Late to the party - did lobbyists take down the breastfeeding post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

Now you are just deflecting.

You’re literally on the side of the Trump administration which joined your Very Principled position on defending the noble infant formula. It’s hilarious you think you can talk about misogyny.

I detest Trump but a broken clock is right twice a day. It was a very logical decision to protest an extremist resolution banning not only formula but infant food. And despite breastfeeding formula and infant food is necessary in cases to support babies. The media, especially the NYtimes, seized on that to demonized trump. So that was a form of breastfeeding extremism and shoving unreasonable breastfeeding down our throats and I am glad it was defeated.

The specific language the Trump officials worked to excise was “protect, promote and support breastfeeding". The NYT picked it up but so did the global news media including the BBC.

Also, and I know you know this, the WHO can’t “ban” formula or infant food. They removed WHO support to nations trying to prevent "inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children" and the fact that you consider that as “extreme” says a lot about your position.

DP it sounds extreme to me to support bans on marketing of formula. It is fair to restrict companies from making false health claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I’m giving up on the quote function this morning:

I mean, she’s not wrong. What is more troubling to me is that it’s the same companies who were willfully allowing babies to die outside the United States to pad their bottom lines within our lifetimes. I don’t understand why people can look at a company who knowingly put babies in harms way— and think that they care at all about “our” babies. The formula industry needs to be regulated much, much more aggressively than it is now.

She is not wrong that formula companies are marketing their products? Okay? The point you make about regulation is a separate one. Formula itself is highly regulated do please stop implying that the product itself is unsafe. That is not helpful to families that need to give their babies formula. What is going on right now, in 2023 is a separate issue which neither you nor OP have addressed directly because it is about protecting access to formula, not convincing people to avoid it.

Btw lactivists also knowingly put babies in harms way by insisting that formula supplementation is evil and demanding that women who have undergone major surgery room in with their babies. Why should we trust them about a thing? I honestly think they belong in hell for starving babies

Formula plants with “egregiously unsanitary” conditions do not lead to a safe product and we shouldn’t for one second tolerate the implication that they do:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/05/25/watch-live-house-grills-fda-commissioner-abbott-executive-on-baby-formula-shortage.html

Stricter regulation meaning more inspections would lead to a safer product. Putting profits above the safety of babies is exactly the same problem now as it was in the 70s-80s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I’m giving up on the quote function this morning:

I mean, she’s not wrong. What is more troubling to me is that it’s the same companies who were willfully allowing babies to die outside the United States to pad their bottom lines within our lifetimes. I don’t understand why people can look at a company who knowingly put babies in harms way— and think that they care at all about “our” babies. The formula industry needs to be regulated much, much more aggressively than it is now.

She is not wrong that formula companies are marketing their products? Okay? The point you make about regulation is a separate one. Formula itself is highly regulated do please stop implying that the product itself is unsafe. That is not helpful to families that need to give their babies formula. What is going on right now, in 2023 is a separate issue which neither you nor OP have addressed directly because it is about protecting access to formula, not convincing people to avoid it.

Btw lactivists also knowingly put babies in harms way by insisting that formula supplementation is evil and demanding that women who have undergone major surgery room in with their babies. Why should we trust them about a thing? I honestly think they belong in hell for starving babies

You seem to be conflating hospital cost cutting measures with “lactivism”. No one on this board is arguing to starve a baby or to deny access to hospital nurseries (or to make sure your hospital has a nursery before you choose where to deliver) who precisely are you arguing with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I’m giving up on the quote function this morning:

I mean, she’s not wrong. What is more troubling to me is that it’s the same companies who were willfully allowing babies to die outside the United States to pad their bottom lines within our lifetimes. I don’t understand why people can look at a company who knowingly put babies in harms way— and think that they care at all about “our” babies. The formula industry needs to be regulated much, much more aggressively than it is now.

She is not wrong that formula companies are marketing their products? Okay? The point you make about regulation is a separate one. Formula itself is highly regulated do please stop implying that the product itself is unsafe. That is not helpful to families that need to give their babies formula. What is going on right now, in 2023 is a separate issue which neither you nor OP have addressed directly because it is about protecting access to formula, not convincing people to avoid it.

