Breast is Best>

aussieguy55 · **Joined:** Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm **Posts:** 1932

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/heal ... trump.html

How crazy. My wife breastfed all our girls and the benefits were great. It gets the woman's body back together and gets her interested in sex again. How much more cray policy are the Americans going to come out with?

Chap · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:49 am

The baby milk powder industry is huge, and pays people like Trump lots and lots of money. That is of course wonderful in every way.

The perverse idea that breast milk is generally better for babies than the industrial product is a hoax set up by the Chinese government and other communist leftist antifas to damage American business and take American jobs.

These do-gooders at the World Health Organisation have to learn that it is America first from now on. Babies? Wop-wop. They don't come anywhere much.

aussieguy55 · **Joined:** Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm **Posts:** 1932

It is interesting how capitalism operates.China is developing electric cars that can run on solar panels. If this catches on what then is the future of the oil producing nations. Will they allow it?

Chap · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:23 am

Just in case anyone is wondering what the fuss is about, here are fuller details.

No-one, of course, is trying to argue that women who find it difficult to breast-feed their children (whether for medical, social or work-related reasons), or who simply prefer not to do so, should be forced into breast-feeding. The idea of the motion was to try to discourage advertising that tries to push up sales of formula powder by suggesting to mothers that formula milk was somehow preferable to breast milk.

It is this kind of thing the WHO was going after:

How formula milk firms target mothers who can least afford it

Basically, the aim of such campaigns is to give poor women the idea that they are bad mothers if they are not spending scarce money on formula, rather than breast-feeding. Nasty.

Anyhow, here is the report. The US delegation used extraordinary measures to try to block this threat to well-funded commercial interests:

Quote:

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.

canpakes · **Joined:** Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am **Posts:** 7490

Remember, babies are people inside a womb, but after birth, need to yield to the personhood of corporations.

Quote:

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.

It’s a good thing here that Trump never challenges his boss.

Always Changing · **Joined:** Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:17 am **Posts:** 941

canpakes wrote:

Remember, babies are people inside a womb, but after birth, need to yield to the personhood of corporations.

Quote:

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.

It’s a good thing here that Trump never challenges his boss.

Problem with many pro-life people. Inconsistent pro-life agenda. To ally pro-life with conservative interests was a huge mistake.

AAH, yes. The Russians must be holding the trump card. Wonder what it is.

Themis · **Joined:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm **Posts:** 13087

It's an interesting world where the Russians step up and be the good guys and the US is the bad guy. Just another huge data point about the Trump administration really works for big money at the expense of it's citizen's and the world.

Chap · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:39 am

Always Changing wrote:

Problem with many pro-life people. Inconsistent pro-life agenda. To ally pro-life with conservative interests was a huge mistake

The problem seems to be that when people say they are 'pro-life', all that means in practice is that they are interested in maximising the chances that any fertilised ovum will survive and lead to the birth of a full-term child.

Once that child is out of the womb, the quality of its life is of no further account. Of course the mother isn't allowed to cut its throat, but anybody who can make money by persuading the mother to make sub-optimal nutritional choices, thereby ensuring that the child grows up less healthy and even in some cases obviously stunted, is free to make as much profit as they possibly can. Any attempt to impede them in that effort must be met with the severest sanctions.

Once the baby is born, the mother and the child are just a pair of consumers, and corporations have the sacred right to do the best they can to extract the maximum amount of revenue from them. Whether this does the child good or harm is a secondary or tertiary consideration.

moksha · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:22 pm

When you are out of sync with what is best for babies throughout the world, your perfidy should be adequately rewarded by the infant formula industry.

aussieguy55 · **Joined:** Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm **Posts:** 1932

It is ironic that stores in Australia find their supplies of baby formula are disappearing in huge numbers bought by Chinese who then sell it to China with a huge mark up.Maybe they trust the safety production rules in Australia than those in China. My wife and I agreed with the view that prolife folks are concerned about the fetus and yet once you are born you are on your own. I read recently that birthrate in the US is dropping. Imagine the affect of that on baby clothes and other essentials daycare centers class sizes. You will need immigration.

