Breast is Best>

[_subgenius]

That is perfectly possible.

But as has already been pointed out by more than one poster, even the creation of a perfect breast-milk-equivalent formula does not render it desirable that the producers should undertake intensive marketing designed to make mothers in poor countries switch to formula from breast milk - simply because preparing and feeding formula without risk to infant health demands hygienic conditions that many poor mothers in poor countries will simply not be able to meet. Breast milk will always be safer in that regard.

In addition, there are two risks in persuading poor women that feeding formula is superior to breast milk, and that failure to do so shows deficient parenting:

1. If they purchase a good (and hence expensive) brand, the cost of it will impact the family budget in ways that damage the health of themselves and other family members - or the baby itself, if they cannot afford enough formula to feed the required amount.

2. If they purchase a cheap brand on the principle that 'formula is better', then even if they do feed hygienically and in the specified quantity the baby may be malnourished.

All breast milk is not created equal - some mothers ingest harmful substances (smokers; heavy coffee drinkers; drugs of all sorts; etc) that can transmit through breast milk and breastfeeding; as can certain infections and diseases, etc.
So your hyperbolic "proper hygiene" argument is not exclusive to bottles and formula (not to mention, like the substance intake for breast-milk, its kinda "duh").

You seem to be in this stance that formula=evil and breastfeeding=good. I am not promoting one over the other, I believe that the mother (or parents or caregivers) should make the choice for themselves...like 2 dads might have to do.
Anyway, given that your posts neglected to have an informed opinion about the actual language of the resolution or the language of the US amendments, it could very well be that the US was simply striving for an informed balance of information where a mother (or parents or caregivers) could make their own choice based on equal access to valid information.

[_subgenius]

...but in any case, the language of the resolution was problematic enough that I don't think it's a big deal that it was opposed.

At the time of "personhood" for this thread that "language" was not available for public consumption - do you have a link that provides opportunity to read it?

[_Chap]

I also think the resolution that was shot down was overstated to the point of inaccurate it's not a big deal that it was shot down.

The resolution was not 'shot down'. It was simply proposed by Russia after the US delegation threatened Ecuador with very heavy economic sanctions and the withdrawal of military aid if they persisted in proposing it.

That sounds as if the US thought a quite 'big deal' was involved. And reportedly the 'big deal' for them was that the proposal included a provision to prevent 'inappropriate marketing' of formula as being equivalent to or better than breast milk (which it is not). That aspect of the affair has been fully discussed on this thread.

However, since the US delegation did not feel like imposing further sanctions on Russia rather than on tiny little Ecuador, the resolution was proposed and passed. As is normal, there were no doubt some modifications between the first proposal and the final version. Since the final version was not yet been published by WHO, we can't tell exactly what those changes were.

I was referring to the US using its leverage to shoot down the initial resolution, which is what this thread is about. I'm less certain that this is entirely about protecting formula manufacturers, but in any case, the language of the resolution was problematic enough that I don't think it's a big deal that it was opposed.

The resolution was not shot down, although the US tried very hard to get it withdrawn and to intimidate nations who might propose it once they had scared off the original proposers, Ecuador. In the end it was proposed by Russia.

viewtopic.php?p=1130182#p1130182

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

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.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States.

Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico and the United States.

“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.

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.

[_Chap]

You seem to be in this stance that formula=evil and breastfeeding=good.

Sure. Everybody can see that from my posts. If they read them backwards and jumble the words about a bit. Or if they just use their imagination.

I believe that the mother (or parents or caregivers) should make the choice for themselves...like 2 dads might have to do.

Yup. Me too. Everybody can see that from my posts. Except you, perhaps.

[_Chap]

Perhaps subgenius missed this post?

viewtopic.php?p=1130440#p1130440

FYI, not unexpectedly, the final text of the resolution as passed has apparently not yet been posted on the WHO website. These things are usually circulated post-meeting so people can check for errors and confusions in the text before it is published.

But a draft version, which Ecuador was planning to propose before the US threatened them with sanctions, was circulated at a preparatory meeting in May, and can be seen HERE.

Of interest to the current discussion are the following sections - amongst which the most concerning is the one that says:

only two in every three children between 6 months and 2 years of age receive any breast-milk in low- and middle-income countries

We are dealing here with countries where it will often be difficult to prepare baby formula safely and hygienically, where parents may not be able to afford to buy enough high-quality commercial formula to nourish their child adequately, and where babies may be in particular need of the immunoprotective qualities of breast milk. Yet a third of babies get no breast milk at all.

