Going and looking at the piece, and the sources he's referencing, I don't think it's unfairly used.
"A survey by the Department of Health found that a fifth of women under 24 thought that breast feeding would ruin their bodies. Women greatly overestimated the difficulties of producing milk. But perhaps most significantly, 34% believe that infant formula milks are “very similar” or “the same” as breastmilk(6). A poll by Mori for the National Childbirth Trust found that around a third of women had received the impression that infant formula was “as good as” or “better than” breastmilk(7)"
The first bits - ruination of bodies, difficulties, verysimilar/thesame - are about what people themselves believe.
the Mori poll is about the received impression (the poll asks about the impression given by advertising, not personal beliefs).
As Monbiot's piece is about how advertisiing misleads and the way that leads to false beleifs, I think it's fairly put.
If he'd said that the Mori poll was about their beliefs he'd be wrong. Likewise, if he'd taken that on its own and extrapolated it to be a measure of beliefs he'd be wrong.
It's not implying that people are any more stupid than they really are; the 'impression' poll concernes a third of women, precisely the same proportion in the government poll who *do* think infant formula's as good as breast milk.
|
