It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New York Nanny Bloomberg now hiding baby formula!

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 



With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.

Read more: www.nypost.com...


A "talking to" is a LECTURE - as in - "you naughty, naughty, naughty ..."

Further, women talk amongst themselves about these issues and it's going to make some women feel even MORE 'alienated'.

It's a psychological attack - and is not blown out of proportion. By mandating a "norm" - the QUACK is making otherwise NORMAL women feel bad about themselves. This is one of the tactics used by woman-abusers. Most, but, not all of us are thoroughly aware of this.




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


It wasn't having too many kids at once, we had them one at a time, but my wife is a little 90lb thing, and my boys will probably outgrow her by 3rd or 4th grade, LOL! They were HUNGRY!

Sure, everything that is sold in the supermarkets is a racket. Baby formula is no different than any other "grocery" which has a whole new meaning today than what it had 60 years ago. Today we buy "cake mix," we don't buy flour and baking soda. People aren't cooking like they used to. Today we have "recycling" whereas 60 years ago they didn't need that, because they re-used everything instead of tossing it in the trash.

If you want to talk about economics, that is a whole other issue, and I'd be happy to rant with you, but taking away free stuff from a new mother, and limiting her access to something like baby formula is ridiculous, wrong, and ought to be illegal.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Trexter Ziam
 

A "talking to" is a LECTURE - as in - "you naughty, naughty, naughty ..."

Was this term selected by the officials discussing the policy, or by the report writing the article? The actual quotes seem to imply the contrary - meaning you are jumping to conclusions, and assuming implications instead of just reading actual information (as compared to opining and likely poor word choices by reporters).


Further, women talk amongst themselves about these issues and it's going to make some women feel even MORE 'alienated'.

And it will also educate some others, which is the point. So far I've read nothing wrong with the policy itself (we'll have to see how it bears out in practice), so until actual issues with the policy arise, any mothers feeling alienated are doing so themselves.

My doctor always lectures me about smoking when I make the rare visit to his office - how dare he alienate me by way of education?!


It's a psychological attack - and is not blown out of proportion. By mandating a "norm" - the QUACK is making otherwise NORMAL women feel bad about themselves. This is one of the tactics used by woman-abusers. Most, but, not all of us are thoroughly aware of this.

Assumption on your part again, and I still disagree and still feel that you are others are blowing it WELL out of proportion. Securing goods to require that they be signed for and educating patients on their choices as appropriate doesn't seem very "wife beatery" to me.

It seems your entire complaint hinges on your belief that these women will be verbally abused. Other than the REPORTER's wording, can you point out to me where exactly it's indicated that that's what's going to happen with this policy?

And in that case, as I said - New Yorkers better mobilize, since bitching about it here on ATS likely won't do much to reverse the policy.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
It seems your entire complaint hinges on your belief that these women will be verbally abused. Other than the REPORTER's wording, can you point out to me where exactly it's indicated that that's what's going to happen with this policy?

And in that case, as I said - New Yorkers better mobilize, since bitching about it here on ATS likely won't do much to reverse the policy.


That is exactly my [our] point. "talking to" = 'got yelled at'.

If they want to lock up the formula to protect it from thievery - GOOD! If they are locking it up to hike the prices ... that seems the normal way of capitalism - but, that's not my gripe here.

I'm not a Yorker. We have our own idiot politicians to deal with. Like several years back when Perry made his executive order to give all female children an UN-TESTED vaccine.

We can gritch and gripe all we want - it's ATS.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

If you want to talk about economics, that is a whole other issue, and I'd be happy to rant with you, but taking away free stuff from a new mother, and limiting her access to something like baby formula is ridiculous, wrong, and ought to be illegal.

It doesn't happen often, but I'm going to disagree with you on this one.

First off, the article says they're doing away with the formula-branded handouts. Generic ones are likely not on the chopping block, they just won't be marketing for the formula companies anymore.

As to the access itself, I don't consider it unreasonable - it's protecting what is apparently a valuable commodity, while still providing it upon request. I am also curious as to if there are any restrictions on the family or others bringing in their own formula & bottles? If not, I don't see how this can be considered an issue at all, since then it really strongly seems as though the hospitals are just doing this to protect their own financial interests.

