The "ATTITUDE" of the source? No, your facts as they relate to the female anatomy and the physical act of breastfeeding are incorrect. Convenience in breastfeeding does not depend upon "the attitude of the source."

I'm glad you perceived a good attitude in your source, but its correlation to a convenient breastfeed is just that, a correlation. A good attitude does not make breastfeeding "more convenient," except maybe for the person who is happy that his source is feeding his output in such a way that is so ridiculously convenient for him.

I understand where you’re coming from, but I really do see this as strongly related to both situation and attitude. I’ll send a PM your way, because, details. ; )

Also, breastfeeding is ridiculously more convenient. No hauling around or cleaning separate bottles. No purchase required of same. Mom is always prepared for the baby’s needs.

Yes breastfeeding is better, but it doesn't mean scientists won't create a better powdered or artificial milk in the future.

Shut the hell up.

I'm not de-inviting you. Just shut the hell up.

Haha You know I like controversy. As a futurist I don't like nature.

Yes breastfeeding is better, but it doesn't mean scientists won't create a better powdered or artificial milk in the future.

I don't know if anyone's said this and I'm too lazy to look. The past few decades or so have seen an uptick in the number of women who are breastfeeding. Mom's have gotten savvy about pumping, using donated breast milk, and all sorts of things. News travels fast these days thanks to the Internet.

What I am saying is that I suspect there's been a decrease in sales in the formula industry and that I wouldn't put the administration past throwing out that threat in an effort to support the formula industry.

What I would like to see more of is women compassionately encouraging each other and honoring their decisions and the circumstances under which those decisions are made. Sometimes our decisions are entirely fulfilling and better than we ever imagined, sometimes they are changed or taken away from us entirely for a variety of reasons. Sometimes we have choices and sometimes choices are thrust upon us.

I'm of the "do whatever brings you peace" school of motherhood philosophy. Peace without guilt. Whatever it is, find it and do it.

:-)

Every woman I know who breastfed had to pump, because they also work, which was ridiculously inconvenient. I'm not sure any of them would've appreciated someone extolling the virtues of convience while they had a machine hooked up to their breasts in a car on their lunch break.

They still pumped, though. Formula isn't the obvious solution because that's expensive and is an inferior product. Milk evolved from immunosuppressant goo and its immunosuppressant qualities just can't be mimicked by formula. The microbiome and lipid profiles of breast milk are also complicated and can't be simulated.

On the one hand, the measurable benefits of breast milk don't match what the current pop culture seems to think. On the other, there is some known benefit.

Women put themselves through a lot sometimes because of the real or percieved benefit of breastfeeding

Yes, the facts you state about the failure of formula to equate to breast milk are well known and have not been disputed on this thread. Good ante and post natal health advice for mothers should aim to make mothers well enough informed to make a sensible decision about when it is wise to consider using formula, and then women should be allowed to decide for themselves

Are you under the impression that we have any serious disagreement?

I also think the resolution that was shot down was overstated to the point of inaccurate it's not a big deal that it was shot down.

The resolution was not 'shot down'. It was simply proposed by Russia after the US delegation threatened Ecuador with very heavy economic sanctions and the withdrawal of military aid if they persisted in proposing it.

That sounds as if the US thought a quite 'big deal' was involved. And reportedly the 'big deal' for them was that the proposal included a provision to prevent 'inappropriate marketing' of formula as being equivalent to or better than breast milk (which it is not). That aspect of the affair has been fully discussed on this thread.

However, since the US delegation did not feel like imposing further sanctions on Russia rather than on tiny little Ecuador, the resolution was proposed and passed. As is normal, there were no doubt some modifications between the first proposal and the final version. Since the final version was not yet been published by WHO, we can't tell exactly what those changes were.

That is perfectly possible.

But as has already been pointed out by more than one poster, even the creation of a perfect breast-milk-equivalent formula does not render it desirable that the producers should undertake intensive marketing designed to make mothers in poor countries switch to formula from breast milk - simply because preparing and feeding formula without risk to infant health demands hygienic conditions that many poor mothers in poor countries will simply not be able to meet. Breast milk will always be safer in that regard.

In addition, there are two risks in persuading poor women that feeding formula is superior to breast milk, and that failure to do so shows deficient parenting:

1. If they purchase a good (and hence expensive) brand, the cost of it will impact the family budget in ways that damage the health of themselves and other family members - or the baby itself, if they cannot afford enough formula to feed the required amount.

2. If they purchase a cheap brand on the principle that 'formula is better', then even if they do feed hygienically and in the specified quantity the baby may be malnourished.

...but in any case, the language of the resolution was problematic enough that I don't think it's a big deal that it was opposed.

The resolution was not 'shot down'. It was simply proposed by Russia after the US delegation threatened Ecuador with very heavy economic sanctions and the withdrawal of military aid if they persisted in proposing it.

That sounds as if the US thought a quite 'big deal' was involved. And reportedly the 'big deal' for them was that the proposal included a provision to prevent 'inappropriate marketing' of formula as being equivalent to or better than breast milk (which it is not). That aspect of the affair has been fully discussed on this thread.

However, since the US delegation did not feel like imposing further sanctions on Russia rather than on tiny little Ecuador, the resolution was proposed and passed. As is normal, there were no doubt some modifications between the first proposal and the final version. Since the final version was not yet been published by WHO, we can't tell exactly what those changes were.

I was referring to the US using its leverage to shoot down the initial resolution, which is what this thread is about. I'm less certain that this is entirely about protecting formula manufacturers, but in any case, the language of the resolution was problematic enough that I don't think it's a big deal that it was opposed.

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States.

Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico and the United States.

“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s.

“What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on the best way to protect infant and young child health,” she said.

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.