Americans can be incredibly intolerant when they find private interests influencing a particularly sensitive sector of public service: health. The most recent ballyhoo on Capitol Hill stems not from the recent provocative Michael Moore documentary of the same subject, but a series of government-run ads on breast feeding versus infant formula. The Washington Post recently detailed the predicament by outlining how the original series of public service ads, created by the Department of Health and Human Services, was dramatically transformed by removing strikingly negative imagery of infant formula use when publically aired, apparently due to influence from the infant baby formula industry. Wait, what? The formula industry has lobbyists? I don't know what's more disturbing, the fact that the formula industry needs lobbyists, or the fact that it actually can change public policy. To be fair, the former has not been entirely proven thus far, but the circumstantial evidence of political favoritism has been mounting. For instance, the Department of Health and Human Services was inundated with multiple lobbyist letters urging HHS to rethink its message leading up to the release of the original ads. Immediately after the neutered ads ran, then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson received a letter from the formula lobbyists on how 'grateful' they were for his intervention. Interestingly enough, the lobbyists in question were Clayton Yeutter, an agricultural secretary under George H.W. Bush, and Joseph A. Levitt, who just four months earlier headed the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, which was in charge of regulating infant formula. Not exactly damning evidence, but there is more. Earlier this year, HHS kept quiet on the results from its analysis of multiple breast feeding studies, which found natural feedings were related to fewer ear and gastrointestinal infection. Additionally, children who were breastfed showed lower rates of diabetes, leukemia, obesity, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome. A top HHS official later said her office was specifically instructed by political appointees not to disseminate a news release. It was not an isolated case, as more and more HHS officials are coming out with testimonies bearing witness to the immense pressure put upon them by the lobby to reshape their advertisements. This all comes in the wake of last month's testimony by former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona on how he was constantly pressured by the White House into making private appearances to political groups such as the Alabama Republican Council’s annual fundraiser, Fraternal Order of Police gatherings, and other events that the Office of General Counsel specifically advised against attending. Bush's political appointees also censored his speeches on global health, prison health and other politically sensitive topics. All this has been confirmed by e-mails, which also refer to Carmona as being "not focused on the president's goals." Since when was it required for the surgeon general to pledge allegiance to the president over the health of the public? In all this, we must also consider whether these events have an impact not only on the ethics of Capitol Hill, but also on the health of the public. What will this squall over breast feeding ultimately mean for our well-being? According to the FDA's own website, breast feeding is clearly a superior choice in nurturing a child. Human milk is specifically engineered for human babies and provides them with a myriad of essential components tuned to help them survive their specific environment. The World Health Organization recommends breast feeding for at least the first six months of a newborn's life. All this would seem motivation enough to try and raise the United States' historically low rate of breast feeding, which is falling below 30 percent. The current ads, complete with their softer imagery, has failed to raise that amount by any noticeable margin. I wonder if the previous ads could have done better, but looking at them myself, I must admit they are quite shocking in their imagery. One depicts a vial of insulin capped with a bottle nipple with the tagline that reads "Babies who aren't breastfed are 40 percent more likely to suffer Type 1 diabetes" with another running a similar message except with a rubber nipple over an asthmatic inhaler. Was the industry right in changing these images to dandelions and cherry topped ice-cream sundaes? Was the HHS originally right in thinking shocking people was the best way to get their attention? Should scare tactics be considered if it means more people breastfeed? I could debate endlessly on the merits of effective and moral advertising, but there is one thing I would hope most of us who hold democratic ideals dear can agree on: private sector influence on public sector opinion is almost always a bad idea. To begin supporting the actions of the formula lobby for the sake of moral advertising is opening doors none of us want open. If you are anything like me, you'll rue the day your future children's well-being is dependent on anything but what cold hard evidence shows is good for them. If the idea of political maneuvering disgusts me so much to prevent me from making one goddamn boob joke throughout this entire article, you can bet damn sure that it's important. Charles Lim ([email protected]) is a junior with no declared major.