There was a report on CNN health recently about breastfeeding which is VERY out of the ordinary in the way it was presented. It’s exactly how it should be presented but usually never is.
The title of the report is:
Study: Lack of breastfeeding costs lives, billions of dollars
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/05/breastfeeding.costs/index.html?hpt=T2
This has actually been in the news all over on many sites and this is the first one that actually called it like it is. Most other reports have the headline as something like….
Study: Breastfeeding saves lives, billions of dollars
What’s the difference? Well, it’s all in how you look at normal.
If you believe formula feeding is the normal (physiological) way to feed a baby, then the statement that breastfeeding saves money is perfectly reasonable. Because we would then feel that a certain spending level in healthcare costs was normal and that by breastfeeding you could reduce the healthcare spending.
If you believe that breastfeeding is the normal (physiological) way to feed a baby then you would have to use that as the basis (the zero point) in healthcare spending. Then if a study shows that formula fed babies cause x-amount more in healthcare spending, you would have to say that formula feeding (or “not breastfeeding”) costs more in healthcare dollars.
It’s all about what you put that “Zero” mark. That’s the norm. And it’s surprising and refreshing to see a mainstream news site actually have it’s act together on something like this!