Chap · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:02 pm

aussieguy55 wrote:

Maybe they trust the safety production rules in Australia than those in China.

There's no 'maybe' about it!

MeDotOrg · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:36 am

I seem to remember this story happening a couple of years ago as well, where there was some sort of pro breastfeeding resolution that was opposed or watered down by the United States.

Am I alone here, or does someone else remember this happening a while ago?

Chap · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:58 am

MeDotOrg wrote:

I seem to remember this story happening a couple of years ago as well, where there was some sort of pro breastfeeding resolution that was opposed or watered down by the United States.

Am I alone here, or does someone else remember this happening a while ago?

The searchable journalism on the event referenced in the OP does not turn up any reference to similar US opposition to the international promotion of breast-feeding in previous years. Had there been such a precedent, one would have expected some journalist's memory or database to have flagged it up,

canpakes · **Joined:** Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am **Posts:** 7490

Chap wrote:

MeDotOrg wrote:

I seem to remember this story happening a couple of years ago as well, where there was some sort of pro breastfeeding resolution that was opposed or watered down by the United States.

Am I alone here, or does someone else remember this happening a while ago?

The searchable journalism on the event referenced in the OP does not turn up any reference to similar US opposition to the international promotion of breast-feeding in previous years. Had there been such a precedent, one would have expected some journalist's memory or database to have flagged it up,

Supposedly, formula manufacturers have resisted and lobbied on their own against these sorts of resolutions in years past as well but this is the first time that there seems to have been actual threats of economic retaliation or withdrawal of military assistance threatened by the US political delegation over it.

subgenius · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:35 am

I am curious when anyone of the posters here will actually post something of substance from the resolution in question. Additionally, I am also interested in why so many posters who otherwise are so "pro-science" are seemingly repulsed by the decades of good science that has brought about modern baby formula? And then there is a curiosity for the lack of outrage where Planned Parenthood supports the limiting of choices for mothers by shaming them into breast-feeding only....i guess for PP "choice" is a limited time offer.

The New York Times article, ironically, is more watered down than Enfamil ever could be.

"...amended partially by the US in two ways: language was removed offering WHO support for nations trying to stop ‘inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children,” and the phrase “‘evidence-based” was added to some provisions about advertisements supporting breastfeeding."

canpakes · **Joined:** Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am **Posts:** 7490

subgenius wrote:

And then there is a curiosity for the lack of outrage where Planned Parenthood supports the limiting of choices for mothers by shaming them into breast-feeding only....

Planned Parenthood told you on your last visit to stop using baby formula?

Chap · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:45 am

FYI, not unexpectedly, the final text of the resolution as passed has apparently not yet been posted on the WHO website. These things are usually circulated post-meeting so people can check for errors and confusions in the text before it is published.

But a draft version, which Ecuador was planning to propose before the US threatened them with sanctions, was circulated at a preparatory meeting in May, and can be seen HERE.

Of interest to the current discussion are the following sections - amongst which the most concerning is the one that says:

Quote:

only two in every three children between 6 months and 2 years of age receive any breast-milk in low- and middle-income countries

We are dealing here with countries where it will often be difficult to prepare baby formula safely and hygienically, where parents may not be able to afford to buy enough high-quality commercial formula to nourish their child adequately, and where babies may be in particular need of the immunoprotective qualities of breast milk. Yet a third of babies get no breast milk at all.

Quote:

The Seventy-first World Health Assembly,

PP1. Taking note the reports on maternal, infant and young child nutrition1: “Comprehensive implementation plan on maternal, infant and young child nutrition: biennial report”, and “Safeguarding against possible conflicts of interest in nutrition programmes”
...
PP4. Reaffirming also that breastfeeding is critical for child survival, nutrition and development, and maternal health;
PP4bis. Affirming that the protection, promotion, and support of breastfeeding contributes substantially to the achievement of sustainable development goals on nutrition and health, and is a core element of
quality health care;
...
PP6. Expressing concern that nearly two in every three infants under 6 months are not exclusively breastfed; that fewer than one in five infants are breastfed for 12 months in high-income countries; and that only two in every three children between 6 months and 2 years of age receive any breast-milk in low- and middle-income countries;
...
URGES MEMBER STATES

