Three Reasons Why the United States is Failing to Promote Breastfeeding

If you're a pregnant American, or have had a baby anytime in the last few years, odds are you've heard the phrase "breast is best" in relation to how babies should be fed. The Centers for Disease Control reports that 3 out of every 4 new mothers begins by breastfeeding her newborn, but only 13.3% of American babies are exclusively breastfed at six months old. The United States government appears to be making efforts to promote breastfeeding, but the government seems to be self-sabotaging these efforts.

Maternity leave is too short
Maternity leave is guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and gives eligible new parents 12 weeks of unpaid leave from work, without fear of losing their job. Some employers offer employees six weeks of paid maternity leave (often at a lower rate than their wages while working). Many employers, however, do not offer any payment during maternity leave which can create financial hardships for families. Additionally, only 46% of America's workforce is eligible for FMLA leave.

With a large percentage of families struggling just to get by and living below the national poverty level, taking unpaid leave for the birth of a child isn't always an option. Many families require two incomes just to make ends meet. Single mothers may have a more difficult time deciding when to return to work if her employment is the only source of income. A report by Human Rights Watch stated that many mothers discontinued breastfeeding early due to a need to return to work. I have personally encountered many mothers who have felt forced to return to work long before breastfeeding could be established due to financial concerns.

Other countries, such as New Zealand, have parental leave policies that help to alleviate this concern. By offering stipends to eligible new mothers for a period of fourteen weeks, finances are much less of a concern for new mothers deciding when to return to work. Not surprisingly, New Zealanders have a higher rate of exclusive breastfeeding as six months than Americans.

Flexible spending accounts couldn't be used on breast pumps
Although the IRS has since changed the policy, in 2010, the IRS did not permit breast pumps and breastfeeding supplies to be purchased using flexible spending accounts, yet these accounts were permitted to be used on Viagra and acne medications. A good, double electric breast pump can be expensive and difficult to afford. For women who will be pumping on a regular basis, cheap, handheld, single-pumping and battery operated pumps simply won't be effective and may make breastfeeding even more difficult.

The IRS claimed that breastfeeding didn't offer enough health benefits to be classified as medical or preventative care, despite research that indicates that up to 95% of infant deaths could have been prevented had the child been breastfed. Thankfully, with some pushing from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the IRS revised their policies, now allowing breast pumps and supplies to be purchased using flexible spending accounts and Obama is pushing to include breast pumps to be covered by insurance companies.

Formula companies have too much power
Prior to 2004, ad campaigns put out to encourage breastfeeding focused on the benefits of breastfeeding. In 2004, an ad campaign was put out that focused on the consequences of not breastfeeding. Those who worked on the development of these ads felt that warning mothers about the risks, rather than encouraging them by describing benefits, would be more effective. These ads, however, received many complaints, especially from the formula companies.

One of these ads depicted two pregnant women competing in log rolling and the other depicted pregnant women riding a mechanical bull. The ads stated, "If you wouldn't take risks before your baby was born, why start now?" With startling ads like these, it isn't any wonder why formula companies objected, after all, these ads were bad for their business and could compromise their annual revenue of $4 billion. Representatives from the formula companies argued that these ads would "frighten" parents and pushed for the ads to be discontinued.

The executive director and president of the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote a letter, expressing concern that the ads would harm their credibility by employing the use of "scare tactics." This letter did not sit well with many members of the academy who supported the ads. Many believed that the director and president had been influenced by the formula companies due to the large amount of material and monetary donations these companies had made to the academy. The ads were discontinued shortly after.

In America, alcoholic beverage labels must contain "GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems" Cigarette companies were also required to place one of four warning labels on every pack of cigarettes beginning in 1984 detailing the risks of cigarette smoking. Just recently, the FDA unveiled nine new labels that include very graphic photos of the risks of cigarette smoking. Why is the government supportive of these ads, yet caved under the pressure of formula companies, and stopped running ads detailing the risks of not breastfeeding?

More from Associated Content
Could "Crotch-Dangler" Baby Carriers be Bad for My Baby?

Methadone Treatment During Pregnancy

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: The Dangers of a "Good" Sleeper