Ideas for NYT Stats (rebuttal) article

[jessjgh1]

What do you say when people on a mainstream board bring up the article:

What Science Really Says About the Benefits of Breast-Feeding (and what the New York Times didn’t tell you

http://www.stats.org/stories/breast_..._jun_20_06.htm

I'd like some suggestions... thanks

Jessica

[Nisupulla]

This isn't exactly what you asked for, but I think it's at least interesting.

Janet Golden on the breastfeeding controversy
http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_...golden_on.html

Janet Golden is a specialist in medical history at Rutgers University-Camden and the author of Message in a Bottle: The Making of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. When we read the recent New York Times article on breastfeeding and saw the amount of controversy it seems to have sparked, we knew that Dr Golden, who is also the author of A Social History of Wet Nursing: From Breast to Bottle, was just the person to ask for some clarity on this issue. Here's what she had to say.

A quick reading of the recent New York Times piece "Breast-Feed or Else" suggests that once again scientists have discovered the obvious. It turns out that human milk is the best food for human infants; mammary glands have uses beyond selling cars, beer, and, well, sex; and breastfeeding benefits nursing mothers as well as babies.

But the real story is what the article left out. In describing the debate spurred by the recent advertising campaign to promote breastfeeding the piece ignored the controversy that erupted when the original public service announcements were eviscerated at the behest of the 3-billion-dollar-a-year formula industry. This isn't exactly news; the ABC show "20/20" won an award for covering the story in 2004 in a segment entitled "Milk Money."...

[leafwood]

If anyone asked me about it, I would say that the rebuttal is a critique of the original NYT article. As a lactivist, these are the reasons why I know BF is best:

http://www.promom.org/101/

I love this list becuase it provides references to each claim. It seemed that the rebuttal was very defensive and focused only on points where the NYT article fell short. It did not include any additional supportive information for BF. It did not address benefits of reduced maternal breast cancer, it made a blanket statment that BF mom's would "all agree" that they don't have enough time or energy to devote to the rest of the family. I would totally disagree with that. I don't have to mix, steralize, warm, clean, store, and buy my baby's food. I nurse her whenever, where ever, while doing several other things at times . Part of me thinks the aim of the rebuttal was to be just as "biased" but in the other direction.

It's so amazing to me that so many people feel all this guilt......hmmm, maybe there's a reason, maybe in their hearts, they KNOW that BF is best too!

[pookel]

Personally? I'd say "That's a great article that points out some flaws in the NYT article. We shouldn't be supporting breastfeeding based on bad science. There are plenty of real, proven benefits to breastfeeding, so we're not afraid of legitimate criticism of specific scientic claims. And hey, did you notice that this article promotes cosleeping?"

[pookel]

Originally Posted by leafwood

It's so amazing to me that so many people feel all this guilt......hmmm, maybe there's a reason, maybe in their hearts, they KNOW that BF is best too!

But notice that the authors of the STATS article are all mothers who breastfed successfully. So where's the supposed "guilt"?

[nannyogg]

I've written a fairly detailed rebuttal on my blog. (Sorry it took so long! Hopefully it'll still be of some help to somebody.)

Part 1 is at <http://goodenoughmummy.typepad.com/good_enough_mum/2006/06/statsorg_breast.html> and deals with their negative views of breastfeeding generally. Part 2 is at <http://goodenoughmummy.typepad.com/good_enough_mum/2006/07/statsorg_breast.html> (there's also a link to it at the bottom of Part 1), and deals with the statistics.

HTH.


All the best,

Sarah

[MaryJaneLouise]

Thank you Sarah :