn morevitaminC.and 25% more zincthan pregnant women.

To meet these special requirements of the 4 million women who at any given time are breastfeeding, the Health Vitamin Com- pany, with the guidance of noted medical and nutritional authorities, has developed after 2 years of research, a multi-vitamin and mineral supplements ecifically for nursing mothers. It’s calle8lactalins. Lactalins features natural vitamins with no preservatives. artificial flavors, sugar or salt It’s a product that any Lamaze or childbirth educator can conscientiously recommend in the course of his or her educational activities.

Free, easy-to-read educational booklets available

To order your supply 0f“Breastfeeding your baby”. just call the toll-free Lactalins hotline. 1-8M354-1235. In New York State call collecf 914-423-2900. Or contact: Health Vitamin Co., 1060NepperhanAve., Yonkers. NY 10703.