The Seventy-first World Health Assembly,

PP1. Taking note the reports on maternal, infant and young child nutrition1: “Comprehensive implementation plan on maternal, infant and young child nutrition: biennial report”, and “Safeguarding against possible conflicts of interest in nutrition programmes”
...
PP4. Reaffirming also that breastfeeding is critical for child survival, nutrition and development, and maternal health;
PP4bis. Affirming that the protection, promotion, and support of breastfeeding contributes substantially to the achievement of sustainable development goals on nutrition and health, and is a core element of
quality health care;
...
PP6. Expressing concern that nearly two in every three infants under 6 months are not exclusively breastfed; that fewer than one in five infants are breastfed for 12 months in high-income countries; and that only two in every three children between 6 months and 2 years of age receive any breast-milk in low- and middle-income countries;
...
URGES MEMBER STATES

(OP1.1) to increase investment in development, implementation and monitoring of laws, policies and programmes aimed at protection, promotion, and support of breastfeeding, including through multi-sectoral approaches, and awareness raising;
(OP1.2) to reinvigorate the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), including by promoting full integration of the Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding in efforts and programmes aimed at improving quality of care for maternal, new-born and child health;
...
(OP1.4) to continue taking all necessary measures in the interest of public health to end the inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children, including, in particular implementation of the Guidance on Ending the Inappropriate Promotion of Foods for Infants and Young Children, while taking into account existing legislation and policies, as well as international obligations;

Board members may also like to consult:

Guidance on ending the inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children (2016)

This document, amongst other recommendations, says:

14. [Advertising] Messages [for baby-milk formula] should not:
• include any image, text or other representation that might suggest use for infants under the age of 6 months (including references to milestones and stages);
• include any image, text or other representation that is likely to undermine or discourage breastfeeding, that makes a comparison to breast-milk, or that suggests that the product is nearly equivalent or superior to breast-milk;
• recommend or promote bottle feeding;
• convey an endorsement or anything that may be construed as an endorsement by a professional or other body, unless this has been specifically approved by relevant national, regional or international regulatory authorities

[_canpakes]

Every woman I know who breastfed had to pump, because they also work, which was ridiculously inconvenient. I'm not sure any of them would've appreciated someone extolling the virtues of convienance while they had a machine hooked up to their breasts in a car on their lunch break.

At first I thought maybe this is just a bias for Mormon influenced stay at home Mom culture. Then I remembered two women I know talking about latching problems that led to use of nipple shields that led to clamping issues that were so bad they said it was like their nipples were being stabbed with sharp knives every day.

If you talked about their attitude problems, I'm not saying I'd approve of your murder, but I'd understand it.

I think that there is some loading of the word, 'attitude', by any given reader, that will then color how they're interpreting the comment.

To draw an analogy - the question of 'attitude' can be applied to choosing to run for physical fitness. Why would anyone run? It's inconvenient. It's time consuming. You probably have to wear some stupid-looking shoes. The activity is replete with potential problems such as knee pain, shin splints, muscle cramps or related injuries. If you're trying to be consistent with it, you'll probably find yourself running in some places that are unfamiliar or at times and in weather that isn't amenable to it.

So, why bother to run, when there are other options for staying fit? Ask a runner and their reasoning will either end up making sense to you, or might just sound as if it's 'selfish' or faulty. Regardless, it works for the runner, and the runner has adjusted their attitude to deal or cope with the very real issues that accompany the activity. For better or worse, they see more benefit than inconvenience with the whole program and have made the active choice to stick to it.

But, you're probably thinking at this point, "Wait - every woman who has a child has to feed that child... every woman has to run". And you're correct - having a baby, and then not feeding it, is generally considered to be bad form. So, every woman that chooses to have a child also has to 'run'. But here again is a choice that can be made. One can choose between running outside, or purchasing a treadmill. Maybe do both, if that works. But although the two are basically the same in function, the benefits of either are not equal, the potential for problems with either exists, and there will always be certain tangible or intangible benefits of one that cannot be reproduced by the other. Again, attitude and situation affect this.

It's absolutely true that having an infant treat your nipple like an enthusiastic puppy mauling a chew toy is not a happy experience. Nor is finding yourself in an outside or work setting and having to deal with the possibility of other folks glaring at you for daring to breastfeed in public, even with your child discreetly shieded by a cowl or somesuch. But these are inconveniences that are preferred by some, over having to otherwise deal with mixing, carrying, chilling, hauling and cleaning formula bottles. And breastfeeding provides a unique manifestation of the mother-child bond. It's not a bad thing to want to experience that.

