Our reference: 103159
Dear Miss Cole
Further to our last correspondence, the Commission has now made its assessment of your complaint under the Code of Practice.
The Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the opportunity to consider the points you raise. However, their decision was that there was no breach of the Code and a full explanation is enclosed.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled – as opposed to the Commission’s decision itself – you should write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner, whose details can be found in our How to Complain leaflet or at http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
Thank you for taking this matter up with us.
Yours sincerely
William Gore
will.gore@pcc.org.uk
Commission’s decision in the case of
Young/Cole v Mother & Baby
The Commission acknowledged that the issue of formula-feeding, when set against breast-feeding, is a hugely contentious one. There remains a significant level of debate about the pros and cons of each option, even though that medical research has concluded that breast-feeding is preferable insofar as babies’ health is concerned.
This case – in relation to which the Commission had received a fairly high number of complaints (thirty-seven) – related to the accuracy, or otherwise, of a comment column by a woman who had decided not to breast-feed her baby but to use formula instead. Complainants had raised a number of specific issues about the article, which the Commission was happy to examine. At the outset of its consideration, however, it was important for the Commission to emphasise that individuals are quite entitled to express their own opinions, even on sensitive issues such as this one – that right is enshrined in the Code, provided that comment is distinguished from fact. In this matter, there was no doubt that the article was presented as a comment piece and the Commission did not consider that readers would generally have been misled into thinking it was anything other than that.
There were four particular points which complainants had expressed concern about in terms of possible breaches of the Editors’ Code of Practice: the use of the word ‘supposed’ to describe the health benefits of breast-feeding; the suggestion that breast-feeding caused breast sagginess; the suggestion that it was not possible for breast-feeding mothers to drink alcohol; and the statement that “formula milk is not toxic, lacking in nutrients or in any way bad for a baby’s health”. However, it was important to consider these points in the full context of the article, for the piece made clear that studies had shown breastmilk to reduce the risk of breast cancer for mothers and stomach upsets and allergies for infants. It also acknowledged that formula is “not A-grade” and that breastmilk has ‘the edge over’ formula. The word ‘supposed’ had, in the view of the Commission, essentially been used as a rhetorical device, not necessarily to cast real doubt on the veracity of medical research but simply to allow the author to put it to one side (which an individual might choose to do when deciding to use formula). Similarly, the contention that formula milk was ‘not toxic, lacking in nutrients or bad for a baby’s health’ was not, in the Commission’s view, necessarily to be taken as a factual description of formula when compared against breastmilk. Rather it was a legitimate view of formula, in and of itself, not being intrinsically damaging to health. The Commission did not consider that this overstepped the boundary between legitimate comment into factual inaccuracy.
Similarly, the reference to the author wishing to give her breasts ‘a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach’ could not be equated to a factual statement that breast-feeding necessarily caused sagging. The Commission was satisfied that, in the context of an article about one woman’s decision not to breast-feed, it was legitimate for her to set out why she had made that decision (even though there might be evidence to suggest some of her reasoning was medically ill-founded).
Finally, the article had made reference to the author’s desire to get ‘tipsy once in a while’. Again, the Commission did not consider that this was the same as stating that a woman could not safely drink alcohol while breast-feeding. Rather, the columnist appeared to be indicating that she did not wish to feel she must inhibit her alcohol intake to certain levels – and that this was another factor in her decision to feed her child formula.
Overall, the Commission was satisfied that the article did not raise a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice. The columnist was not a medical expert; she was not writing a factual account of the medical pros and cons of formula milk when set against breast milk. She was at liberty, in that context, to explain why she had taken the decision not to breast-feed her own baby (whether or not that decision was based on sound scientific reasoning); she was even at liberty to be cynical about medical research (even if that research was widely accepted). The article did not state in terms that breastmilk was not better for babies’ health that formula milk and, read as a whole, it was not misleading.
I don’t care if the writer isn’t an expert. Her opinions will still influence vulnerable people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not true. This is a sugar coating of the article. She specifically stated that she wanted to have a drink once in a while, which is completely safe while breastfeeding, unless her definition of once in a while means several times a day.
When one considers human to be the norm for all infants, then artificial food is clearly toxic and lacking in nutrients by comparison. Regardless of US cultural bias, human milk continues to be the norm for human babies.
No one expected a expert opinion from this woman. We just expected a well researched article. I wish the publishers would either defend this article or retract it. This just softens it up. It’s the equivalent of saying, “Just kidding!” when you have taken a friendly joke too far. Disappointing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry to hear this Lisa – but your letter was fantastic, I think lots of people are v grateful to you for taking the time to research and submit the complaint.
Even though this time the response was negative, I hope that editors will have taken note of your complaint, and will now have a better understanding of their obligations in regard to this issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A new mother should not exceed her alcohol intake whichever way she chooses to feed a baby. A responsible parent would not do this. A factor the PCC did not touch on.
The way the deputy editor referred to her baby as ‘bawling’ sounds unfeeling. The article quite simply highlights the deputy editor’s selfishness. She did not have the patience to breastfeed and clearly is uncomfortable with this side of her sexuality. As is her husband, unfortunately. What could could be more sexy than the mother of your child choosing to feed your child naturally? I think the article should put into question the deputy editor’s overall authority on parenting. She may have her own children, but that does not mean she knows it all. She should not have been able to abuse her postion to illustrate her own shortcomings.
I am in no why a perfect mother, but I have persevered with breastfeeding my son for 11 months now and unfortunately some women think that establishing feeding should be quick and effortless. Sorry, but if you can breastfeed (and 98% of women can) and you choose not to, that’s selfish no matter what reason you come up with. The feeding issue is not contentious, it’s simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I actually think that the complaints commission were right, the writer of the article merely expressed opinions and everyone has the right to do that.
I think the writer was deliberately inflammatory for the sake of debate and again there is nothing wrong with that when it is done in obvious way – freedom of speech and all that, debate is always a good thing.
What I don’t understand is why people can’t live and let live and allow people to make their own choices about how they raise their children. Saying that not breastfeeding means you’re a bad or incapable parent is unfair and nonsensical. I don’t believe that breastfeeding gives anyone the right to sit in judgement over everybody else, not because I formula feed, just because I don’t like sneering judgemental attitudes anywhere, ever!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and other people can feed their babies artificial milk if they want to. What bothers me is the perpetuation of untruths. “I wanted to have a drink once in a while” might be the reason you have cooked up for choosing not to give your baby human milk, but it carries the pervasive and all-too-often-believed assumption that if you breastfeed you just can’t drink. Same goes for the crude remark about breast saggage; it perpetuates the myth that breastfeeding makes them droop.
Oh great, the ff readership now feel noel and validated in their choices. Is that a good thing? When so many young women are making such choices as a result of an unhealthy cultural view of the human body and a web of bald faced lies, it’s GOOD to validate those choices? Who cares if society’s attitude never improves, at least those mums feel better, is that it? Really, as if becoming a mother causes you to have the most fragile psyche that can’t possibly handle facts which might be beneficial for others to hear??? I would like to believe women have a little more backbone…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What exactly was the complaint?
It doesn’t really say…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] which I received today. I have to say, I think their response is a bit of a joke. This is the second time the PCC has failed to protect breastfeeding from being maligned in the press this month and you [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0