unconvincing secondary argument that describing breastfeeding as "natural" fuels the anti-vaccine movement.

It's "ethically inappropriate" for government and medical organizations to describe breastfeeding as "natural" because the term enforces rigid notions about gender roles, claims a new study in Pediatrics "Coupling nature with motherhood... can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretaker," the study says.The study notes that in recent years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and several state departments of health have all promoted breastfeeding over bottle-feeding, using the term "natural."the study says.But the study's authors, Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill, clearly have in mind an alternative set of "values and beliefs," about which which they are not transparent.It's unclear whether they're worried about how traditional female gender roles may limit women's progress in the workforce, or whether this is part of the discussion about whether conventional views about motherhood exclude transgender people.Regardless, Martucci and Barnhill mask their agenda by also making theWhen public-service announcements praise breastfeeding as "natural," Martucci and Barnhill argue, the implication is that manufactured or mass-produced products are questionable or dangerous—so these promotions may unintentionally encourage parents to reject scientific progress elsewhere."If doing what is 'natural' is 'best' in the case of breastfeeding, how can we expect mothers to ignore that powerful and deeply persuasive worldview when making choices about vaccination?" they write.There's certainly an assertive worldview woven throughout this paper, though we find it neither powerful nor deeply persuasive.