I did also get a kick out of this little gem at the end of the article:

“They make formula for a reason, and the FDA makes sure it’s safe,” said Roxanne Schmidt, whose 14-month-old twins were fed with formula from birth. “Locking it up is just wrong.”

As to the FDA - SHOULD I mistrust them to properly protect us as much as I do? It seems like Roxanne's got a lot more faith in them than I do...

Take care.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Trexter Ziam
 

That is exactly my [our] point. "talking to" = 'got yelled at'.

And my point is that you're assuming this is the case based only on a reporter's wording.


We can gritch and gripe all we want - it's ATS.

Granted. I just don't feel it will accomplish much, and is about as ill-informed as most opinions here on ATS. Regardless, as you will.

That said, neither of our opinions appear to be moving on this - I do understand your concerns, and if they pan out then I certainly hope the policy is reversed. It doesn't appear to be an entirely new concept, however, and I've not heard complaint of it before, so if it has a chance of doing good for those involved, than I hope what I consider undue assumptions such as yours don't kill it for these hospitals at the outset.

Take care, and be well.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Hide the baby formula? This is a bad thing?

And I suppose natural breast feeding is bad for a child, because the fake stuff is better *sarcasm*



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Well, without the branding, I doubt the free stuff will continue to flood in to the hospital. I'm all for breast-feeding, I think every mother should at least give it a try. It is good for the mother and the baby. It actually helps the mother recover from the pregnancy that much faster, and it gets her hormones in balances, shrinks the uterus (which helps get rid of the baby belly), etc. Those first few breast-feeding meals from mother to baby are wonderful sources for hormones and immunity building serum.

But, my issues are the fact that the government is dictating what the hospital does. That is a step in the wrong direction. I hate to see the free stuff go away, because it does help the hospital and the new parent both.

Also, in this day and age, prescription drug addiction and abuse is so bad that a large number of those mothers will be producing breast-milk that is probably not even good for the baby!

A recent article from NY!


BUFFALO, N.Y. (News Release) Today, joined by doctors and nurses at Sisters of Charity Hospital, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer unveiled his three-point plan to combat the alarming trend in Buffalo and nationwide of infants being born addicted to prescription painkillers, known as Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS). In previous years, only a handful of babies were born addicted to painkillers - now that number has skyrocketed in Buffalo and around the country. Some Western New York hospitals note that they now have more babies born addicted to painkillers in a month than used to occur in an entire year. Nationwide, it is estimated that one baby per-hour is born addicted to painkillers.


When you consider the fact that the mother's diet these days is probably not that good. Fast-food, GMO, preservatives, simple sugars, chemicals, alcohol, smoking, prescription drugs, illicit drugs, etc, then why would we assume baby formula is automatically less quality than the breast milk? As I said before, I was born and raised on formula, and I'm the healthiest person I know.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by abeverage
Hide the baby formula? This is a bad thing?

And I suppose natural breast feeding is bad for a child, because the fake stuff is better *sarcasm*


Actually, I was just posting on that very topic.

All of ATS is always ablaze that our diets are killing us, "bread-belly," GMO foods, preservatives, chemicals, flouride, chlorine, air pollution, prescription drugs, illicit drugs, second-hand smoke, etc., etc., etc....... so how can the same crowd saying all of those things, also say that breast milk is better than formula?
I mean, ummm, the breast milk is made up of the things in the mother's body. If she is eating Mcdonald's, Marlboro, Xanax, and Coca Cola on a daily basis, then the formula is probably better than the breast milk.
edit on 30-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


It wasn't having too many kids at once, we had them one at a time, but my wife is a little 90lb thing, and my boys will probably outgrow her by 3rd or 4th grade, LOL! They were HUNGRY!

Sure, everything that is sold in the supermarkets is a racket. Baby formula is no different than any other "grocery" which has a whole new meaning today than what it had 60 years ago. Today we buy "cake mix," we don't buy flour and baking soda. People aren't cooking like they used to. Today we have "recycling" whereas 60 years ago they didn't need that, because they re-used everything instead of tossing it in the trash.

If you want to talk about economics, that is a whole other issue, and I'd be happy to rant with you, but taking away free stuff from a new mother, and limiting her access to something like baby formula is ridiculous, wrong, and ought to be illegal.


