US threatened nations over breastfeeding resolution

a reply to: TheRedneck

umm... ya, I suppose, if you place more worth on your nation's business interests than you do the well being of others...

here's what these policies were created to address....

newint.org...

here's another article...

www.businessinsider.com...-baby-killer-blew-the-lid-off-the-formula-industry-in-1974-1

a reply to: dawnstar

I suppose, if you place more worth on your nation's business interests than you do the well being of others...

Now, that's a pretty mean-spirited false narrative. What is wrong with allowing women to have a choice? Either extreme is a bad thing. You just interjected an accusation that I do not care about people in what I thought was morphing into a reasonable conversation. Should I start accusing you of things that are not true? Is that how you want to proceed?

All issues are simply not black-and-white. Sure, formula manufacturers want to make a profit. Profit is not evil! Profit allows them to make more of their product to help more people. How would you feel if, after working a week, people started bad-mouthing you because you got paid? That pay is your profit. How dare you take money for what you do! Don't you care about others?

On the other hand, there needs to be truth in advertising. We have a lot of public education in breastfeeding over here; I don't know anyone who wouldn't prefer it over formula. Most people use formula for those times when the breast milk is not enough, and it is my understanding that after the first week or so, high-quality formula is almost as good as mother's milk. It's that first part, the colestrum (sp?), that contains the stuff that kick-starts the immune system.

We already depress a child's immune system, though, in other ways. We keep them in sterile environments, safe from any mild toxin in the environment, until they are well past the age when their immune system should be fully functional against them all. That's in large part why we see so many allergies and sensitivities to normal environmental materials. Yet, we somehow need to regulate formula into non-existence so women have to breastfeed just to boost infant immunity?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

A one-size fits all approach is rarely if ever a good solution. How about we simply continue with the public education and let people choose for themselves what they think is best?

Your links appear to address third-world countries. If that is so, why bother forcing unwanted and unneeded regulation onto a first-world country? Shouldn't we be addressing the problem where it exists?

TheRedneck

I have to say, this is one of the oddest developments out of the Trump Administration in my mind.

I mean it's just ... BIZARRE.

a reply to: TheRedneck

not making any accusations regarding you... kind of thought maybe you were just not fully informed...

We have a lot of public education in breastfeeding over here;

yes, and I had my kids when that support was first being built back up. I was sent home from the hospital with more knowledge when it came to bottle feeding than I did about breast feeding. I was going to church at that time, and we would joke around about pregnancy must have been contagious.... it was like a whole mess of us became pregnant at the same time. I think I was the only one that decided to try to breast feed my baby.

the companies were doing the same thing here as they were doing in those third world countries. it just didn't have the same dire consequences because we were in a better position to be able to gain access to clean treated water and sterilized things.

and, it's not forcing breast feeding onto people and taking away the choice.. as I pointed out. the resolutions have been around for quite awhile, and yet wic is still handing out the vouchers for formula. if we didn't want to follow that resolutions, that would be fine, don't follow them. but that doesn't seem to be what happened here. the US seems to have pressured, and threatened other countries to not support it, to the point that Russia had to step in and re-introduce the resolution because the country that was originally proposing it backed out of it afraid they'd lose US aide.
now, the US is free to do as they wish... regardless of the resolution since there was already one in existence..
so, why should the US care that other countries want the resolution and are willing to follow it? it's interesting that the language regarding the advertising bit had to be watered down considerably for the thing to get through and that I believe... it seems to have had quite a bit of support from poorer countries...
you're right, one size does not fit all and just because we in the developed, more prosperous nations find bottle feeding helpful with not many bad side effects doesn't mean that the same is true for the poorer countries. like I said in one of my first posts, it seems to be a matter where the rich seem to think that since it works so well for them... they have a duty to enforce that way of life on everyone else, even if it doesn't really work that well for some.
if someone starts off trying to breast feed and finds that it's not working for whatever reason, they can always switch over and use the formula. but if the companies are in third world nations presenting lies as facts, giving away just enough formula to ensure that if it's all used, the mother's milk will be dried up and they will be forced to buy the formula, even if they can't afford it....
well, you tell me, just who is trying to remove the choice from whom???

a reply to: dawnstar

not making any accusations regarding you... kind of thought maybe you were just not fully informed...