Btw lactivists also knowingly put babies in harms way by insisting that formula supplementation is evil and demanding that women who have undergone major surgery room in with their babies. Why should we trust them about a thing? I honestly think they belong in hell for starving babies

Formula plants with “egregiously unsanitary” conditions do not lead to a safe product and we shouldn’t for one second tolerate the implication that they do:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/05/25/watch-live-house-grills-fda-commissioner-abbott-executive-on-baby-formula-shortage.html

Stricter regulation meaning more inspections would lead to a safer product. Putting profits above the safety of babies is exactly the same problem now as it was in the 70s-80s.

The plant was shut down, leading to the formula shortage. That is how regulation works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I’m giving up on the quote function this morning:

I mean, she’s not wrong. What is more troubling to me is that it’s the same companies who were willfully allowing babies to die outside the United States to pad their bottom lines within our lifetimes. I don’t understand why people can look at a company who knowingly put babies in harms way— and think that they care at all about “our” babies. The formula industry needs to be regulated much, much more aggressively than it is now.

She is not wrong that formula companies are marketing their products? Okay? The point you make about regulation is a separate one. Formula itself is highly regulated do please stop implying that the product itself is unsafe. That is not helpful to families that need to give their babies formula. What is going on right now, in 2023 is a separate issue which neither you nor OP have addressed directly because it is about protecting access to formula, not convincing people to avoid it.

Btw lactivists also knowingly put babies in harms way by insisting that formula supplementation is evil and demanding that women who have undergone major surgery room in with their babies. Why should we trust them about a thing? I honestly think they belong in hell for starving babies

You seem to be conflating hospital cost cutting measures with “lactivism”. No one on this board is arguing to starve a baby or to deny access to hospital nurseries (or to make sure your hospital has a nursery before you choose where to deliver) who precisely are you arguing with?

I've definitely seen people on these boards suggesting parents limit babies' intake of formula or pumped milk while at daycare and to question teachers that ask for more milk. And yes, rooming in is part of the Baby Friendly initiative which is an initiative of the ghastly lactivists.

Fyi I DID make sure my hospital was NOT Baby Friendly. My insurance no longer covers that hospital. To suggest a mother should be able to predict of she will have a C-section and plan accordingly is a stark reminder that you really DGAF about mothers or, by extension, babies.

[Anonymous]

If the FDA wasn't shutting down formula plants, that would.suggest.a lack of regulation

[Anonymous]

I will say I always questioned why we supposedly could not give cow's milk until 12 months but could give all other dairy (yogurt, cheese) beginning at 6 months. Then the formula shortage. Then WADDYA KNOW, the american academy of pediatricians suddenly says, 'It's ok to give cow milk at 6 months if you can't find formula, but JUST FOR NOW!' I am very anti-breastfeeding bullies but it did make me wonder about the clout of the formula lobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will say I always questioned why we supposedly could not give cow's milk until 12 months but could give all other dairy (yogurt, cheese) beginning at 6 months. Then the formula shortage. Then WADDYA KNOW, the american academy of pediatricians suddenly says, 'It's ok to give cow milk at 6 months if you can't find formula, but JUST FOR NOW!' I am very anti-breastfeeding bullies but it did make me wonder about the clout of the formula lobby.

Omg don't switch to cow's milk at 6 months and don't insinuate that that's ok. This post by itself puts babies at risk, you sicko. The AAP said that in an emergency you can give cow's milk for no longer than a week. They explained why here:
https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/20417/AAP-experts-offer-advice-on-how-pediatricians-can?autologincheck=redirected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

Now you are just deflecting.

You’re literally on the side of the Trump administration which joined your Very Principled position on defending the noble infant formula. It’s hilarious you think you can talk about misogyny.

I detest Trump but a broken clock is right twice a day. It was a very logical decision to protest an extremist resolution banning not only formula but infant food. And despite breastfeeding formula and infant food is necessary in cases to support babies. The media, especially the NYtimes, seized on that to demonized trump. So that was a form of breastfeeding extremism and shoving unreasonable breastfeeding down our throats and I am glad it was defeated.

The specific language the Trump officials worked to excise was “protect, promote and support breastfeeding". The NYT picked it up but so did the global news media including the BBC.

Also, and I know you know this, the WHO can’t “ban” formula or infant food. They removed WHO support to nations trying to prevent "inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children" and the fact that you consider that as “extreme” says a lot about your position.

DP it sounds extreme to me to support bans on marketing of formula. It is fair to restrict companies from making false health claims.

