corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 11815

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Wolf JB.
Is breast really best? Risk and total motherhood in the National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2007 Aug; 32:(4):595-636
http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/32/4/595?view=long&pmid=17639013


Abstract:

From June 2004 to April 2006, cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council, the National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign (NBAC) warned women that not breast-feeding put babies at risk for a variety of health problems. “You’d never take risks before your baby is born. Why start after?” asked televised public service announcements over images of pregnant women logrolling and riding a mechanical bull. The NBAC, and particularly its message of fear, neglected fundamental ethical principles regarding evidence quality, message framing, and cultural sensitivity in public health campaigns. The campaign was based on research that is inconsistent, lacks strong associations, and does not account for plausible confounding variables, such as the role of parental behavior, in various health outcomes. It capitalized on public misunderstanding of risk and risk assessment by portraying infant nutrition as a matter of safety versus danger and then creating spurious analogies. It also exploited deep-seated normative assumptions about the responsibility that mothers have to protect babies and children from harm and was insufficiently attentive to the psychological, socioeconomic, and political concerns of its intended audience. Critical analysis of the NBAC suggests that future health campaigns would benefit from more diverse review panels and from a greater focus on providing accurate risk information about probabilities and trade-offs in order to enable informed decision making.

Keywords:
MeSH Terms: Advertising/ethics Advertising/methods* Breast Feeding/ethnology Breast Feeding/psychology* Breast Feeding/statistics & numerical data Female Health Promotion/ethics Health Promotion/methods* Humans Mothers/psychology* Mothers/statistics & numerical data Public Health Practice Risk Factors United States United States Dept. of Health and Human Services


Notes:

Free full text

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








...to influence multinational corporations effectively, the efforts of governments will have to be complemented by others, notably the many voluntary organisations that have shown they can effectively represent society’s public-health interests…
A small group known as Healthy Skepticism; formerly the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing) has consistently and insistently drawn the attention of producers to promotional malpractice, calling for (and often securing) correction. These organisations [Healthy Skepticism, Médecins Sans Frontières and Health Action International] are small, but they are capable; they bear malice towards no one, and they are inscrutably honest. If industry is indeed persuaded to face up to its social responsibilities in the coming years it may well be because of these associations and others like them.
- Dukes MN. Accountability of the pharmaceutical industry. Lancet. 2002 Nov 23; 360(9346)1682-4.