Page 1 of 9
Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:36 am
by _aussieguy55
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/heal ... trump.htmlHow crazy. My wife breastfed all our girls and the benefits were great. It gets the woman's body back together and gets her interested in sex again. How much more cray policy are the Americans going to come out with?
Re: Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:49 am
by _Chap
The baby milk powder industry is huge, and pays people like Trump lots and lots of money. That is of course wonderful in every way.
The perverse idea that breast milk is generally better for babies than the industrial product is a hoax set up by the Chinese government and other communist leftist antifas to damage American business and take American jobs.
These do-gooders at the World Health Organisation have to learn that it is America first from now on. Babies? Wop-wop. They don't come anywhere much.
Re: Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:35 am
by _aussieguy55
It is interesting how capitalism operates.China is developing electric cars that can run on solar panels. If this catches on what then is the future of the oil producing nations. Will they allow it?
Re: Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:23 am
by _Chap
Just in case anyone is wondering what the fuss is about, here are fuller details.
No-one, of course, is trying to argue that women who find it difficult to breast-feed their children (whether for medical, social or work-related reasons), or who simply prefer not to do so, should be forced into breast-feeding. The idea of the motion was to try to discourage advertising that tries to push up sales of formula powder by suggesting to mothers that formula milk was somehow preferable to breast milk.
It is this kind of thing the WHO was going after:
How formula milk firms target mothers who can least afford itBasically, the aim of such campaigns is to give poor women the idea that they are bad mothers if they are not spending scarce money on formula, rather than breast-feeding. Nasty.
Anyhow, here is the report. The US delegation used extraordinary measures to try to block this threat to well-funded commercial interests:
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.
Re: Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:32 pm
by _canpakes
Remember, babies are people
inside a womb, but after birth, need to yield to the
personhood of corporations.
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.
It’s a good thing here that Trump never challenges his boss.
Re: Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:06 pm
by _Always Changing
canpakes wrote:Remember, babies are people
inside a womb, but after birth, need to yield to the
personhood of corporations.
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.
It’s a good thing here that Trump never challenges his boss.
Problem with many pro-life people. Inconsistent pro-life agenda. To ally pro-life with conservative interests was a huge mistake.
AAH, yes. The Russians must be holding the trump card. Wonder what it is.
Re: Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:15 pm
by _Themis
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.
Re: Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:39 pm
by _Chap
Always Changing wrote:Problem with many pro-life people. Inconsistent pro-life agenda. To ally pro-life with conservative interests was a huge mistake
The problem seems to be that when people say they are 'pro-life', all that means in practice is that they are interested in maximising the chances that any fertilised ovum will survive and lead to the birth of a full-term child.
Once that child is out of the womb, the quality of its life is of no further account. Of course the mother isn't allowed to cut its throat, but anybody who can make money by persuading the mother to make sub-optimal nutritional choices, thereby ensuring that the child grows up less healthy and even in some cases obviously stunted, is free to make as much profit as they possibly can. Any attempt to impede them in that effort must be met with the severest sanctions.
Once the baby is born, the mother and the child are just a pair of consumers, and corporations have the sacred right to do the best they can to extract the maximum amount of revenue from them. Whether this does the child good or harm is a secondary or tertiary consideration.
Re: Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:22 pm
by _moksha
When you are out of sync with what is best for babies throughout the world, your perfidy should be adequately rewarded by the infant formula industry.
Re: Breast is Best>
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:00 pm
by _aussieguy55
It is ironic that stores in Australia find their supplies of baby formula are disappearing in huge numbers bought by Chinese who then sell it to China with a huge mark up.Maybe they trust the safety production rules in Australia than those in China. My wife and I agreed with the view that prolife folks are concerned about the fetus and yet once you are born you are on your own. I read recently that birthrate in the US is dropping. Imagine the affect of that on baby clothes and other essentials daycare centers class sizes. You will need immigration.