US threatened nations over breastfeeding resolution

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

This has nothing to do with Trump.

Do you have the full text of the resolution?

TheRedneck

It has all to do with the current administration siding with big businesses on every issue.

“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.

The $70 billion industry, which is dominated by a handful of American and European companies, has seen sales flatten in wealthy countries in recent years, as more women embrace breast-feeding.

More evidence of that :

During the same Geneva meeting where the breast-feeding resolution was debated, the United States succeeded in removing statements supporting soda taxes from a document that advises countries grappling with soaring rates of obesity.

What can you expect from an administration that is run by an obese man child.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

they probably see it as though they are promoting breastfeeding my continually having their intention of cutting funding for the wic program covered by the news media. I mean just the idea that a family might end up footing the bill for all that formula would probably persuade many to at least try to breastfeed first.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

It has all to do with the current administration siding with big businesses on every issue.

How do you know that, when you don't even know what the resolution said? Oh, because CNN told you, I guess.

WHERE IS THE RESOLUTION?

Without it, neither of us even know what we're debating about.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jjkenobi
What business does the U.N. have telling anyone anything about breastfeeding?

Just another topic the govt should have nothing to do with.

What buisness does the USA have trying to promote formula milk?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
What business does the U.N. have telling anyone anything about breastfeeding?

The United Nations knows quite a bit about breasts, they've seen plenty from all the times they've stood around doing nothing while women and children were raped in front of them.

a reply to: CB328

Having read your post and the source I see a non-story here. I also see nothing related to Trump, maybe you can link his twitter comments?

originally posted by: DieGloke

originally posted by: jjkenobi
What business does the U.N. have telling anyone anything about breastfeeding?

Just another topic the govt should have nothing to do with.

What buisness does the USA have trying to promote formula milk?

Can you show me where they promoted formula milk?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

its as much about trump as everything that happened under the Obama administration was about Obama according to ats.

a reply to: loam

I am speaking about third world countries, where nutrition is a problem. The whole initiative is to consider breast milk better anywhere. If you just consider vitamins, then there is a problem. There are parts of a woman's breast milk which can boost the kids immunity, like lactoferin and monolaurin in a woman's milk. If the woman's diet is low in lauric acid, there is an issue with the quality. Sadly, lactoferin is missing in many cheaper formulas for infants but lauric acid is present in the majority.

A high quality formula is ok, but it would be better to have breast milk. Even making sure the mother has adequate lauric acid would help and to adjust the diet so that the lipase she makes to convert lauric acid to monolaurin is not negatively effected. Some Proteinases can knock out lipases. The blocking is time dependent, consuming a plant based proteinase should be done three hours away from consuming lauric acid to get the best results. Educating the public is important but most people could not comprehend this kind of stuff.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

The problem with recommendations is they often turn into demands in our societies. I do a lot of medical research and read interpretations and opinions and find that this kind of thing often leads to a lot of people getting sick. I do not feel that the US should get involved in this kind of thing. Some of our baby programs advise mothers to do breast milk, this is really a good policy as it helps a baby to develop a proper immune system. I know how these good recommendations get twisted at lower levels. I know that formula is usually inferior to breastmilk, but if the mother is trying to shed her baby fat and dieting, then the milk can be inferior. Our WIC here monitors the mothers and babies and sometimes recommends formula and supplies wic coupons to help with things. But many mothers cannot drink cows milk which is a good source of nutrients. Soy milk sucks for some specialized nutrients and cow milk is not a good source of human baby nutrition either.

Let Europe do their own thing, we do not need to get into things like this with them, we need to worry about our own kids. They have lots of regulations there where they reduced chemicals used in foods and on fields, we do not follow their lead on that but we should. Thanks to big chemical companies here our food regulations concerning the use of chemicals in foods is far from proper. We should concentrate on that here first, not start following Europe. With all the chemicals treating our foods, some of which interact with each other, a mothers breastmilk may be toxic here.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: rickymouse

Solid perspective mouse. All you say seems true enough and finding an opposing point of view would be short on counter points. You say ''
I think that these countries in Europe should worry about their own people and keep their noses out of other countries.

Yes they should. But that should go for not only ''countries'' but ''businesses'' too. I would be naive over look the nature of the worlds business model and how it promotes it's products on the masses, especially the poorer masses. I see the UN measure as a counter to the already strong presence of formula manufacturers and their marketing to women. It is not a matter of American Business or European business, it's a matter of them both together striving to expand their market share in those corners of the world.

Europe is saying no to Monsanto on some things, Monsanto is suing them. That should not be allowed at all. So now, Bayer, a German company I think, bought Monsanto and they have a lot of influence in Europe. So they will soon be able to poison Europeans again without worry. Yes, you are right, a lot of international companies are causing harm to people and buying their way into the government approvals. Europe can put regulations on the creation of formulas. I have no problem with that, let them be responsible for their own citizens. We got enough problems here to fix, we need to get our own country fixed.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, we DO have problems here and they need to be fixed though in a number of cases I prefer the term ''corrected'' as in ''course correction''. More importantly to me is the question of why things need to be fixed or corrected. Is it because we did it wrong the first time or maybe that entropy just took over and things broke? For me, the answer is more that the world has changed.

