While her husband may have paid lip service to ending the abuse of science for “politics or ideology,” first lady Michelle Obama gave herself a super-sized waiver. Two of her showcase social-engineering campaigns — tax preferences for breast-pumping working mothers and expanded nutrition labels — are based on distorting or dismissing the prevailing public-health literature.
Just as the White House costumed Obamacare activists in white lab coats, the fashionable Mrs. O has cloaked her meddling anti-obesity crusade in medical fakery.
Advertisement
Over the past year, the first lady has marshaled a taxpayer-subsidized army of government lawyers, bureaucrats, and consultants against the “national security threat” of childhood obesity. She has transformed the East Wing of the White House into Big Nanny’s new Central Command headquarters. The biggest threats to Mrs. Obama’s 70-point plan for national fitness: parental authority and sound science.
As part of her “Let’s Move!” anniversary celebration this week, Mrs. Obama rolled out a new breastfeeding initiative because “kids who are breastfed longer have a lower tendency to be obese.” She made her assertion to an invitation-only group of handpicked reporters who were barred from asking questions about her scientific conclusions. It’s not healthy to challenge Super Nanny, you see.
After the Internal Revenue Service carefully studied and rejected an advocacy push to treat nursing equipment as a tax-deductible medical expense last fall, the tax agency suddenly reversed itself in time for the first lady’s new public-relations tour. The surgeon general has also issued a “Call to Action” to pressure private businesses to adopt more nursing-friendly environments to combat childhood obesity, all while denying that government is intruding on personal decisions. “No mother should be made to feel guilty if she cannot or chooses not to breastfeed,” Surgeon General Regina Benjamin asserted, while laying an unmistakable guilt trip on moms and moms-to-be.
So, what do studies on breastfeeding and babies’ weight actually say? Rebecca Goldin, Ph.D., research director of George Mason University’s Statistical Assessment Service, points out that the literature is inconclusive or demonstrates that the health advantages of bosom over bottle are short-lived:
“Indeed, there is little evidence that using formula causes obesity. There is a correlation between formula use and obesity among babies and children … though this correlation is not consistent in all studies. Some of these studies show a relationship in only some demographics and not others. Others show that the disadvantage of bottle-feeding and/or formula mostly goes away by the time a child is about 4 years old.
“The result is that we cannot discover whether breastfeeding is correlated with obesity because infant formula or bottle feeding leads to subsequent overeating or disposition to being overweight, or whether those parents who breastfeed are also more likely to offer their children green beans instead of French fries. Despite weak evidence, there is a lingering conviction that formula causes obesity among pediatricians and the press; if anything, the study about infants should make us reflect more carefully on this conclusion.”
Alas, such nuance from Mrs. Obama and her unquestioning media water-carriers is scarcer than tofu at Taco Bell.
Don’t get me wrong. As a proud mom who breastfed both of her babies, I’ve been and will always be a vocal defender of women who have devoted the time, dedication, and selflessness it takes. But there are myriad individual reasons beyond Mrs. O’s expansive goal of battling the collective scourge of childhood obesity — intimate bonding and health benefits for the mom, not just the baby, for example — that lead women to nurse.
And we don’t need Big Brother or Big Mother to lead the Charge of the Big Bosom to persuade us of the personal benefits. Many private hospitals and companies have already adopted nursing-friendly environments. If it’s as good for their bottom lines as it is for babies’ bottoms, they don’t need a government mandate to do the right thing.
But as I’ve noted many times over the past year, Mrs. O’s real interest isn’t in nurturing nursing moms or slimming down kids’ waistlines. It’s in boosting government and public-union payrolls, along with beefing up FCC and FTC regulators’ duties.
Take another East Wing pet project: leaning on private businesses to print expanded front-package nutrition labels warning consumers about salt, fat, and sugar. The first lady’s anti-fat brigade assumes as an article of faith that her top-down designer food labels will encourage healthier eating habits. It’s a “no-brainer,” Mrs. Obama insists.
However, the latest study on this very subject — funded by no less than the left-wing Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — confirms other recent research contradicting the East Wing push. A team led by Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School’s Eric Finkelstein, published in the peer-reviewed American Journal for Preventive Medicine, found that mandatory menu-labeling in Seattle restaurants did not affect consumers’ calorie consumption. “Given the results of prior studies, we had expected the results to be small,” the researchers reported, “but we were surprised that we could not detect even the slightest hint of changes in purchasing behavior as a result of the legislation.”
Will the first lady and her food cops be chastened by the science that undermines their spin? Fat chance.
MM: Why oh why must you feel the need to post these facts. As the wife of the "smartest man in the room", MObama, is only helping the children and us poor rubes out here who just don't know any better. There is absolutely no possible chance that the musings of the first babe would have ANYTHING to do with expanding gov't. reach over any of us or the businesses we work for. Why must you continue to question the motives of those who are much more informed than the rest of us?