You hit another good point there, people are not cooking like they used to, which means their food impacted health is diminishing, which in turn could mean that their natural milk isn't as nourishing as it should be, either. So having women eat garbage is actually creating a need for synthetic formula. It also breaks my heart that many parents don't take the time to research what good nutrition is for children; why would take the time to eat well and breastfeed if you know that in three more years you're just going to be feeding it McDonald's anyway?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

But, my issues are the fact that the government is dictating what the hospital does. That is a step in the wrong direction. I hate to see the free stuff go away, because it does help the hospital and the new parent both.

Understood and *generally* agreed, with reservations. But the part everyone seems to be missing here:

Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.

It's a voluntary program, and not all of the hospitals have agreed to it. The mothers still have their options, the hospitals appear likely able to opt-out if there's an issue, and...can you just imagine the terrible PR if forumla providers yank their goodies just because they can't market on them? They might not care, but come on...taking away from new mothers and babies? You could slaughter them in the media for not adjusting to this...


Also, in this day and age, prescription drug addiction and abuse is so bad that a large number of those mothers will be producing breast-milk that is probably not even good for the baby! ...

...When you consider the fact that the mother's diet these days is probably not that good. Fast-food, GMO, preservatives, simple sugars, chemicals, alcohol, smoking, prescription drugs, illicit drugs, etc, then why would we assume baby formula is automatically less quality than the breast milk? As I said before, I was born and raised on formula, and I'm the healthiest person I know.

I'm not up on my drug stats, but I wouldn't doubt it. And as with anything, discretion should apply. If the hospitals don't deal accordingly with at-risk mothers to work toward the safety of the child, then it's just tragic all-around.

Conversely, though...who's to say how much counterfeit and otherwise imported formula from China and the like is slipping through, full of melamine. Or hell, even perchlorate and god knows what all else is in US water supplies used by the manufacturer? I don't think there's anything we haven't broken to some degree or another as yet.

All that said - for me, the proof is in the pudding. Will have to see how the program goes, but so far it is voluntary, the mothers have options, and I really don't think hospital staff will be abusing them.

Stay safe out there.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by abeverage
Hide the baby formula? This is a bad thing?

And I suppose natural breast feeding is bad for a child, because the fake stuff is better *sarcasm*


Actually, I was just posting on that very topic.

All of ATS is always ablaze that our diets are killing us, "bread-belly," GMO foods, preservatives, chemicals, flouride, chlorine, air pollution, prescription drugs, illicit drugs, second-hand smoke, etc., etc., etc....... so how can the same crowd saying all of those things, also say that breast milk is better than formula?
I mean, ummm, the breast milk is made up of the things in the mother's body. If she is eating Mcdonald's, Marlboro, Xanax, and Coca Cola on a daily basis, then the formula is probably better than the breast milk.
edit on 30-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)


Ok that maybe but then that would be saying that Formula, which even the word sounds evil not fake milk, not I can't believe it's not boob milk, it's called FORMULA because it is a special formula!

I always have a moto watch what everyone else is doing and don't do it. This will create a backlash and a higher demand for formula, reverse pyschology at its finest!



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Trexter Ziam
 

A "talking to" is a LECTURE - as in - "you naughty, naughty, naughty ..."

Was this term selected by the officials discussing the policy, or by the report writing the article? The actual quotes seem to imply the contrary - meaning you are jumping to conclusions, and assuming implications instead of just reading actual information (as compared to opining and likely poor word choices by reporters).


Further, women talk amongst themselves about these issues and it's going to make some women feel even MORE 'alienated'.

And it will also educate some others, which is the point. So far I've read nothing wrong with the policy itself (we'll have to see how it bears out in practice), so until actual issues with the policy arise, any mothers feeling alienated are doing so themselves.

My doctor always lectures me about smoking when I make the rare visit to his office - how dare he alienate me by way of education?!


It's a psychological attack - and is not blown out of proportion. By mandating a "norm" - the QUACK is making otherwise NORMAL women feel bad about themselves. This is one of the tactics used by woman-abusers. Most, but, not all of us are thoroughly aware of this.