Do we fix things according to the standards of the world in the 1600s or the 1800s? Or maybe the 1950s. In the 1950s when much of our economic patterns were established the rest of the world was either pre-industrial or for those that had emerged industrially, that industry was a shambles due to being blown to smithereens in the WW.
None of those scenarios hold true any longer. The world is vastly different from any of those periods and in order to fix our problems here at home it needs to be done in a manner that takes all of that into account. That and in a manner that as well takes into account projections on the state of the world ten, twenty and thirty years in the future.

For me, that takes global planning. And yes, I dread the notion of a one world government and if the UN ends up being that government then we need to do what we the people need to do that we can to prevent it from becoming completely authoritarian. Abandoning it to the corporations is quitting on our responsibilities and allowing the corporate bottom line to dictate how our futures will be.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Consensus of the time has changed radically over the last twenty years, we need to correct the food here or we will continue to get sicker and sicker as a society. Genetically we have things we should and should not eat on a personal basis to remain healthy and in right mind. Chemical treatment of our food has become acceptable, in two or three generations it appears kids perception of good is disturbed, they prefer fake chemistry now over real chemistry in food. It is that way around here anyway. That fake chemistry is certified GRAS too, yet they do not classify natural things as being GRAS. Steak is steak no matter if it is grassfed verses if it is full of abnormal food chemistry because they changed the animals diet too much.

I also am seeing that in the two generations down to my grandkids, that they are now getting addicted to this chemistry more and more that is unnatural. Epigenetic changes happen to correct the bodies use of food chemistry over generations, but that only goes so far. They are adapting to the food chemistry, but only partially. No wonder incidents of cancer are are increasing so much, but cancer death is down because they can use surgery and meds to treat it and the cancer deaths are attributed to other causes such as reaction to meds or secondary problems associated with the cancer curing process. So it looks as if cancer deaths are down too, but in reality getting cancer shortens people's lives.

The deception these days is at all time highs, parroting of improperly collected and interpretted research data is out of this world, seems like deceit is running America, right up to congress and the white house.

a reply to: rickymouse

I don't disagree with you here at all ricky. For this reason I say that trying to convince mothers, anywhere, that formula is across the board better than breast milk is deceitful and hence the UN position that breast milk may be the best for the babies is a sound position.

a reply to: CB328

It had more to do with the initial resolution barring donations and funding from BMS companies into the health care system, calling it a conflict of interest.

One question nobody seems to be able to answer is how advertising and allowing sponsorship from BMS companies violates the breast feeding rights of mothers who opt to breastfeed. Nobody is forcing these women to not breastfeed, they're simply identifying available choices for women... which I thought was always a good thing. At least in the USA "choice" seems to be a primary human right... guess it's different in third world countries, ya?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: CB328

It had more to do with the initial resolution barring donations and funding from BMS companies into the health care system, calling it a conflict of interest.

One question nobody seems to be able to answer is how advertising and allowing sponsorship from BMS companies violates the breast feeding rights of mothers who opt to breastfeed. Nobody is forcing these women to not breastfeed, they're simply identifying available choices for women... which I thought was always a good thing. At least in the USA "choice" seems to be a primary human right... guess it's different in third world countries, ya?

We are for sure (mostly) opposite in our ideologies.

But, I am beginning to appreciate your logical thinking.

a reply to: CB328


The US administration threatening or extorting other countries over the language of a breast milk resolution (of all things) gives some measure of credence to the NK claims of US gangsterism in those negotiations.

What is this government coming to?

originally posted by: rickymouse
Educating the public is important but most people could not comprehend this kind of stuff.

Yes, including the stuff about corporations like Nestle 'giving' away formula in 3'rd world countries...which is just jim-dandio until the mothers' breast milk dries up and they are compelled to buy the stuff because the freebies are over. Then the formula is reduced (with unsanitary water) to save money, and kids end up dying of malnutrition when they could have been raised on breastmilk fer free. Might wanna research this.

Corporations have already been called out on these practices. To have them enforced by government is heinous.

Trump once again calls out the FAKE reporting..

Donald J. Trump ‏ Verified account @realDonaldTrump Following Following @realDonaldTrump More

The failing NY Times Fake News story today about breast feeding must be called out. The U.S. strongly supports breast feeding but we don’t believe women should be denied access to formula. Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty. 10:04 AM - 9 Jul 2018

a reply to: Annee

My son was not able to breastfeed due to a milk allergy. He had very bad reflux problems and we ultimately ended up having to place him on Similac Alimentium because he was failing to thrive through his first 3 months (not to mention very fussy). My wife was crushed by this, but it made me realize the value in modern advances in baby formula. Obviously breastmilk is the best nutrition source, but some babies can't process it just as some mothers can't produce enough, or any of a laundry list of possible problems. The wording of the WHO's resolution essentially paints the entire infant formula industry as a major bad guy, which isn't accurate in any way. Their commercials should be held to a standard of truthfulness, on that I support the idea of the resolution, but it seems like a bad idea to hit them so hard that the good they do is tossed aside over what is ultimately an ideological issue at heart.