Breast is Best>

[Jersey Girl]

Ladies!!! Moms!!!


( )

[canpakes]

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. ; )

[Lemmie]

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. ; )

Okay, I'll take your word for it at the moment, because I agree, on a case by case basis, details matter. Still, no amount of attitude can fix certain physical issues, but I would be interested in your details, but please don't feel like you have to, as I don't want you to feel compelled to reveal any IRL info.


(Not to derail, but IIRC, we both have history in the neighborhood surrounding the Mesa Temple, right? I hear it's being hugely revamped and the "historical" houses in the area are being knocked down. I'm pretty sure that would include my great-grandparents' house. Any word on that neighborhood development?)

[Jersey Girl]

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.

:-)

[Jersey Girl]

p.s. Hell, I wouldn't put it past the administration to orchestrate a show down so that Russia could swoop in as hero and make them look good to the world.

[DoubtingThomas]

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.

[Jersey Girl]

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.

[DoubtingThomas]

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.

[Jersey Girl]

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.

Weren't you told to shut the hell up?

[Chap]

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.

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.

[Chap]

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.

:-)

My own experience as a parent closely involved with feeding my own babies (and talking a lot to other parents of babies) resonates with what you say. Sometimes the attempt to breastfeed just does not work out, for mother, for baby, or for both. In premodern times that might have meant a sick or even dead baby, unless (as was more likely in the past than today) another lactating woman in the mother's friendship/kin group was able to help.

Today we have formula if we need it, and thank goodness for that!

[EAllusion]

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 convienance while they had a machine hooked up to their breasts in a car on their lunch break.

At first I thought maybe this is just a bias for Mormon influenced stay at home Mom culture. Then I remembered two women I know talking about latching problems that led to use of nipple shields that led to clamping issues that were so bad they said it was like their nipples were being stabbed with sharp knives every day.

If you talked about their attitude problems, I'm not saying I'd approve of your murder, but I'd understand it.

[Chap]

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.

In such cases formula is the obvious solution. It's up to women to make that decision, and no-one should criticise them for it.

The OP, however, raised a different issue, which is the risks posed by intensive marketing of formula in poor countries, in such a way that women who could breastfeed get the idea that they are poor mothers if they don't feed formula. The bad consequences of that have been explained very clearly on this thread, and are, I hope, not controversial.

[EAllusion]

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

[Chap]

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?

[EAllusion]

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?

No. My first post was to canpakes.

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.

[Chap]

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.

[EAllusion]

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.

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.

[subgenius]

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.

All breast milk is not created equal - some mothers ingest harmful substances (smokers; heavy coffee drinkers; drugs of all sorts; etc) that can transmit through breast milk and breastfeeding; as can certain infections and diseases, etc.
So your hyperbolic "proper hygiene" argument is not exclusive to bottles and formula (not to mention, like the substance intake for breast-milk, its kinda "duh").

You seem to be in this stance that formula=evil and breastfeeding=good. I am not promoting one over the other, I believe that the mother (or parents or caregivers) should make the choice for themselves...like 2 dads might have to do.
Anyway, given that your posts neglected to have an informed opinion about the actual language of the resolution or the language of the US amendments, it could very well be that the US was simply striving for an informed balance of information where a mother (or parents or caregivers) could make their own choice based on equal access to valid information.

[subgenius]

...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.

At the time of "personhood" for this thread that "language" was not available for public consumption - do you have a link that provides opportunity to read it?

[Chap]

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.

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.

The resolution was not shot down, although the US tried very hard to get it withdrawn and to intimidate nations who might propose it once they had scared off the original proposers, Ecuador. In the end it was proposed by Russia.

viewtopic.php?p=1130182#p1130182

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.