And just who had to empty all those bottles?

Obviously the person who thought up this way to play the Super Mario Bros. theme song:

It all comes down to this:

Getting between the need and the person, all because of greed.

Washington, DC (AHN) - A national campaign to help educate mothers about the benefits of breastfeeding was "toned down" to the point of futility in response to pressure from the formula industry, The Washington Post reported Friday.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, babies who are not exclusively breastfed for their first 6 months are more likely to develop a wide range of health problems, including ear infections, diarrhea and respiratory illnesses. They also show a 21% higher mortality rate. However, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who recently testified that the Bush administration let political considerations interfere with public health campaigns, says that only about one in four babies are breastfed long enough to receive the benefits.

That's why the federal Office on Women's Health developed a "Blueprint for Action on Breastfeeding" in 2000 to help educate women about breastfeeding. The campaign included hard-hitting ads, such as one featuring an asthma puffers that looked like a bottle of formula, warning, "babies who aren't breastfed are up to 250% more likely to suffer respiratory diseases."

The formula industry fought the ads, brining in powerful lobbyists, such as Clayton Yeutter, who served as agriculture secretary during the administration of George H.W. Bush.

Carmona was removed from the campaign and political appointees were brought in to drop the ads in favor of toned down messages. "Babies are born to be breastfed," one ad states simply.

In 2004 letters obtained by the Post, Yeutter and other lobbyists thanked then-HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson for his staff's action to eliminate "the most egregious distortions" aimed at "scaring expectant mothers into breast-feeding."

Meanwhile, breastfeeding rates have actually decreased.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating the allegations of political meddling in public health concerns.

Why would you spend 250 to 10,000 times more than what you need to

When you buy bottled water instead of tap water? Via Eli at Multi Medium, an article on the benefits and disadvantages of the waters:

Market studies show that the reason most Americans drink bottled water is its perceived superiority—most importantly in taste, and then in safety—compared to municipal tap water. But a widely publicized 1999 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council debunked at least some of these perceptions. The study found that the source of about a quarter of bottled water was municipal tap water, usually filtered to remove chlorine—the primary objectionable taste—and other chemicals such as fluoride. So much for the idea of pristine, undisturbed sources.

And instead of the widely held notion that bottled water harbored fewer chemicals and microorganisms, the study found little difference between the two; both are usually of exceptionally high quality in the United States. In fact, water quality standards in this country are more rigorous for tap water than for bottled. (Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration; tap water is overseen by the more stringent Environmental Protection Agency.)

Besides the enormous cost of bottled water compared to tap water (bottled water is between 250 to 10,000 times more expensive), there’s an additional expense: its effect on the environment. First there’s the crude oil necessary to produce the plastic bottles, which the Earth Policy Institute estimates at about 1.5 million barrels of oil a year in the U.S., enough to power 100,000 cars. Then there’s the transportation of this weighty product (though about 75 percent of bottled water is produced and consumed regionally). Finally, there’s the issue of getting rid of the empty bottles, only about 10 percent of which are recycled.