Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › EXCELLENT BF newspaper article, front page!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EXCELLENT BF newspaper article, front page!  

post #1 of 15
2/7/05 at 7:18pm
Thread Starter 
This article appeared in today's (2-7) San Jose Mercury News, on the front page, above the fold, above the Super Bowl headline:


nak
I have to edit this article to 100 words or less. If you want the whole thing, please pm me. Thanks.
--Julie


Posted on Mon, Feb. 07, 2005

Joanne Ho-Young Lee / Mercury News
Fanny Freeman, 29, with her daughter, Molly, nearly 2, has become an advocate for breast-feeding mothers.


Mother's milk best for baby, new pediatrics policy urges

By Julie Sevrens Lyons

Mercury News


Calling human breast milk "uniquely superior'' to infant formula, the American Academy of Pediatrics today released its strongest set of recommendations ever to encourage breast-feeding in America.

The new suggestions include urging mothers to sleep close to their babies to facilitate feeding, avoid giving them pacifiers during the early weeks and breast-feed exclusively for six months -- no formula, juice or baby food.

The recommendations also challenge society to back breast-feeding by enacting legislation to protect it, setting expectations in the workplace and considering it in custody settlements.

"Our typical image of how we feed infants is to stick a bottle in their mouth.
post #2 of 15
2/8/05 at 1:43am
Thanks for the link. That's a good article.
post #3 of 15
2/9/05 at 3:39pm
post #4 of 15
2/9/05 at 4:27pm
Refreshing
post #5 of 15
2/9/05 at 4:30pm
YAY for San Jose!!
post #6 of 15
2/9/05 at 4:53pm
post #7 of 15
2/10/05 at 11:15am
awesome!!
post #8 of 15
2/10/05 at 11:24am
what a nice way to start the morning - thanks!!
post #9 of 15
2/10/05 at 12:47pm
Wonderful!
post #10 of 15
2/10/05 at 12:50pm
post #11 of 15
2/11/05 at 1:05pm
I was born and raised in the Bay Area...and I swear, someday we are going BACK!
Excellent, wonderful article!

post #12 of 15
2/17/05 at 4:34am
Thread Starter 
Just wanted to point out a couple things. First, when the article says that bf babies have a 21% lower death rate than ff babies, this is actually a 26.6% increase in death rate of a ff baby over bf babies.*
Second, some people on this board are wondering how to encourage their friends to bf. Copy and paste or print this article and give it to her (or her dp)!

* In explanation of the % thing.
If you went to the store to buy a dress that was $100, but was 25% off, you would pay $75. Okay, now say that dress started out at $75 and its price increased to $100. That's a 33 1/3% increase, not a 25% increase. 25 is 25% (or, in fractions, 1/4) of 100, but 33 1/3% (or, in fractions, 1/3) of 75. Got it?
Same thing with the bf/ff death rate percent. A 21% lower death rate of bf babies is actually a 26.6% increase in death rate of ff babies because bm is what babies are supposed to have.
Or, to put it more bluntly:
What the article is saying is that for every 100 ff babies that die, only 79 bf babies die. What I'm saying is that for every 100 bf babies that die, 127 ff babies die.
Can you tell that my mom is a math teacher?
post #13 of 15
2/17/05 at 11:15am
Oh wow, is that how they use statistics to show what they want? It's easier for FF moms to digest 21% than 26%, so would that be a sort of twisting of the facts? Or are they ignorant about this?
post #14 of 15
2/17/05 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by julie128
Just wanted to point out a couple things. First, when the article says that bf babies have a 21% lower death rate than ff babies, this is actually a 26.6% increase in death rate of a ff baby over bf babies.*
Second, some people on this board are wondering how to encourage their friends to bf. Copy and paste or print this article and give it to her (or her dp)!

* In explanation of the % thing.
If you went to the store to buy a dress that was $100, but was 25% off, you would pay $75. Okay, now say that dress started out at $75 and its price increased to $100. That's a 33 1/3% increase, not a 25% increase. 25 is 25% (or, in fractions, 1/4) of 100, but 33 1/3% (or, in fractions, 1/3) of 75. Got it?
Same thing with the bf/ff death rate percent. A 21% lower death rate of bf babies is actually a 26.6% increase in death rate of ff babies because bm is what babies are supposed to have.
Or, to put it more bluntly:
What the article is saying is that for every 100 ff babies that die, only 79 bf babies die. What I'm saying is that for every 100 bf babies that die, 127 ff babies die.
Can you tell that my mom is a math teacher?

That's a great analogy. I'm terrible in math, but I understand your post LOL
post #15 of 15
3/1/05 at 2:47pm
I’d like to request a math lesson :LOL and a link for the article. I was looking for this stat a while ago because it was used in a thread I was on.

Could you explain the stat for me a little more? I’m confused about it. What does a 26.6% increase in death rate of a ff baby over bf babies mean, exactly?

I know it doesn’t mean that FF babies have a 26.6% chance of death and that’s the way I saw the stat used.

Help!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lactivism
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › EXCELLENT BF newspaper article, front page!