It sounds extreme, but you have to realize that worldwide, it is a huge problem when formula is given for free in the hospital, reducing lactation, and then not given for free afterwards. Nestle aggressively promoted formula in countries that couldn’t support it - not enough clean water and not enough family income to buy adequate supplies, so there were many malnourished and sick babies from contaminated and watered down formula. It was out of desperation and over a million estimated baby deaths, not to mention millions of malnourished babies, that the restrictions on formula marketing was adopted. The us didn’t go along with the who’s recommendation to restrict marketing, which makes sense because formula is safe and reliable in the us. We are lucky that we can easily substitute formula for breast milk, or supplement as much as we want, but promoting formula in countries without reliable clean water is unethical.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/may/15/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24452/w24452.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

Now you are just deflecting.

You’re literally on the side of the Trump administration which joined your Very Principled position on defending the noble infant formula. It’s hilarious you think you can talk about misogyny.

I detest Trump but a broken clock is right twice a day. It was a very logical decision to protest an extremist resolution banning not only formula but infant food. And despite breastfeeding formula and infant food is necessary in cases to support babies. The media, especially the NYtimes, seized on that to demonized trump. So that was a form of breastfeeding extremism and shoving unreasonable breastfeeding down our throats and I am glad it was defeated.

The specific language the Trump officials worked to excise was “protect, promote and support breastfeeding". The NYT picked it up but so did the global news media including the BBC.

Also, and I know you know this, the WHO can’t “ban” formula or infant food. They removed WHO support to nations trying to prevent "inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children" and the fact that you consider that as “extreme” says a lot about your position.

DP it sounds extreme to me to support bans on marketing of formula. It is fair to restrict companies from making false health claims.

It sounds extreme, but you have to realize that worldwide, it is a huge problem when formula is given for free in the hospital, reducing lactation, and then not given for free afterwards. Nestle aggressively promoted formula in countries that couldn’t support it - not enough clean water and not enough family income to buy adequate supplies, so there were many malnourished and sick babies from contaminated and watered down formula. It was out of desperation and over a million estimated baby deaths, not to mention millions of malnourished babies, that the restrictions on formula marketing was adopted. The us didn’t go along with the who’s recommendation to restrict marketing, which makes sense because formula is safe and reliable in the us. We are lucky that we can easily substitute formula for breast milk, or supplement as much as we want, but promoting formula in countries without reliable clean water is unethical.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/may/15/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24452/w24452.pdf

What nestle did was decades ago. What the aggressive breastfeeding lobby has done now in these countries is swing so drastically the other way that they disregard traditional practices of supplementing the baby when it is not enough and ban formula totally so that babies dehydrate. Whatever misdeeds was done decades ago does not justify the I would say extreme and cruel practices of the lobby now. And there is a totally virulent breastfeeding lobby in the US too. I get emails from it as I signed up aeons back.

[Anonymous]

Stop harping about what what Nestle did in the 1980s when it is now 2023. The baby friendly initiative is the new Nestle. And even if aggressive breastfeeding promotion may be more justified in other developing countries it does not justify the immense pressure in this country. So much harm in the past two decades making babies go hungry in the name of breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people hate breastfeeding on this board. Your post won’t last long or is going to be get some seriously snarky responses. I’d find a more supportive group and ask this to be taken down.

This is so true. It’s insane how anti-BFing this forum is.
-a formula mom

It's not insane, it's just that most women don't enjoy breastfeeding and since this is an anonymous board we feel more free to share our authentic experiences.

The last thread literally said breastfeed is only benefits poor people (summarizing). Which is ridiculous. Only on DCUM would HHI come into play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I’m giving up on the quote function this morning:

I mean, she’s not wrong. What is more troubling to me is that it’s the same companies who were willfully allowing babies to die outside the United States to pad their bottom lines within our lifetimes. I don’t understand why people can look at a company who knowingly put babies in harms way— and think that they care at all about “our” babies. The formula industry needs to be regulated much, much more aggressively than it is now.

She is not wrong that formula companies are marketing their products? Okay? The point you make about regulation is a separate one. Formula itself is highly regulated do please stop implying that the product itself is unsafe. That is not helpful to families that need to give their babies formula. What is going on right now, in 2023 is a separate issue which neither you nor OP have addressed directly because it is about protecting access to formula, not convincing people to avoid it.