(OP1.1) to increase investment in development, implementation and monitoring of laws, policies and programmes aimed at protection, promotion, and support of breastfeeding, including through multi-sectoral approaches, and awareness raising;
(OP1.2) to reinvigorate the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), including by promoting full integration of the Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding in efforts and programmes aimed at improving quality of care for maternal, new-born and child health;
...
(OP1.4) to continue taking all necessary measures in the interest of public health to end the inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children, including, in particular implementation of the Guidance on Ending the Inappropriate Promotion of Foods for Infants and Young Children, while taking into account existing legislation and policies, as well as international obligations;

Board members may also like to consult:

Guidance on ending the inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children (2016)

This document, amongst other recommendations, says:

Quote:

14. [Advertising] Messages [for baby-milk formula] should not:
• include any image, text or other representation that might suggest use for infants under the age of 6 months (including references to milestones and stages);
• include any image, text or other representation that is likely to undermine or discourage breastfeeding, that makes a comparison to breast-milk, or that suggests that the product is nearly equivalent or superior to breast-milk;
• recommend or promote bottle feeding;
• convey an endorsement or anything that may be construed as an endorsement by a professional or other body, unless this has been specifically approved by relevant national, regional or international regulatory authorities

subgenius · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:26 am

Themis wrote:

It's an interesting world where the Russians step up and be the good guys and the US is the bad guy. Just another huge data point about the Trump administration really works for big money at the expense of it's citizen's and the world.

The Russian proposal had incorporated US amendments.

subgenius · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:32 am

Chap wrote:

FYI, not unexpectedly, the final text of the resolution as passed has apparently not yet been posted on the WHO website. ...

So your protest here has not accounted for the US amendments or, for that matter, any knowledge for what the actual proposals may or may not have involved?

Nevertheless, the question remains - is the decades of science behind baby formula good or bad?

(note: are those WHO advert bans based on good science?)

EAllusion · **Joined:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am **Posts:** 16407

For what it is worth, the benefits of breast milk for developing children is real, but overstated in our popular culture if you're just following what the literature probably can support. I think that overstatement is informing some of the pushback against this, and my instinct is to point out that it's not as bad as you think.

Saying, "Reaffirming also that breastfeeding is critical for child survival, nutrition and development, and maternal health" is an overstatement. The science doesn't underwrite that. It's more likely a modest boost rather than "critical."

See a study like this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3614000549

Chap · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:35 am

subgenius wrote:

[are] the decades of science behind baby formula good or bad?

Good quality baby formula, correctly and hygienically prepared, and fed to the infant in appropriate amounts, enables children to be adequately nourished when:

(a) The mother is medically unable to breastfeed the baby.

OR

(b) The mother's work or social circumstances make it difficult to breastfeed the baby.

OR

(c) The mother simply does not wish to breastfeed the baby.

Of course it is a good thing that such products have been developed, since if circumstances like (a) (b) or (c) obtain, it is no longer necessary for the child to be fed on inadequate or harmful preparations such as cow's milk (fresh or otherwise) or 'pap' of various kinds.

What is bad is when mothers who would otherwise be able and willing to give their babies the benefits of breast milk are dissuaded from doing so by marketing campaigns that give them the impression that formula is nutritionally superior to breastmilk, or is otherwise to be preferred as a sign of sophistication, and truly caring 'scientific' parenthood.

If the result is that the baby is fed on good quality baby formula, correctly and hygienically prepared, not much is lost, although breast milk gives the child some things that cannot be bought in a tin.

But if the result is that a poor woman trying to do her best for her baby ends up buying cheap and perhaps adulterated products, which she has not got the facilities to prepare hygienically, and of which she cannot afford to buy enough to nourish her child adequately, the result is a malnourished or even sick child who would have been much better off breastfed.

Breast is Best>

Who is online