There will always be some folks for whom - for some reason or another - breastfeeding doesn't work out. Maybe there are latching issues, or health issues. Maybe the baby is picky and uncooperative. Maybe the whole exercise is just too darn inconvenient, in part because American society still typically reacts to public breastfeeding as it it were some sort of terrible social faux pas and the typical work setting that many mothers exist within doesn't provide for or believe in any support for it. In those situations, formula is a godsend. But if the choice exists, and breastfeeding is a viable option, then I don't see that the practice should be discouraged by an industry that would prefer mothers to pay for their manufactured option rather than explore the mother's own.

[_EAllusion]

Canpakes -

Let me see if I follow you here.

You argue that breastfeeding is "ridiculously more convenient." But it isn't necessarily. It's actually quite inconvenient compared to formula for some women. Breastfeeding can be really tough on women. This is pointed out to you. You reply that whether or not it is convenient is dependent on their attitude.

The conventional way to understand that assertion would be that women who find it more inconvenient just have a bad attitude about it. That's what would preserve the value of your initial statement. You receive criticism for saying that. In response, you point out that convenience itself is a state of mind and therefore inherently dependent on your attitude. Ok, but that's just a tautology and it makes the first statement perplexing. Why say it then? It would reduce into "breastfeeding is ridiculously more convenient if you find it convenient, but if not, then not." Well, yeah.

I think you were actually saying breastfeeding is better because it's objectively more convenient. You may have been insulated from the world of pumps, lactation consultants, massive doses of fenugreek, shields, nipple balm, thrush, reconnaissance missions to find places to feed, etc. women sometimes go through. If everything goes well, it certainly can be more convenient.

[_EAllusion]

I think in the present that there is such pressure to breastfeed, especially in the the sort of affluent, liberal culture you'd find in place like Madison, WI, that women can be made to feel like failures if they can't hack it for whatever reason. And stuff goes wrong in breastfeeding way more often than soft focus pictures of pretty woman in full makeup breastfeeding next to a sunlit window would have you believe.

I think that culture needs to be pushed back against.

[_EAllusion]

Chap -

I think you misreading me. The initial resolution the US used its pressure to kill by making its would-be sponsors back off. It found a new sponsor in the pee-pee tape holders* and will come back in a final form we haven't seen yet as far as I know, but I wasn't disagreeing with that. I'm saying the language of the resolution we have seen seems exaggerated compared to what the science can underwrite, because politics is playing a role in what it says, and it dying isn't that bad thing. I'd rather see more hedged language.

ETA: *Chill out. This is a joke.

[_canpakes]

Canpakes -

Let me see if I follow you here.

You argue that breastfeeding is "ridiculously more convenient." But it isn't necessarily. It's actually quite inconvenient compared to formula for some women. Breastfeeding can be really tough on women. This is pointed out to you. You reply that whether or not it is convenient is dependent on their attitude.

The conventional way to understand that assertion would be that women who find it more inconvenient just have a bad attitude about it. That's what would preserve the value of your initial statement. You receive criticism for saying that. In response, you point out that convenience itself is a state of mind and therefore inherently dependent on your attitude. Ok, but that's just a tautology and it makes the first statement perplexing. Why say it then? It would reduce into "breastfeeding is ridiculously more convenient if you find it convenient, but if not, then not." Well, yeah.

I think you were actually saying breastfeeding is better because it's objectively more convenient. You may have been insulated from the world of pumps, lactation consultants, massive doses of fenugreek, shields, nipple balm, thrush, reconnaissance missions to find places to feed, etc. women sometimes go through. If everything goes well, it certainly can be more convenient.

Absolutely, we can run with this. I did not intend for the statement to mean that it is ridiculously more convenient for every mother at every time. For us, any inconvenience was seen as being acceptable and worth the choice. We are also a working couple with some flexibility in our schedules, and that flexibility helped. Still, in situations where it could have seemed subjectively more convenient to whip out a stashed bottle of formula, breastfeeding was still the choice. So for our own case, there is an effect from attitude, towards dealing with the issues that breastfeeding brings along with it.

Don’t interpret my failure to flesh that sentence out better as an indictment of women who opt for formula. It isn’t. I speak to that in the post above. My sister-in-law could not breastfeed without a struggle for several reasons - none of them related to her work or home situation - and there was certainly no judgment rendered by anyone that we personally knew because of her eventual complete reliance on formula. Such misplaced judgment would have been presumptuous and cruel.