It certainly sounded like an accusation...

But I am informed. There is a difference between a UN recommendation and a UN resolution. A recommendation is just that: UN scientists give out advice - take it or leave it. That's the two pamphlets I linked earlier... they are advisory only. A resolution requires the country adopting it to follow the recommendations. They are no longer a take it or leave it thing; they have to be incorporated into the laws of the country. The recommendations state that WIC should not exist, because it promotes the use of formula. We can ignore a recommendation about that, but if we sign onto a resolution, we can no longer ignore the recommendation and we would be required by International law to stop the WIC program. We would also be required to write laws that would prevent baby food, formula, even some bottles and things like pacifiers, to be kept behind the counter because displaying them openly would be promoting them.

In the process, sales of formula would drop, making it more expensive than it is now for those poor mothers who simply cannot breast feed. Without government help, formula is already tremendously expensive, so what would poor mothers who need it do when no government assistance is available and the price goes up? What happens to their babies?

You were lucky enough to breastfeed. My wife was not. My mother was not. My family was not wealthy, so had this resolution been adopted by the US back then, I would likely have starved or at the least had problems from drinking too harsh liquids out of desperation. My kids would have suffered a similar fate. Who cares for people like us?

It seems no one.

the US seems to have pressured, and threatened other countries to not support it, to the point that Russia had to step in and re-introduce the resolution because the country that was originally proposing it backed out of it afraid they'd lose US aide.

I don't understand this either. I have spent so much time trying to just find the resolution and look up the recommendations it changes to mandate, that I was hoping someone else could shed some light on this.

There has to be an explanation. "Trump is evil" is not an explanation.

if someone starts off trying to breast feed and finds that it's not working for whatever reason, they can always switch over and use the formula.

Not that easily, if we adopt the resolution.

but if the companies are in third world nations presenting lies as facts, giving away just enough formula to ensure that if it's all used, the mother's milk will be dried up and they will be forced to buy the formula, even if they can't afford it....
well, you tell me, just who is trying to remove the choice from whom???

Both you and the companies lying to third-world nations. They by lying; you by ignoring the effects a resolution would have. They are using deceit; you are recommending using force.

TheRedneck

I don't want to click on any CNN links...


Besides. When did we decide that formula was that dangerous for infants? or that breastfeeding was THE ONLY WAY to feed a baby?

Seems like someone's grasping for straws in their anti-trump parade. Have fun, I guess, if that's what you at CNN.com try to do.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

they've been known to give new mothers in third world nations sample packs of formula with instructions on it's use not even written in the people's language!!!

but, you are probably right, our ancestors were so much more intelligent than we were!! they knew how to mash potatoes and carrots even, and they didn't even have electricity!!

Dawnstar... May I ask you something? How long do you think formula has been in the world? I looked it up..1867, Before the 60s mothers would normally breastfeed to 6 months then just use cows milk after that until baby food. In the 60s mothers started to use formulas more than breastfeeding, in the 80s breastfeeding was said to be better once again at least the first few months....

Do you really think people in other countries need directions? Do you really think America is the largest producer of formula? The biggest concerns is worldwide regulations to ensure the formula is correctly produce, there has been a good number of incidences over the years from bad formula.

Now back to evil Trump...

a reply to: TheRedneck

I posted the link to the resolution either last night or early this morning, think it was this morning.
I also tried to post a link to a previous resolution that said basically the same thing. the link didn't work, so I instead just told you to do a search for the coded name or whatever of the resolution.. the fact that I found an earlier resolution that says basically the same thing kind of disproves your statement here... or at least negates it.

But I am informed. There is a difference between a UN recommendation and a UN resolution. A recommendation is just that: UN scientists give out advice - take it or leave it.

a reply to: dawnstar

And I posted links and excerpts to the supporting documentation by the UN that this resolution mandated. You yourself admitted that the previous resolution was not adopted by the US.

What about this is hard to understand? The resolution mandates that countries codify the UN recommendations. The UN recommendations state formula should not be promoted, including

• Giving out samples at hospitals
  
• Providing formulas to mothers, a'la WIC
  
• Marketing/advertising/labeling
  
• Use of images that show infants
  
• It also includes pacifiers and feeding bottles

That is all in black and white.