Assumption on your part again, and I still disagree and still feel that you are others are blowing it WELL out of proportion. Securing goods to require that they be signed for and educating patients on their choices as appropriate doesn't seem very "wife beatery" to me.

It seems your entire complaint hinges on your belief that these women will be verbally abused. Other than the REPORTER's wording, can you point out to me where exactly it's indicated that that's what's going to happen with this policy?

And in that case, as I said - New Yorkers better mobilize, since bitching about it here on ATS likely won't do much to reverse the policy.



Well I don't live in New York but I speak from experience when I say the lactation nurse that spoke to my wife when my son was born April 28, 2012 was quite militant and stern on the subject of breastfeeding. My son was born a few weeks early and was in constant pain the short time he was located at our community hospital (i.e. he would spit up everything he ate). As a result he was unable to latch on after he was born. The lactation nurse worked with my wife and scolded us for mentioning the use of formula and bottle feeding him breast milk due to his inability to latch on. My wife already felt guilty enough that she was unable to provide for our son. To be scolded by the lactation nurse made her feel like something was wrong with her and she was a bad mother.

After fighting to have my son transferred to Kosair Childrens Hospital it was discovered that my son had a disease known as Hirschsprung's. Thankfully they were able to repair the damaged colon but he still wouldn't latch on to her breast. So she continued using the breast pump and feeding him with the bottle for several months. We would receive a call at least once a day for several weeks while he was in the hospital and afterwards from the lactation nurse harassing us on his latching status. My wife only ended up providing breast milk for a couple of months due to the stress of having to pump every few hours. Eventually we told the nurse that there is no way my wife can keep up this pace and we were switching over to baby formula whether she liked it or not. All this and the city we live in doesn't even have a policy remotely like what Bloomberg is proposing.

I just find it funny that Bloomberg supports abortion rights but then wants to push women into breast feeding. Hopefully people will wake up and smell the hypocrisy in time.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabalis




I just find it funny that Bloomberg supports abortion rights but then wants to push women into breast feeding. Hopefully people will wake up and smell the hypocrisy in time.


It sounds like he wants fewer humans but healthier, higher quality humans. I also want that for the Earth, and I don't see necessarily why these conflict.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


Sorry, but what you want doesn't matter. The fact is that there are many times when a mother can not safely breastfeed her child or makes the choice not to, neither of these are anyones business. Regardless of the mom's reason, Bloomberg should spend his time focusing on the real issues that face the residents of NY City rather than these random nanny laws he seems to pull out of his backside.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Breastfeeding is so much better both for baby and for mother. Too many lazy women don't want to bother. It's a bit radical, better to go with a massive campaign on the merits of breastfeeding before hiding the powder.


reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
It should be everyone's business, since lack of mirroring, touch, basic nurturing that a baby receives at the mother's breast can prevent mental illness, addiction and dysfunctional behavior later in life.
For the source of this - www.naturalnews.com...
www.naturalnews.com...'
www.naturalnews.com...
mikadokids.com...

Originally posted by lynn112
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


Sorry, but what you want doesn't matter. The fact is that there are many times when a mother can not safely breastfeed her child or makes the choice not to, neither of these are anyones business. Regardless of the mom's reason, Bloomberg should spend his time focusing on the real issues that face the residents of NY City rather than these random nanny laws he seems to pull out of his backside.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Anybody who is a mommies boy can't be all bad.





posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rootbranch2012
It should be everyone's business, since lack of mirroring, touch, basic nurturing that a baby receives at the mother's breast can prevent mental illness, addiction and dysfunctional behavior later in life.
For the source of this - www.naturalnews.com...
www.naturalnews.com...'
www.naturalnews.com...
mikadokids.com...

Originally posted by lynn112
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


Sorry, but what you want doesn't matter. The fact is that there are many times when a mother can not safely breastfeed her child or makes the choice not to, neither of these are anyones business. Regardless of the mom's reason, Bloomberg should spend his time focusing on the real issues that face the residents of NY City rather than these random nanny laws he seems to pull out of his backside.


I don't know what I did wrong, my eldest child now 43, was the only one I breast fed, he is six five 300 lbs, dysfunctional with an alcohol abuse problem.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Although I still think breast milk is the best option,

contaminants in breast milk and their impacts on children's health
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
edit on 023131p://bMonday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join