Breast is Best>

[_Chap]

Maybe they trust the safety production rules in Australia than those in China.

There's no 'maybe' about it!

[_MeDotOrg]

I seem to remember this story happening a couple of years ago as well, where there was some sort of pro breastfeeding resolution that was opposed or watered down by the United States.

Am I alone here, or does someone else remember this happening a while ago?

[_Chap]

I seem to remember this story happening a couple of years ago as well, where there was some sort of pro breastfeeding resolution that was opposed or watered down by the United States.

Am I alone here, or does someone else remember this happening a while ago?

The searchable journalism on the event referenced in the OP does not turn up any reference to similar US opposition to the international promotion of breast-feeding in previous years. Had there been such a precedent, one would have expected some journalist's memory or database to have flagged it up,

[_canpakes]

I seem to remember this story happening a couple of years ago as well, where there was some sort of pro breastfeeding resolution that was opposed or watered down by the United States.

Am I alone here, or does someone else remember this happening a while ago?

The searchable journalism on the event referenced in the OP does not turn up any reference to similar US opposition to the international promotion of breast-feeding in previous years. Had there been such a precedent, one would have expected some journalist's memory or database to have flagged it up,

Supposedly, formula manufacturers have resisted and lobbied on their own against these sorts of resolutions in years past as well but this is the first time that there seems to have been actual threats of economic retaliation or withdrawal of military assistance threatened by the US political delegation over it.

[_subgenius]

I am curious when anyone of the posters here will actually post something of substance from the resolution in question. Additionally, I am also interested in why so many posters who otherwise are so "pro-science" are seemingly repulsed by the decades of good science that has brought about modern baby formula? And then there is a curiosity for the lack of outrage where Planned Parenthood supports the limiting of choices for mothers by shaming them into breast-feeding only....i guess for PP "choice" is a limited time offer.

The NYT article, ironically, is more watered down than Enfamil ever could be.

"...amended partially by the US in two ways: language was removed offering WHO support for nations trying to stop ‘inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children,” and the phrase “‘evidence-based” was added to some provisions about advertisements supporting breastfeeding."

[_canpakes]

And then there is a curiosity for the lack of outrage where Planned Parenthood supports the limiting of choices for mothers by shaming them into breast-feeding only....

Planned Parenthood told you on your last visit to stop using baby formula?

[_Chap]

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

[_subgenius]

It's an interesting world where the Russians step up and be the good guys and the US is the bad guy. Just another huge data point about the Trump administration really works for big money at the expense of it's citizen's and the world.

The Russian proposal had incorporated US amendments.

[_subgenius]

FYI, not unexpectedly, the final text of the resolution as passed has apparently not yet been posted on the WHO website. ...

So your protest here has not accounted for the US amendments or, for that matter, any knowledge for what the actual proposals may or may not have involved?

Nevertheless, the question remains - is the decades of science behind baby formula good or bad?

(note: are those WHO advert bans based on good science?)

[_EAllusion]

For what it is worth, the benefits of breast milk for developing children is real, but overstated in our popular culture if you're just following what the literature probably can support. I think that overstatement is informing some of the pushback against this, and my instinct is to point out that it's not as bad as you think.

Saying, "Reaffirming also that breastfeeding is critical for child survival, nutrition and development, and maternal health" is an overstatement. The science doesn't underwrite that. It's more likely a modest boost rather than "critical."

See a study like this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3614000549