It is a proven fact that abortion is detrimental to the health of a child (please don't even try to argue that point!). We regularly, by law, provide women with an alternative during pregnancies to abort their child. I am not arguing against that, but your arguments that women should not receive any information whatsoever concerning the availability to formula because it might be worse for the child, in that light, are ludicrous. OK to kill a child, but don't you dare do anything that might make it a little less healthy!

Your initial responses before the resolution were that refusing the resolution must be a bad thing because the Trump administration refused it... now that we have the resolution and the associated information, you still maintain that this must be a good resolution. All because of an agenda of "Trump is evil, what Trump do is bad!" You even take it to the degree that you insult me by saying I care more about companies than people, and are willing to allow WIC to be dismantled, all to support that one mindset that you cannot let go of.

Go back and read the resolution, read the recommendations it enforces, and pretend that anyone besides Trump is in office. You might just see some things you can't see now.

As for me? I'm done beating a dead horse. You can't understand what a law is. So be it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar

I was sent home from the hospital with more knowledge when it came to bottle feeding than I did about breast feeding.

When both of my kids were born one of the first things they asked was if I was interested in talking to a lactation specialist, which I did. They spent a lot of time with me answering my questions. So maybe times have changed.

and yet wic is still handing out the vouchers for formula

They also provide free breast pumps, classes on breast feeding if needed and private rooms for breast feeding in their offices.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Before any other words leave my mouth, I want to say that I usually agree with your take on things here. But in this case, I still don't get what bothers you so much. You say:

In other words, WHO wants infant formula, baby formula, baby food, and anything else that is used to feed children locked up in a case in plain brown wrappers right beside the tobacco products. That is extreme, and I wholly support the President in refusing to participate it.

and I just don't see where you're getting that from.

Let me explain my position.

My kids are all adults now (21, 22, 25, and 29) and when I was having kids the push to encourage women to breastfeed was just starting. "Rooming in"--that is, keeping your baby in the hospital room with you so you could feed them on demand instead of having them whisked off to the nursery--was still a new thing. There were really only 2 brands of formula, at least in my area, and two main brands of baby food, both of which were real food not junk.

As hospitals and health departments have doubled down on promoting breastfeeding (expanding the number and amounts of foods breastfeeding moms on WIC get, hiring breastfeeding coaches, etc.) the formula and baby food companies have doubled down on the idea that formula is better and breastfeeding is somehow less safe. The package advertising on some brands all but says it outright. Meanwhile, in the years since my kids were born I've watched the baby shelves fill up with "toddler milk," "kids milk" (for preschoolers) and a ton of pure junk food.

Maybe I have a different perspective just because I'm a woman, but it absolutely makes my blood boil. Not only are people being fed the idea that formula is better than breast milk (in the most subtle advertising ways possible, of course, which is why it works so well), they're also encouraged to KEEP feeding their kids industrial food "products" like "toddler formula" at the expense of REAL food like whole milk.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against using formula. I had 4 kids, and I used formula with all 4. I also breastfed with all 4 for varying amounts of time (2 months to 7 months). Formula is a good thing for a lot of people, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with bottle-feeding your babies if that's what you want to do.

However, it doesn't look to me like anyone is trying to restrict access to formula, baby food, etc. in any way. Instead--and I followed all the same paths you did to see the guidelines referred to--it appears to me that they want to crack down on the marketing message that promotes formula and "toddler milks" as somehow better than breast milk, and to promote the practice of exclusively breastfeeding without supplemental foods for the first 6 months.

Clarification that “follow-up formula” and “growing-up milks” fall under the scope of the Code and should not be promoted.

So "toddler milks" shouldn't be promoted. Why? Because they're not the same as breast milk and they're not the same as baby formula. They're a different thing altogether, with different ingredients and different (and often inferior) nutritional content. I think this is a great idea. Note that it doesn't say they should be taken off the shelves, just not promoted.

Recommendation that messages on complementary foods should always include a statement on the need for breastfeeding to continue through 2 years and that complementary foods should not be fed before 6 months.