Btw lactivists also knowingly put babies in harms way by insisting that formula supplementation is evil and demanding that women who have undergone major surgery room in with their babies. Why should we trust them about a thing? I honestly think they belong in hell for starving babies

Formula plants with “egregiously unsanitary” conditions do not lead to a safe product and we shouldn’t for one second tolerate the implication that they do:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/05/25/watch-live-house-grills-fda-commissioner-abbott-executive-on-baby-formula-shortage.html

Stricter regulation meaning more inspections would lead to a safer product. Putting profits above the safety of babies is exactly the same problem now as it was in the 70s-80s.

The plant was shut down, leading to the formula shortage. That is how regulation works.

Do you really think that the amount of money Abbott spent on lobbying has had no impact on their inspections being so infrequent? That seems deeply naive. Further do you really believe the *only* Abbott factory (or Nestle, or the other big one) which is egregiously insanity is the one that was shut down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I’m giving up on the quote function this morning:

I mean, she’s not wrong. What is more troubling to me is that it’s the same companies who were willfully allowing babies to die outside the United States to pad their bottom lines within our lifetimes. I don’t understand why people can look at a company who knowingly put babies in harms way— and think that they care at all about “our” babies. The formula industry needs to be regulated much, much more aggressively than it is now.

She is not wrong that formula companies are marketing their products? Okay? The point you make about regulation is a separate one. Formula itself is highly regulated do please stop implying that the product itself is unsafe. That is not helpful to families that need to give their babies formula. What is going on right now, in 2023 is a separate issue which neither you nor OP have addressed directly because it is about protecting access to formula, not convincing people to avoid it.

Btw lactivists also knowingly put babies in harms way by insisting that formula supplementation is evil and demanding that women who have undergone major surgery room in with their babies. Why should we trust them about a thing? I honestly think they belong in hell for starving babies

You seem to be conflating hospital cost cutting measures with “lactivism”. No one on this board is arguing to starve a baby or to deny access to hospital nurseries (or to make sure your hospital has a nursery before you choose where to deliver) who precisely are you arguing with?

I've definitely seen people on these boards suggesting parents limit babies' intake of formula or pumped milk while at daycare and to question teachers that ask for more milk. And yes, rooming in is part of the Baby Friendly initiative which is an initiative of the ghastly lactivists.

Fyi I DID make sure my hospital was NOT Baby Friendly. My insurance no longer covers that hospital. To suggest a mother should be able to predict of she will have a C-section and plan accordingly is a stark reminder that you really DGAF about mothers or, by extension, babies.

I don’t think nursery access should be limited to mothers who deliver by c-section. What a weird idea you just invented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I’m giving up on the quote function this morning:

I mean, she’s not wrong. What is more troubling to me is that it’s the same companies who were willfully allowing babies to die outside the United States to pad their bottom lines within our lifetimes. I don’t understand why people can look at a company who knowingly put babies in harms way— and think that they care at all about “our” babies. The formula industry needs to be regulated much, much more aggressively than it is now.

She is not wrong that formula companies are marketing their products? Okay? The point you make about regulation is a separate one. Formula itself is highly regulated do please stop implying that the product itself is unsafe. That is not helpful to families that need to give their babies formula. What is going on right now, in 2023 is a separate issue which neither you nor OP have addressed directly because it is about protecting access to formula, not convincing people to avoid it.

Btw lactivists also knowingly put babies in harms way by insisting that formula supplementation is evil and demanding that women who have undergone major surgery room in with their babies. Why should we trust them about a thing? I honestly think they belong in hell for starving babies

Formula plants with “egregiously unsanitary” conditions do not lead to a safe product and we shouldn’t for one second tolerate the implication that they do:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/05/25/watch-live-house-grills-fda-commissioner-abbott-executive-on-baby-formula-shortage.html

Stricter regulation meaning more inspections would lead to a safer product. Putting profits above the safety of babies is exactly the same problem now as it was in the 70s-80s.

The plant was shut down, leading to the formula shortage. That is how regulation works.

Do you really think that the amount of money Abbott spent on lobbying has had no impact on their inspections being so infrequent? That seems deeply naive. Further do you really believe the *only* Abbott factory (or Nestle, or the other big one) which is egregiously insanity is the one that was shut down?

Ironically it’s the aggressive breastfeeding promotion that has led to ill knowledge of how to prepare formula. If parents had prepared the contaminated formula properly by sterilizing it with hot water the babies will still be alive. But since no one really teaches how to use formula anymore this happened. Instead of insinuating ill intent by Abbot it’s more likely that it was normal government incompetence, everything is breaking down in the US.