It's my belief that the the breast feeding thing is the magician's distraction for the real issue which Michelle M. gets to in the third to last paragraph; Food Policing. And let's face it; the Obama administration KNOWS it's all high fat boloney. Did you see the menu for the Superbowl Party at the White House? But I guess Michelle O. would be SHOCKED if she knew that food was being served.
Ms. Malkin, You are the one twisting the facts here. Ms. Obama has NEVER said that formula leads to obesity, never even implied it. She's said that studies have shown that breast fed babies are less likely to be obese so we should help mothers who want to do it.
When you look at the list of things people are allowed use as medical deductions, why the heck NOT pumping equipment? And as a mother who fed her children with formula, I'm tired of other mothers crying that they feel attacked for their choice to use formula. You're a mother now, ladies, put on your big girl panties and own your decisions like an adult.
I don't agree with all of Ms. Obama's initiatives, but this isn't some conspiracy against our freedoms. She isn't taking away any choice or responsibility AWAY from parents - she's trying to give it back! We should all be mad as hell that schools are selling our kids soda to make a profit. If I want my 5 & 9 year olds drinking soda (which I sometimes allow!), I'll pack it in their lunch boxes.
MM, I would expect much better reporting from you, wait, you are just a blogger, so we should just let it slide, right?
Please don't use bad science to discredit the bad science you oppose. The 2 studies you mention that you would like to debunk the food labels initiative are weak. One looked at only low income people in NYC and the other only looked at patrons to one Mexican food chain in one city. Hardly a substantial study on human behavior.
All though most of us would like to eat home cooked meals everyday, in today's society it just isn't possible. The 1 or 2 times a week we do eat out, it would be nice to know the soup I ordered doesn't have 2000mg of sodium in it. Or that high fructose corn-syrup isn't the sweetener being used.
As long as there is something called health insurance, we all need to collectively live healthier lives if we ever want to see the costs come down.
I can't say I am familiar with any studies on obesity and breastfeeding, but aren't there studies suggesting that breastfed babies have fewer ear infections and febrile illnesses? Perhaps Mrs. Obama should have focused on these benefits. But that would not support her campaign to reduce childhood obesity, would it?
Treating nursing equipment as tax-deductible will only benefit those who itemize deductions, so I fail to see how most families will realize any tax savings. In any event, manual pumps are not particularly expensive, and the more pricey electric pumps can be rented from medical suppliers at reasonable prices.
I would suggest that if Mrs. Obama truly wants to promote healthy babies, she should demand the end of subsidies for low-income women to buy formula. Breastfed babies might or might not get fat, but they certainly don't starve.
Some comments seem to have gone off track somewhat. I think Michelle is more interested in government intervention in our personal lives than in whether, or not to breast feed. Nevertheless, since the off-topic has become the theme, I'll give you a story.
My wife had successfully breast-fed each of our children. Our last child, however, could not latch on. I'll spare you the details, but the two days my wife was in the hospital, she was all but forbidden to use formula. The hospital staff forcefully insisted she continue to attempt breast feeding. Still, our baby would not comply. We protested vigorously, but were stifled by a very aggressive staff. They continued to insist the baby must breast feed.
My wife and baby were released from the hospital and I took them home. We followed the stubborn medical advice and my wife continued to attempt breast feeding. Still, our baby could not latch on. She became dehydrated. We talked with our doctor and medical staff at the hospital, who told us to continue to work on it. A couple of days later, our baby's condition had become noticeably serious. We took her to a children's hospital, where they, too, insisted that breast feeding was the only option, despite the fact she had to be placed in intensive care.
I was bewildered by the incredibly intransigent insistence upon breast feeding at the two hospitals. We were with our baby nearly 24 hours a day for a week, needles piercing her everywhere to provide fluids and monitor her condition. My wife was weary from her efforts to get our baby to latch on.
After exercising inexcusable patience for what was, without doubt, an inordinate time, I finally became very angry. I told hospital staff we were taking our baby home to feed her. I was fierce. They, reluctantly, backed down. We took her home and immediately began formula feeding her.
Except for a brief malnutritional complication brought on by the hospitals' attempts to starve her, and which we addressed at home under our doctor's direction, our baby grew into a very healthy young woman. She was, without question, our healthiest baby, our healthiest child, and she is definitely not obese.
I'm certainly not criticizing breast feeding. As I said, our other children, who were also very healthy throughout infancy, childhood and up to the present time, were breast-fed. They are grown now, all of them. Although they were and are very healthy, our daughter, who was formula-fed, clearly had fewer health issues than any of them. She was rarely afflicted with the usual infant and childhood illnesses, while each of our other children had a normal share of them.
My criticism is of the fascist and coercive tactics of the hospital medical staff. That's exactly what I don't want government doing. It's a parental choice and government, like medical staff, has no right to interfere. Usually, breast feeding is a good thing. Sometimes it is clearly wrong. A baby's inability to latch on is not a new phenonomenon. Throughout the ages, mothers have had to find other ways to nourish some babies. Mothers, alone, have the right to make that choice, not doctors, not nurses, not nutritionists, certainly not politicians, and, unequivocally, not super nannies. We don't need breast-feeding Nazis creating horrible experiences like my wife and I had. I will forever hold a grudge against the medical staff of those hospitals for marring the experience of our last baby.
Let's not permit a liberal government gone wild to make decisions in yet another area of our lives. Stop this trend now, before it picks up more steam. Consider the past. How many bureaucratically contrived concepts of what's good for us have begun with advice and incentives and ended in government mandates, regulations and laws to ensure compliance? That's where this is going.
Wmlady, I am absolutely bewildered by your suggestion to cut formula subsidies for low-income families. Don't pretend concern for the health of these babies when it's really about your pocketbook. If you want low-income women working, it's harder to breastfeed. Which is why Ms. Obama wants to help women afford pumping equipment. Now that it is labeled as medical goods by the IRS, it is more likely to be covered by health insurance.
Tyhmaplanet, I am SO sorry what your family went through, I can't imagine you and your wife's stress to watch your child suffer. I too had trouble getting my first baby to latch. But the reality of most hospitals now is that formula companies are giving them money to push formula samples on babies. And it goes as far as nurses giving formula to babies even after parents ask them not to, or repeatedly telling you to give up (like I eventually did) when your baby doesn't latch immediately. Either case is WRONG. As you say, medical professionals should be supporting the choice of the parents on how to feed their children and not some other agenda.
I don't want the government forcing me to breastfeed. But that's in no way what Ms. Obama's initiative is doing. And I don't want corporations controlling my medical care, which happens every day from formula companies to drug companies to insurance companies.
The fact that Starbucks is now publishing the number of calories contained in my favorite drink, a grande java chip frappacino with whip cream, means nothing to me. I already know it could POTETIALLY add fat to my thighs but isn't that obvious. If its sweet and choc full o' cream its proabbaly high in fat and sugar. But alas, I guess common sense isn't so common these days.
The Obamas are glad about that, its the only reason they're in power.
Malkin is working with such thin gruel here. There are so many logical missteps from "encouraging women to breastfeed" to "Government forcing women to breastfeed". I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be against giving poor women access to more options for healthier babies, but then I realize that Malkin just wanted an excuse to call Mrs. Obama Super Nanny. Childhood obesity leads to greater helath care costs later in life. Preventative steps now saves money later. This is a pretty simple concept to grasp. Yet Malkin objects only because Michelle Obama is involved.
Every time I wonder if I made the right decision to cancel my subscription to National Review, I remember that they employ Michelle Malkin, and I realize I made the right call.
You suggest I am concerned about my "pocketbook" because I wonder why Mrs. Obama does not target formula subsidies in promoting breastfeeding. Pocketbook? Tell me -- have you lived around northeastern liberals for some period in your life? That might explain the terminology and the artificial bewilderment.
To be honest, and not artificial, I will say you bet I am concerned about a pocketbook -- our country's. Do you or do you not follow the news on the national debt? Do you care?
If you want to encourage breastfeeding, you don't promote formula. You said as much yourself in responding to Tyhmaplanet above. Low-income families -- working and not -- receive subsidies for food, and the last I heard, if you feed the mother, then you feed the breastfeeding infant.
If you truly want to help low-income women work and breastfeed, give them pumping equipment, not free formula. IRS labeling is not going to achieve what you seem to think it will. With her apparent experience in non-profits, why couldn't Mrs. Obama promote a private solution which might actually work?
Wmlady, I'd love it if the choice were between free pumping equipment and free formula, as always I think parents should decide how best to feed their babies, even poor ones. (And IRS designation as durable medical equipment does help in the cause to get it covered by medical insurance for the rest of us, doctors will now be able to write prescriptions for it and that will lead to calls for its coverage.)
And I'm very concerned about our country's finances. Let's start by getting out of two wars costing $100b/year. I'm not going to start with cutting costs out of the mouths of babies.
I'm getting a little tired of this "nanny state" talk in reference to Mrs. Obama. Say what you will about her husband, she's doing exactly what every other first lady has done. Laura Bush focused on literacy. Nancy Reagan had "just say no". We have a looming childhood obesity crisis with far reaching health and financial implications. First Ladies always take a social issue and work towards its improvement. It's not like she has any personal investment in breast feeding. I'm sure her medical advisers told her it reduced the likelihood of childhood obesity, which relates to her chosen cause. And from all that I've read, the science is there to support it her claim.
Americans are fat, and getting fatter. It's going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars over the long term in health care costs. It's a worthy project for a first lady to tackle. And in the end, she is merely making suggestions. None of this has the force of law. People have the right to offer their opinion. She is not saying anything you would not likely hear from your doctor.