I don't see a problem with this either. No one's saying we should make a law that women MUST breastfeed their 2-yr-olds, just that baby foods should have a note saying, "Hey! Breastfeeding your kids till they're 2 is good for their health, and you shouldn't start solid foods till they're 6 months old." (For the record, for the past 22 years at least the recommendation has been to not start solids till 6 months.)

Recommendation that the labels and designs on products other than breast milk substitutes need to be distinct from those used on breast-milk substitutes to avoid cross-promotion.

Again, I don't see what the issue is. This is saying that the labeling on formula--which mimics breast milk in nutritional content and is intended to replace breast milk--should be completely different from the "toddler milks" etc. that do NOT have the same nutritional content of breast milk and aren't intended to replace it. As things are now, it's easy to confuse one for the other. (I almost did this myself the other day. My tiniest grandson was getting an upset tummy with the formula his mama was using, and I was scoping out the other options.)

Recognition that any donations to the health care system (including health workers and professional associations) from companies selling foods for infants and young children represent a conflict of interest and should not be allowed.

If Coke funded diabetes or obesity programs or studies, I'd look at the situation askance because Coke is pushing sugary soft drinks. This is the same type of scenario. The formula manufacturers would like to see breastfeeding disappear, so are they likely to support valid programs that hurt their bottom lines? It's a massive conflict of interest. I don't see an issue with this.

Recommendation that sponsorship of meetings of health professionals and scientific meetings by companies selling foods for infants and young children should not be allowed.

Ditto for this. We don't like Big Pharma sponsoring medical conferences, so why should we be ok with formula/baby food manufacturers doing so? Undue influence is undue influence.

And last but not least:

No pictures of infants or other pictures idealizing the use of breast-milk substitutes are permitted on the labels of the products.

I don't see anything scandalous about this, either. Just another way to combat insidious marketing.

So what have I missed? I often disagree with crap the WHO puts out and you're usually so insightful that I feel like I must have missed something, but I'll be damned if I see anything to take umbrage over in this resolution.

a reply to: dawnstar

Exactly. Much of that breastfeeding education has been thanks to the constant promotion by the WHO, as I understand it. And I wish that when I had my first kiddo it had been as wide-spread and thorough as it is now. I didn't have a freakin clue when I brought her home. I got mastitis--a breast infection, for anyone who doesn't know, that usually happens when your baby isn't grabbing hold or sucking correctly--and was so sick I thought I was going to die before I found out what was wrong. No one warned me it could happen or told me the symptoms to watch out for. I thought all that pain and feeling like crap was normal--and that would never happen today. As it was, I ended up having to switch to formula after about 7 weeks of nursing, and had problems nursing all my later kids...thanks to lack of widespread education on what ought to be (and used to be) something every woman knows.

No evidence in your source was shown

So you guys believe one of the most important news sources in the country just completely made up a story about the UN??

Every day I can't believe how insane and ignorant you people are. No wonder America is going to hell.

a reply to: riiver

I'm getting it straight form the UN publication entitled "Guiding Principles for Complimentary Feeding of the Breastfed Child," page 34, table 4. The very first action recommended:

Implement and enforce the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes

Implement and enforce. An enforced recommendation is a law. Laws restrict.

As it stands now, since we did not sign onto the resolution, we can have programs such as WIC (IMO the closest the government has come to doing a good job in recent years). With the UN recommendations enforced, WIC cannot happen. WIC provides formula to poor mothers, and that is completely antithetical to both the spirit and the wording of the UN recommendations.

Now, would I support a label promoting breastfeeding on bottles of formula? Maybe; we can have a discussion about the pros and cons of that. I can see benefits to it. I simply say the recommendations offered, if enforced by law, are far too restrictive and would do us more harm than good. A lot of what you suggest is reasonable... but an overreaching, sweeping reform of a system that for now has shown good results in reducing child mortality and giving women a choice on how to run their lives is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Make no mistake: this resolution was not about recommendations. It was about enforcement of regulations. That is my beef with it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: CB328

So you guys believe one of the most important news sources in the country just completely made up a story about the UN??

No, I believe CNN just completely made up a story about the UN.

TheRedneck