US threatened nations over breastfeeding resolution

The Trump admin apparently tried to kill a UN resolution encouraging breastfeeding, because they don't want baby formula companies to lose any money. When you support corporate profits above babie's health thee is something seriously wrong with your priorities. Family values or compassionate conservatism??

US threatened nations over breastfeeding resolution

www.cnn.com...

This does not have to be about Trump. The WIC programs advise mothers who are nurished properly to breastfeed as long as possible but do supply formula as part of their program. Some babies need formula. I have researched breast milk and it definitely is superior to any baby compared to formula in most but not all cases.

It appears to me that this would be something that both parties would have done the same.

I'd be interested to find out more about the cost of that resolution and what it actually said. We have our own program going on here already to promote breastfeeding, we do not need to get involved in a UN issue with this.

Stunning. Just stunning. Given the CNN source being NYT this can be easily dismissed as left wing propaganda. That makes things so much easier.

a reply to: rickymouse

Certainly this does not have to be about Trump. However since he has taken it upon himself to save us, to play the power broker in international trade, it would seem that this is one issue he could step into and straighten out, him being the guy who picks our UN ambassador and all.

a reply to: CB328

C'mon now...that's not what this article says ! CNN, "anonymous" sources, I don't believe a thing those liars say ! Is it possible baby formula companies tried to lobby for their product, yeah it is..but how in God's name does that equate to Trump being against breastfeeding ?

In my perfect World, all babies would be breastfeed, but that's not the reality. Don't forget it was it was "Feminists" that fought to have a "choice" to work and not stay home with their babies, sadly now it's become more of a necessity then a choice for many.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: rickymouse

Certainly this does not have to be about Trump. However since he has taken it upon himself to save us, to play the power broker in international trade, it would seem that this is one issue he could step into and straighten out, him being the guy who picks our UN ambassador and all.

I am not sure that the UN is correct on this issue, lots of these people in third world countries do not have access to good food when they are pregnant and also when breastfeeding. Some foods actually cause problems with breastmilk. Some of these babies would be better off with formula. Breastfeeding is the best if the person giving the milk is eating decently, but even in our own country many people seem to have to put their kids on formula.

I think that these countries in Europe should worry about their own people and keep their noses out of other countries. If they want to send some food or formula to other countries that is good, but most people know how to breastfeed in these third world countries, women actually teach their girls about this stuff in most of those countries, they do not need Europeans starting to poke their nose in stuff like that. Supplying formula to some babies that need it because of problems with the mothers milk is a good idea. European countries make formula, this has little to do with US businesses.

a reply to: CB328

One of the mothers of my kids couldn't breast feed no matter how or what she tried, even almost tore her breast off trying to suck the stuff out with the pump, she was not impressed lol.

So, lots of reasons for the need of formula. Even for women who can breastfeed it's nice to let her get some sleep and have dad give the kid a bottle or two. They say the kid will get confused switching back and forth but never happened with any of mine

Anyway, what a stupid idea. Lol

If I had any respect left for the OP, today I lost it.
You have become a joke.

a reply to: CB328

Well, if mom has a bad diet and doesn't take care of herself during and after pregnancy the poor baby will have several strikes against its healthy existence. So, given the preponderance of junk food and instant dinners, I can see the American point about formula.

Although, mom healthy or not the baby needs first milk at least. If healthy then breast feed and/or pump, supplementing with formula as needed.

I think kids need to play in the dirt some too just to jump start the immune system to the environment like we did as kids long ago. Todays sterile bubble is bad for kids.

a reply to: rickymouse

I took a cursory look to see about the question of diet and quality of milk. Apparently, the quality of a mother’s diet has little influence.

I think the bigger question is not the impact of diet, but rather contaminants, like chemicals, drugs and alcohol.

On the broader issue, I think breastfeeding should always be encouraged, barring an actual reason for concern about the quality of a specific mother's milk.

Having said that, there is also a place for high quality (verified) formula. Believing all formula is inherently bad is as odd to me as calling cheese evil. (Hm... Maybe I just lost my own argument. Lol. Cheese *is* evil.)

Otherwise, the article is stupid anti Trump propaganda.

I usually know there is an issue with the official story whenever I try to do an independent search and get nothing but opinion hits on the first two pages. The CNN story, taken from the NYT (both suspect IMO due to previous examples of biased and completely inaccurate 'reporting'), does not give any details on the resolution itself... only opinion.

Opinions are not facts.

So, in the absence of the actual text of the resolution, I went to the WHO page on breatfeeding to get some idea of what the proposals likely were. I found this:

To enable mothers to establish and sustain exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, WHO and UNICEF recommend:

• Initiation of breastfeeding within the first hour of life
  
• Exclusive breastfeeding – that is the infant only receives breast milk without any additional food or drink, not even water
  
• Breastfeeding on demand – that is as often as the child wants, day and night
  
• No use of bottles, teats or pacifiers

Now, I don't think anyone is going to argue that natural mother's milk is the best food in most instances for a newborn child... but this seems to be a little over the top. Initiation within the first hour of life is not always possible... my firstborn, for instance, had no chance to do so, because my wife was under emergency care for excessive bleeding for her first several hours. The denial of water seems excessive as well, and I would go so far as to say that withholding small amounts of other foods as the child develops is excessive as well. On demand, day and night, might be fine if we lived in caves and hunted/gathered for food, but the modern lifestyle has made that impractical. Yet, this modern lifestyle seems to have had no severe negative impact on infant health. Finally, the pacifier is a literal Godsend for most parents, as they simply cannot comply with the demands of modern society and devote 24 hours a day to infant care... especially if the mother is single.

These are at least suggestions, and as such can be ignored by people with a little more experience in reality than the writers. But we are discussing a resolution, and given the response from the US, quite possibly a binding resolution.

I am completely opposed to any government agency dictating how a woman should care for her child.

In the first place, some women are unable to breastfeed. My mother was. My wife had such difficulty we had to supplement with something like 90% formula. The alternative in such cases is to let the child starve.

Secondly, the page linked above mentions continuing breastfeeding until at least two years of age. Few women I know of maintain a liquid diet that long, much less one that requires extensive time to either directly feed or harvest.

Thirdly, the UN in general has developed a reputation of shoving its nose into the business of the world population where it doesn't belong. I can easily envision, in the absence of even a resolution number, demands that countries comply with these idiotic, intrusive, and ridiculously laughable 'solutions' to a problem that does not exist.

So, unless someone can come up with actual text of the resolution, good for Trump and Co. MAGA!

TheRedneck

a reply to: loam

Cheese *is* evil.

I disagree. Limburger, Brie, and Munster are awe...some!

TheRedneck

a reply to: CB328


From your source.

The US delegation threatened retribution on trade and military aid to Ecuador to get the nation to drop the resolution, , and according to the Timessaid at least a dozen countries also avoided the resolution out of fear of the US. Members of the delegation also suggested cutting US funding for the World Health Organization.

No evidence in your source was shown. Just according to the Times, and we all know the political bias that exists there.

A spokesman from the US Department of Health and Human Services told the Times that the original resolution "placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children."

Sounds like a reasonable reason.

Eventually, Russia introduced the resolution, and the US was unable to blunt the measure,

Why would Russia do that when the idea of collusion was going so well. I thought they liked Trump.

a reply to: CB328


There's a way on ATS to use the URL, but give it a "friendly" name. That way, people won't see CNN.com and ignore the Opening Post.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly, that's my point.

a reply to: highvein

Thank you.
I had your second quote poised for a response, but I try to read before regurgitating information already brought up.

a reply to: TheRedneck

RECOMMENDED being the key word from the quote you provided. They know it's unlikely that most women can't do half the stuff they suggest but they suggest it anyways.

Not saying I disagree with your points. Being a mom of two, I nearly lost what little of the breasts I have trying to feed them and pump all day long, not to mention the binky my oldest had until she was 3. Yea, I tried those things but it just didn't work.

Unfortunately, I think all these moms I see online in these forums are probably living their lives based on those recommendations because they don't take the time to see that most women just CAN'T breastfeed like that. They just want to belittle you and make you feel like a # mom.

They definitely need to update that...its giving women and maybe even men a false image of what moms need or should be.

a reply to: PageLC14

Agreed that the recommendations are ridiculous at best... and an excellent point about them being actually harmful to women who take them seriously.

But the thread is about not recommendations, but a resolution. Repeating my caveat above, that this is assumed in the lack of any real information I could find, I think the problem was that they now want to enforce the recommendations, making them law. It certainly would not be the first time the UN tried to do something similar - start with recommendations and then try to get member nations to enact the recommendations into law because they are good recommendations by virtue of them being official recommendations for so long.

TheRedneck

"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."

I don't see anything wrong in this resolution. Why would anyone be against a resolution that condemns misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes ? Why?
You don't have to defend every action of your government just because Trump is the president

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

This has nothing to do with Trump.

Do you have the full text of the resolution?

TheRedneck