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

Forum Index » Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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.[/quote]
Now you are just deflecting.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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 "[b]inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children[/b]" and the fact that you consider that as “extreme” says a lot about your position. [/quote]

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

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[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics