ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th July 2018, 02:18 PM   #81
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
I honestly can't fathom *choosing* to formula feed.

Yes, there are times when it's necessary, but why would a person go through all the rigmarole with bottles and nipples and temperature and smelly diapers and ear infections and so on when the other choice is right there when you need it, at the perfect temperature, and full of antibodies. It changes constantly to match the baby's needs, not just at growth stages but at different times of day.
Not all mother's have the luxury (yes, luxury) of being available to feed a child on-demand up to 8 times a day, 30 minutes at a time, for 6 months. Pumping doesn't always work. It didn't for me despite 2 very expensive machines.

Breastfeeding exclusively means you are the only chef in town! And you are on call 24/7. Formula provides much more flexibility, especially for a working mom.
There isn't anything wrong with it.

Is there a difference in the consequences you would share to a mom who HAD to formula feed vs one who CHOSE it? Does the first get sympathy and assurance her baby will be just fine and perhaps commended that she at least tried.... and the latter gets a list of adverse health consequences for her selfish choice?
Because the baby is the same either way. Just fine.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:32 PM   #82
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
But then your criticisms aren't hoops to jump through. If you want to raise your child on or with formula, not getting a free sample isn't a hoop to jump through. Text existing on the packaging of your formula isn't a hoop to jump through.

On the other hand, having to sign a thing saying you understand formula isn't as good as breastmilk would be a hoop to jump through - but none of the guidelines recommend that.

The hoop is that they won't give it if I ask. It needs to be a medical reason. They won't have the supplies there for me or any provided to take home. I have trouble even believing that's what it actually says since it defies real needs, but it does.

I was not planning on needing formula. I was, in fact, breastfeeding from the start and wanted to exclusively. But I didn't make enough milk for this giant 10lb baby in my 4 days in hospital.

I was so grateful for the samples after enduring a 32hr labor followed by a c-section. At least I had some time at home to research what I had to buy (and I got coupons!). I also needed extra bottles (I did have a few as gifts), warmers, brushes, nipples, etc... I had a week's respite to do all that and just enjoy my baby.

Like I said, it's a good goal to have more people breastfeed and be educated. But these narrow rules of what you can and cannot give and freaking hazard labels on baby formula are ridiculous.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:45 PM   #83
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,916
So many posts in this thread are missing the context. The purpose of the resolution, and particularly the part about samples, is not about first-world "lactivists", but about how the industry targeted people and caused deaths, especially in poorer countries. It's been known about since 1974.

Quote:
Intensive and controversial marketing of infant formula is believed to be responsible for millions of infant deaths in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet to date there have been no rigorous analyses that quantify these effects. To estimate the impact of infant formula on infant mortality, we pair country-specific data from the annual corporate reports of Nestlé, the largest producer of infant formula, with a sample of 2.48 million births in 46 LMICs from 1970-2011. Our key finding is that the availability of formula increased infant mortality by 9.4 per 1000 births, 95%CI [3.6, 15.6] among mothers without access to clean water, suggesting that unclean water acted as a vector for the transmission of water-borne pathogens to infants. We estimate that the availability of formula in LIMCs resulted in approximately 66,000 infant deaths in 1981 at the peak of the infant formula controversy.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:51 PM   #84
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,986
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
So many posts in this thread are missing the context. The purpose of the resolution, and particularly the part about samples, is not about first-world "lactivists", but about how the industry targeted people and caused deaths, especially in poorer countries. It's been known about since 1974.



Linky.
The resolution does not appear to caveat application to the first world.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:09 PM   #85
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
So many posts in this thread are missing the context. The purpose of the resolution, and particularly the part about samples, is not about first-world "lactivists", but about how the industry targeted people and caused deaths, especially in poorer countries. It's been known about since 1974.



Linky.
I think most of us of a certain age have heard the Nestle controversy. We do not have that issue in the U.S. Do we really need to agree to implement this resolution?

Here's what it could say:

No health practitioner can promote formula feeding, over and above the ideal choice of breastfeeding, for a mother who is capable and willing to do so.

No financial incentive shall be provided by formula companies to any health provider, practitioner, organization, or patient.


That's all it needs to say on the question of the inappropriate marketing.

Why are they dictating to the hospital what supplies they can have and what samples can be given of a product that is useful and sometimes necessary for newborns? Do we suspect all L&D nurses and doctors of being shills in the U.S.?
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:19 PM   #86
deadrose
Master Poster
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 2,958
Sherkeu, I was unable to pump either. So I went back to work part-time at first. When the kids were older and well-established, I supplemented with formula. I had that choice, and I know not every woman does. But I was fortunate to have my kids in Canada where they actually have paid maternity leave.

Also, my younger daughter was 9 lb 10 oz, and her older sister was 9 lb 3.5 oz, so I got used to big hungry babies. It just takes a little longer for the body to get the amount of milk right. The more they nurse, the more you produce.

As I said, I have no issues with mothers who *have* to use formula, especially if they're breastfeeding when they can as well. Even nursing for two weeks is better than not nursing. It's the people who've been brainwashed by formula makers and the ones who do it for selfish reasons that bother me, especially the latter. Think of it as serving Nutraloaf to dinner guests. It may have all the major nutrients in it, but you're going through extra work to serve something that's less appealing than the real thing.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:20 PM   #87
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,393
In case wires are getting crossed, the original text with these recommendations is the one originally proposed by Ecuador, which the US then threatened Ecuador over, and is not the one that was eventually passed.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:46 PM   #88
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
Sherkeu, I was unable to pump either. So I went back to work part-time at first. When the kids were older and well-established, I supplemented with formula. I had that choice, and I know not every woman does. But I was fortunate to have my kids in Canada where they actually have paid maternity leave.

Also, my younger daughter was 9 lb 10 oz, and her older sister was 9 lb 3.5 oz, so I got used to big hungry babies. It just takes a little longer for the body to get the amount of milk right. The more they nurse, the more you produce.

As I said, I have no issues with mothers who *have* to use formula, especially if they're breastfeeding when they can as well. Even nursing for two weeks is better than not nursing. It's the people who've been brainwashed by formula makers and the ones who do it for selfish reasons that bother me, especially the latter. Think of it as serving Nutraloaf to dinner guests. It may have all the major nutrients in it, but you're going through extra work to serve something that's less appealing than the real thing.
I think we agree on this for the most part.

My issue is that this resolution is a government agreement to policy decisions that affect hospital care and patient choice. If the companies are acting with deceptive marketing, then the U.S. gov't can deal with THEM just like any other company that makes false or deceptive claims. Deal with the conflict of interest in a hospital, not the patient's choice -especially with fear-mongering language like "Hazard". All the patient needs is the accurate information and best-practice medical care.


I feel a bit libertarian today!

eta: wow, you had some big babies!

Last edited by Sherkeu; 11th July 2018 at 03:49 PM.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 05:10 PM   #89
deadrose
Master Poster
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 2,958
Yeah I did have big babies, their Dad is the hulking giant son of 2 Dutch immigrants. But anyway...
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 07:39 PM   #90
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,250
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
So many posts in this thread are missing the context. The purpose of the resolution, and particularly the part about samples, is not about first-world "lactivists", but about how the industry targeted people and caused deaths, especially in poorer countries. It's been known about since 1974.
I wonder if it would have been better to use milk solids to create a nutritional supplement for the moms, while babies got the benefit of relatively sterile breast milk.

However lactose intolerance increases with age, so that might not work.

There is a global glut of cow's milk, partly because cows produce twice as much as they did a few decades ago.

Apropos of not much I found this gem on intelligentmother.com:
Quote:
One of the questions that most mothers in such situations always ask themselves is, “What formula is closest to breast milk?” The answer is a big yes.
I wonder if that was written by a sleep-deprived new mom.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 08:58 PM   #91
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,250
It seems like folly for dairies to count on increasing exports in a world where milk literally makes a lot of people sick. Yet huge multinational corporations are banking on it. In case you didn't know, there are 1.4 billion extra pounds of cheese lying around, the Washington Post reports:

America’s cheese stockpile just hit an all-time high
Quote:
The United States has amassed its largest stockpile of cheese in the 100 years since regulators began keeping tabs, the result of booming domestic production of milk and consumers’ waning interest in the dairy beverage.
"Dairy beverage," that's some clunky writing right there ...
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 05:03 AM   #92
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,544
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Alright I'm A) a guy and B) childless so I'm an outsider looking in at this so take this however you want but in either/both the developed and the less developed world if we're gonna pick either a children's health crisis or a "Big company with too much influence on a health policy" hill to die defending is breast vs formula really the one we need to Teddy Roosevelt up?

Cards on the table I'm a "little" biased right now because my sister just had her first kid and has already had runs in with the hardcore "Lactivist" community but regardless when you are an infant is pretty much only time in your life when your choice "Practically perfect food" and "Pretty damn good food."

But this has always been one of those discussions that I always get the impression other people are having on a level that I'm not. There's a lot of just under the surface baggage here.
I'm sorry your sister was attacked by the breastfeeding fascists. They are real. As you can see, one is a member of this board in this thread. They are very toxic and evangelical about their fervent belief that choosing to formula feed makes women bad mothers.

And...

The point someone made upthread about how nursing in public needs to be way, way more accepted is also very legit. Babies really shouldn't have to eat in the bathroom if you're out of the home. That sucks. The anti "nursing in public" people are also toxic weirdos.

Final point...

New mothers are almost all deeply insecure about the "goodness" of their "mothering", and sometimes women make a hobby out of being cruel and judgey towards other mothers, probably out of a subconscious desire to affirm their own maternal adequacy. I'm no psychologist, but that's what it seemed like when my kids were babies.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 05:07 AM   #93
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,544
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Sabrina: Part of the code does indeed say people shouldn't hand out free samples outside of a regulated assistance context. But yeah, samples or no samples is not the part I'm hung up on, personally.

I'll just link the post that links the texts the OP is about since we're at the top of a new page.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=66
Can you quote the specific part?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 06:19 AM   #94
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 18,094
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It seems like folly for dairies to count on increasing exports in a world where milk literally makes a lot of people sick. Yet huge multinational corporations are banking on it. In case you didn't know, there are 1.4 billion extra pounds of cheese lying around, the Washington Post reports:

America’s cheese stockpile just hit an all-time high"Dairy beverage," that's some clunky writing right there ...
It's the Strategic Cheese Reserve.

Got to have plenty of bland homogenised cheese available.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 06:23 AM   #95
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
I can see using formula when it's a necessity. I have trouble fathoming why people have children when they're uninterested in them.
Women who don't breastfeed are uninterested in their children?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 06:27 AM   #96
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I'm sorry your sister was attacked by the breastfeeding fascists. They are real.
I used to refer to them as the breastfeeding nazis, but yeah. I've even encountered those who would like to see breastfeeding be legally mandated for at least 6 months.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 06:34 AM   #97
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,842
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
I used to refer to them as the breastfeeding nazis, but yeah. I've even encountered those who would like to see breastfeeding be legally mandated for at least 6 months.
Again I admit I'm coming at this from outside but I'd rather, everyday and twice on Sunday, get screamed and insulted at than get the pandering "Oh you'd agree with me if only you were smarter and better informed. It's not your fault you poor thing, you just don't know any better" talking down to.

Given the choice between being insulted and pandered, I'd rather be insulted.

But I like I said this a discussion that has always struck me as 99% unspoken baggage and the last couple of pages have done nothing to lessen that view in my mind.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 12th July 2018 at 06:36 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 06:35 AM   #98
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
I used to refer to them as the breastfeeding nazis, but yeah. I've even encountered those who would like to see breastfeeding be legally mandated for at least 6 months.
See, I can't get behind this at all.

I have a friend who's been pregnant eight times, given birth seven (one was unfortunately a miscarriage). Two times she was a surrogate for a gay couple; the other five are hers outright. With her last child, she tried VERY hard to breastfeed, but was just not producing enough milk, plus she had other health issues, so she reluctantly switched to formula for that child in order to ensure that her baby was getting nutrition. People like that would have been calling for my friend's head, never mind that she herself is a breastfeeding advocate, breastfed her other four children (and probably did at least a little for her surro-babies, as she calls them) and tried DESPERATELY to feed her child the natural way, and only gave up when it was evident that her body just wasn't able to provide for her child. For whatever reason; lack of proper nutrition, chronic illness, etc., some women just aren't able to produce milk for their child, and for them, obviously, formula is the only solution if they want their child to be remotely healthy.

Are these people willing to grant exceptions to this mandate or not? Or are they the ridiculous hardline of people who want it their way or the highway?
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 06:54 AM   #99
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,695
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Party of Small Government wants to intervene in breast feeding?
If formula peddlers give them money then the "Party of Lincoln" will do whatever they're told to do.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 07:09 AM   #100
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,544
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again I admit I'm coming at this from outside but I'd rather, everyday and twice on Sunday, get screamed and insulted at than get the pandering "Oh you'd agree with me if only you were smarter and better informed. It's not your fault you poor thing, you just don't know any better" talking down to.

Given the choice between being insulted and pandered, I'd rather be insulted.

But I like I said this a discussion that has always struck me as 99% unspoken baggage and the last couple of pages have done nothing to lessen that view in my mind.
Yeah, I'd assume it's easier when someone just overtly says something nutty like "why would you have a baby if you don't care about it?" because then you can see how crazy they are, at least.

It's some "maternal adequacy validation" thing you're sensing as "unspoken baggage". Being a bad mother is, like, the worst thing in almost every mother's mind. Right up there morally on par with being a serial killer, almost. The fear of being a bad mother is just existential.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 07:22 AM   #101
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
Are these people willing to grant exceptions to this mandate or not? Or are they the ridiculous hardline of people who want it their way or the highway?
They're just codes and guidelines, and need governments to choose if/to/how to enforce them (Ecuador's scrapped proposal was 'let's all make an effort to enforce these'), and they're mostly meant to address problems in developing countries. Though it is true as Bob points out that there is no explicit 'but not the USA' exemption in there.

Sherkeu's comment earlier saying they felt a warning of 'hazards' was an outrageous thing to put on packaging, that would upset mothers who want or need to use formula, seems to miss the idea that the 'hazard' they meant was that it's dangerous to the infant if you don't have access to clean water to mix up the formula. In the 1981 packaging codes, they want labels to include:

(a) the words "Important Notice" or their equivalent;
(b) a statement of the superiority of breastfeeding;
(c) a statement that the product should be used only on the advice of a health worker as to the need for its use and the proper method of use;
(d) instructions for appropriate preparation, and a warning against the health hazards of inappropriate preparation.

They do in general shy away from actually saying things like 'it's totally OK if you just don't want to breastfeed your infant' but I think that is because they don't think they need to undersell their point. They do in fact want to encourage people to breastfeed whenever possible, and so no, they're not going to explicitly encourage people who simply don't want to. They DO encourage people who don't want to for health reasons; one of the provisions in there is formula support for women whose milk is/may not be safe due to medications they're on or conditions they have. Also one for working mothers/people who don't have time/access for breastfeeding. But yes, they do heavily advocate breastfeeding.

For example, for mothers who are worried about breastfeeding while HIV positive, they recommend it anyways "unless replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe." And goes on to say that ideally "national authorities should consider negotiating prices with manufacturers and offer breastmilk substitutes at a subsidized price or free of charge to be used for infants of mothers living with HIV."

But none of this means they want to put boots on necks of any women who just don't want to breastfeed. That's Lactivist material. This stuff is meant to discourage marketing and its effects on low income and low information mothers.

Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Part of the code does indeed say people shouldn't hand out free samples outside of a regulated assistance context.
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Can you quote the specific part?
From the 1981 guidelines:

"4.3 Donations of informational or educational equipment or materials by
manufacturers or distributors should be made only at the request and with the written approval of the appropriate government authority or within guidelines given by governments for this purpose. Such equipment or materials may bear the donating company's name or logo, but should not refer to a proprietary product that is within the scope of this Code, and should be distributed only through the health care system."

"5.2 Manufacturers and distributors should not provide, directly or indirectly, to pregnant women, mothers or members of their families, samples of products within the scope of this Code.

5.3 In conformity with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, there should be no point-of-sale advertising, giving of samples, or any other promotion device to induce sales directly to the consumer at the retail level, such as special displays, discount coupons, premiums, special sales, loss-leaders and tie-in sales, for products within the scope of this Code. This provision should not restrict the establishment of pricing policies and practices intended to provide products at lower prices on a long-term basis.

5.4 Manufacturers and distributors should not distribute to pregnant women or mothers or infants and young children any gifts of articles or utensils which may promote the use of breast-milk substitutes or bottle-feeding.

5.5 Marketing personnel, in their business capacity, should not seek direct or indirect contact of any kind with pregnant women or with mothers of infants and young children."

"6.6 Donations or low-price sales to institutions or organizations of supplies of infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code, whether for use in the institutions or for distribution outside them, may be made. Such supplies should only be used or distributed for infants who have to be fed on breast-milk substitutes. If these supplies are distributed for use outside the institutions, this should be done only by the institutions or organizations concerned. Such donations or low-price sales should not be used by manufacturers or distributors as a sales inducement.

6.7 Where donated supplies of infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code are distributed outside an institution, the institution or organization should take steps to ensure that supplies can be continued as long as the infants concerned need them. Donors, as well as institutions or organizations concerned, should bear in mind this responsibility."

Lots of stuff like that.

Last edited by Lithrael; 12th July 2018 at 08:09 AM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 08:25 AM   #102
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
They're guidelines, and they're mostly meant to address problems in developing countries. Though it is true as Bob points out that there is no explicit 'but not the USA' exemption in there. Sherkeu's comment earlier saying they felt a warning of 'hazards' was an outrageous thing to put on packaging, that would upset mothers who want or need to use formula, seems to miss the idea that the 'hazard' they meant was that it's dangerous to the infant if you don't have access to clean water to mix up the formula. In the 1981 packaging guidelines, they want labels to include:

(a) the words "Important Notice" or their equivalent;
(b) a statement of the superiority of breastfeeding;
(c) a statement that the product should be used only on the advice of a health worker as to the need for its use and the proper method of use;
(d) instructions for appropriate preparation, and a warning against the health hazards of inappropriate preparation.
Thanks for that clarification this wording sounded like a poison label (in fact, the other area that came up for 'cost and hazard' was for asbestos!)
WHO wording: All information on artificial feeding, including labels, should explain the benefits of breastfeeding and the costs and hazards associated with artificial feeding.


But this point isn't even an issue since our current labeling already does all that.
See sample label here.

The labels do not explicitly say to use only with 'health worker' approval. But then, that would make it a prescription, wouldn't it?

They have had several changes/additions to the 1981 resolution, It's only this latest iteration that presented an issue. Anyone know what the specific addition was? I assume it was the marketing restrictions but I don't see what it had said prior.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 08:31 AM   #103
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
See, I can't get behind this at all.
:::

Are these people willing to grant exceptions to this mandate or not? Or are they the ridiculous hardline of people who want it their way or the highway?
For people with whom I've had this conversation, the idea seemed to be that a doctor would have to certify that the woman was unable to nurse for some medically approved reason, of which there should be as few as possible.

Meanwhile the USDA still seems keen on the breastfeeding idea, even if Hair Furor is not:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/women-i...d-children-wic
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 08:44 AM   #104
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
They have had several changes/additions to the 1981 resolution, It's only this latest iteration that presented an issue. Anyone know what the specific addition was? I assume it was the marketing restrictions but I don't see what it had said prior.
Sure thing, glad to help.

As far as I can tell the resolution that got this pushback did not contain any new codes or guidelines but was a proposal for some governmental oversight type of machinery to put some teeth in the existing ones. My wild guess is politicians worried somebody might have wanted to be able to impose fines on formula manufacturers who flaunted the codes or something.

Again, the resolution that was proposed and withdrawn after pressure from the US "URGES Member States to implement and/or strengthen national monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for effective implementation of national measures aimed at giving effect to the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and subsequent relevant World Health Assembly resolutions; (...) implementation of the Guidance on Ending the Inappropriate Promotion of Foods for Infants and Young Children" which are the two documents I've mostly been quoting. That's really about it.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 09:13 AM   #105
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,393
Ah, missed the editing window - was just checking I had the right idea. So yeah, the proposed and withdrawn one wanted monitoring/enforcement of both the Code and the Guidance, and the one that passed calls for monitoring/enforcement of the Code and drops mention of the Guidance.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 09:51 AM   #106
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,393
I'm also assuming the attention right now is due to recent stuff like The Guardian's story on illegal and apparently predatory formula marketing in the Philippines, from early 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...targeting-poor

resulting in this kind of stuff:

"Many women were found to be spending up to three-quarters of their income on formula for their babies, sometimes denying themselves food to afford it. Some were living without running water and electricity, causing problems when trying to sterilise bottles."

"In statements to the Guardian made after the investigation, all companies denied any wrongdoing. However, both Nestlé and Mead Johnson defended funding conference trips for doctors, even though the Department of Health confirmed it was illegal in the Philippines."

Now, I personally would not at all mind walking back the 'avoid formula' stuff far enough to get the support of "don't you tell me I'm a bad mom for not breastfeeding my infant" first-world blogger moms, because IMO the real issue is predatory sales aimed at getting low income, low information mothers hooked on formula they can't easily afford, to their own detriment and to detriment of their infants' health.

"do not give out free samples unless you are able to, on request, offer enough formula to raise an infant at a cost of less than 5% of the mothers' total resources" is the kind of compromise I'd be satisfied with.

BTW, as far as I can tell the wording you object to, "All information on artificial feeding, including labels, should explain the benefits of breastfeeding and the costs and hazards associated with artificial feeding," does not seem to be official WHO wording. I think it comes from the Baby-Friendly USA website's summary of the Code. They're the organization that can give out the "Baby-Friendly" accreditation that means a facility is certified as complying with the Code.

"The BFHI assists hospitals in giving mothers the information, confidence, and skills necessary to successfully initiate and continue breastfeeding their babies or safely feed with formula, and gives special recognition to hospitals that have done so."

Last edited by Lithrael; 12th July 2018 at 10:29 AM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:33 AM   #107
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post

"do not give out free samples unless you are able to, on request, offer enough formula to raise an infant at a cost of less than 5% of the mothers' total resources" is the kind of compromise I'd be satisfied with.

BTW, as far as I can tell the wording you object to, "All information on artificial feeding, including labels, should explain the benefits of breastfeeding and the costs and hazards associated with artificial feeding," does not seem to be official WHO wording at all; it's found on various unaffiliated websites summing-up the 1981 Code.
Thanks for all that info. It sure points to the motive for rejecting it being an enforceable restriction. I agree with rejecting it, but likely for different reasons!

In the U.S. the gov't will provide formula through WIC. I have seen powder canisters locked in a case or having security tags so it must be popular to steal. (then again, we have a high illegal population here that won't be signed up for WIC).

Which brings up an interesting tidbit on that. The gov't (each state really) has very large contracts for these products with the major suppliers. Wonder if that factors into this? I'll never assume the gov't wants to save money. haha.

Last edited by Sherkeu; 12th July 2018 at 10:34 AM.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:59 AM   #108
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,933
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
Women who don't breastfeed are uninterested in their children?
Impossible. My mother chose not to breastfeed, and to this day, she is completely obsessed with me.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:07 AM   #109
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,933
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again I admit I'm coming at this from outside but I'd rather, everyday and twice on Sunday, get screamed and insulted at than get the pandering "Oh you'd agree with me if only you were smarter and better informed. It's not your fault you poor thing, you just don't know any better" talking down to.

Given the choice between being insulted and pandered, I'd rather be insulted.

But I like I said this a discussion that has always struck me as 99% unspoken baggage and the last couple of pages have done nothing to lessen that view in my mind.
I also frequently feel as though the discussion (at least the extreme portions of it) is actually about other things. I don't know exactly what. I'm not sure it matters. Yeah yeah, of course we all want children to be healthy, but who works themselves into a frothing rage over the antibodies of strangers' hypothetical children?

I once made the incredibly foolish mistake of attempting to argue about this issue on Reddit. It started with me just making a few comments in the vein of "Well, that's a bit extreme, don't you think?" but then people were rude and I got sucked in. By the end, I had people calling my mother a "retard" and saying she didn't love me. I guess that's what you get on Reddit, but it was just so toxic and unnecessary. I wasn't rude or snarky to anyone. They were a bunch of nutbar extremists who had no idea what the **** they were talking about. Their behavior made me want to pop out a baby and feed it formula purely for spite.

Oh, and they were all women. Or at least, they claimed to be.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:34 AM   #110
deadrose
Master Poster
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 2,958
Ouch! I repeat, I'm talking about the subset of women who don't want to breastfeed because it interferes with their drinking (and other substances). At least they're sparing their kids breastmilk full of alcohol or nicotine or other substances, but in my experience, it's been for their own benefit not the baby's.

It's disconcerting to be in a roomful of postpartum women who are getting bottles of booze as baby presents, going outside for smoke breaks, and leaving their babies in the nursery as much as possible. In my case it meant I wasn't allowed to keep my baby with me at night, and when she wanted to nurse, I had to sit on a hard plastic chair in the hall so as not to disturb my roommates' sleep.

It's that sort of behavior I'm bothered by, when even full of bonding hormones at birth, they seem completely uninterested in their babies. And that hospital was all too happy to start the babies on formula rather than delivering babies to their mothers when hungry.

And I don't get in people's faces about not breastfeeding. I'm not that rude.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:40 AM   #111
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
They're just codes and guidelines, and need governments to choose if/to/how to enforce them (Ecuador's scrapped proposal was 'let's all make an effort to enforce these'), and they're mostly meant to address problems in developing countries. Though it is true as Bob points out that there is no explicit 'but not the USA' exemption in there.

Sherkeu's comment earlier saying they felt a warning of 'hazards' was an outrageous thing to put on packaging, that would upset mothers who want or need to use formula, seems to miss the idea that the 'hazard' they meant was that it's dangerous to the infant if you don't have access to clean water to mix up the formula. In the 1981 packaging codes, they want labels to include:

(a) the words "Important Notice" or their equivalent;
(b) a statement of the superiority of breastfeeding;
(c) a statement that the product should be used only on the advice of a health worker as to the need for its use and the proper method of use;
(d) instructions for appropriate preparation, and a warning against the health hazards of inappropriate preparation.

They do in general shy away from actually saying things like 'it's totally OK if you just don't want to breastfeed your infant' but I think that is because they don't think they need to undersell their point. They do in fact want to encourage people to breastfeed whenever possible, and so no, they're not going to explicitly encourage people who simply don't want to. They DO encourage people who don't want to for health reasons; one of the provisions in there is formula support for women whose milk is/may not be safe due to medications they're on or conditions they have. Also one for working mothers/people who don't have time/access for breastfeeding. But yes, they do heavily advocate breastfeeding.

For example, for mothers who are worried about breastfeeding while HIV positive, they recommend it anyways "unless replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe." And goes on to say that ideally "national authorities should consider negotiating prices with manufacturers and offer breastmilk substitutes at a subsidized price or free of charge to be used for infants of mothers living with HIV."

But none of this means they want to put boots on necks of any women who just don't want to breastfeed. That's Lactivist material. This stuff is meant to discourage marketing and its effects on low income and low information mothers.




From the 1981 guidelines:

"4.3 Donations of informational or educational equipment or materials by
manufacturers or distributors should be made only at the request and with the written approval of the appropriate government authority or within guidelines given by governments for this purpose. Such equipment or materials may bear the donating company's name or logo, but should not refer to a proprietary product that is within the scope of this Code, and should be distributed only through the health care system."

"5.2 Manufacturers and distributors should not provide, directly or indirectly, to pregnant women, mothers or members of their families, samples of products within the scope of this Code.

5.3 In conformity with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, there should be no point-of-sale advertising, giving of samples, or any other promotion device to induce sales directly to the consumer at the retail level, such as special displays, discount coupons, premiums, special sales, loss-leaders and tie-in sales, for products within the scope of this Code. This provision should not restrict the establishment of pricing policies and practices intended to provide products at lower prices on a long-term basis.

5.4 Manufacturers and distributors should not distribute to pregnant women or mothers or infants and young children any gifts of articles or utensils which may promote the use of breast-milk substitutes or bottle-feeding.

5.5 Marketing personnel, in their business capacity, should not seek direct or indirect contact of any kind with pregnant women or with mothers of infants and young children."

"6.6 Donations or low-price sales to institutions or organizations of supplies of infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code, whether for use in the institutions or for distribution outside them, may be made. Such supplies should only be used or distributed for infants who have to be fed on breast-milk substitutes. If these supplies are distributed for use outside the institutions, this should be done only by the institutions or organizations concerned. Such donations or low-price sales should not be used by manufacturers or distributors as a sales inducement.

6.7 Where donated supplies of infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code are distributed outside an institution, the institution or organization should take steps to ensure that supplies can be continued as long as the infants concerned need them. Donors, as well as institutions or organizations concerned, should bear in mind this responsibility."

Lots of stuff like that.
Um, I wasn't talking about the resolution itself, which I think is fairly reasonable in scope; I was referring to the so-called "Lactivists", as they've been named in this thread, who think a woman should breastfeed or else. Would THEY be willing to allow exemptions or should we just ignore their grandstanding? That's what I was asking.

The resolution, as far as I'm concerned, is fine the way it is; heck, it was fine the way it was under Ecuador leading the charge. Making an attempt to enforce does not mean "you will do this or else" in my book. But then, perhaps I misread the resolution; I'm not certain. Does anyone have a link to the version Ecuador advanced and the one that was eventually approved?
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:47 AM   #112
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,614
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
Yeah I did have big babies, their Dad is the hulking giant son of 2 Dutch immigrants. But anyway...
All of our babies were big with one 10lb12oz and another just under 10lb. I’m 5ft8ins and my wife is 5ft3ins.

Anyway all were breastfed, a couple for over two years. We were lucky. A couple of daughters with children had real problems.

The really big baby turned out to be a skinny athlete and still is at 27.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 12th July 2018 at 11:48 AM.
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:50 AM   #113
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,933
I think a lot of lactivists basically think that women who really can't breastfeed should attempt to get breast milk from other sources. Basically like modern-day wet nurses. I believe you can buy donor milk online, though I'm not sure how strictly legal it is.

That's what the Reddit lunatics were advocating, anyway.

(To be clear - I'm not saying that the idea of using donor milk is loony. I'm saying that calling a stranger's mother a retard for not giving said stranger breastmilk thirty years ago is loony.)

Last edited by isissxn; 12th July 2018 at 11:52 AM.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:04 PM   #114
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,554
There are so many decisions we make that are not the BEST thing for our children. The breastfeeding vs formula debate seems to be among the least of them. Yes, breastmilk is BEST; but, formula isn't that far behind. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing formula -even if the reason is convenience. I think it's horribly unfair to say that women who so choose are uninterested in their children.

I'm much more concerned with parents who choose to use a cell-phone/TV as a virtual babysitter, parents who smoke around their children, parents who physically discipline their children, etc ad nauseum. Those decisions reflect more of a disinterest in their children than simply feeding them a nutritionally-adequate formula.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:48 PM   #115
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,257
This sounds like a campaign to depose men by running a #metoo trap

(of course it doesn't but you can bet your ass it will certainly be used this way by some)
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:01 PM   #116
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I also frequently feel as though the discussion (at least the extreme portions of it) is actually about other things. I don't know exactly what. I'm not sure it matters. Yeah yeah, of course we all want children to be healthy, but who works themselves into a frothing rage over the antibodies of strangers' hypothetical children?
We are going a bit OT but I just have to say...
There is a certain brutal competitiveness in these circles of 'who has the bestest most right perfect answer'. Very judgmental and preachy while claiming to be supportive.

I recently found out that the 2008 'mommy' group I joined when my daughter was 5mo had people in it that HATED me. Why? These homeopathy-loving, teething-necklace attachment hippie mamas were sure I was doing some horrible nazi-esque experimenting on my infant to make her crawl and walk super early. Their books and their chat groups confirmed to them it could not be done!!

I did notice, even back then, that when someone new would ask her age and then be amazed, the other moms would roll their eyes and I'd feel a need to balance things by saying something my kid COULD NOT do. It's bizarre that I would actually find something negative to say about my own baby!

The weird thing is that I was really hands off and just let my kid figure it out on her own while they had all these 'methods' they would try. Go figure.

eta: my kid, figuring things out at 11 months. She was pretty good at getting to where she wanted to go!!
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by Sherkeu; 12th July 2018 at 01:09 PM.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:09 PM   #117
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,250
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I think a lot of lactivists basically think that women who really can't breastfeed should attempt to get breast milk from other sources. Basically like modern-day wet nurses. I believe you can buy donor milk online, though I'm not sure how strictly legal it is.
Wet nursing was an honorable, respected and regulated profession until about 1900. Several things happened about then. The first infant formulas were created; meanwhile many people were using not only inadequate cow's milk, but poorly sanitized cow's milk. There was a drive to get women to breastfeed, but also a drive to clean up the generally poorly regulated dairy industry. The inadequacy of cow's milk got conflated with the unsanitary nature of cow's milk, so that when dairy conditions improved, people kind of took that to mean that cow's milk was now A-OK.

A History of Infant Feeding

Low Breastfeeding Rates and Public Health in the United States
Quote:
Chicago’s infant mortality statistics typified the nationwide crisis. In 1897, 18% of Chicago’s babies died before their first birthday and more than 53% of the dead died of diarrhea.18 The Chicago Department of Health estimated that 15 hand-fed babies were dying for every 1 breastfed baby.
Poor women were less likely to breastfeed in the U.S. even 100 years ago and the trend continues to this day. Researchers have found dose-dependent benefits to human milk that led to agencies recommending 2 years of nursing and longer if desired. But it very much became an uphill battle and most people seemed to think that breastfeeding for a month or two was plenty, and artificial just automatically came to be seen as better. Formula was considered "scientific," maybe? I'm sure marketing took its toll as well.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:59 PM   #118
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
Um, I wasn't talking about the resolution itself, which I think is fairly reasonable in scope; I was referring to the so-called "Lactivists", as they've been named in this thread, who think a woman should breastfeed or else. Would THEY be willing to allow exemptions or should we just ignore their grandstanding? That's what I was asking.
OH, yeah, no, I have no idea, they seem to be caught up in Mom-petition at best and drawing lines, running up war banners and making enemies out of innocent moms at worst. All in the name of trying to get everyone to follow them on a relatively good, but by no means essential, choice.

Yeah I'd say ignore them. Hopefully the gently persuasive ones can have a positive effect outweighing the stress caused by the ones telling moms they're doing it all WRONG!!!!

Last edited by Lithrael; 12th July 2018 at 02:04 PM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 02:00 PM   #119
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,250
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
Ouch! I repeat, I'm talking about the subset of women who don't want to breastfeed because it interferes with their drinking (and other substances). At least they're sparing their kids breastmilk full of alcohol or nicotine or other substances, but in my experience, it's been for their own benefit not the baby's.
It's not to anyone's "benefit." You're talking about a public health problem, either way, and if they have a substance use disorder they are suffering from a medical condition. Judging them as "selfish" isn't all that helpful.

Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
It's that sort of behavior I'm bothered by, when even full of bonding hormones at birth, they seem completely uninterested in their babies.
Isn't it clear something must be going terribly wrong for these women?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 02:09 PM   #120
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,933
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Wet nursing was an honorable, respected and regulated profession until about 1900. Several things happened about then. The first infant formulas were created; meanwhile many people were using not only inadequate cow's milk, but poorly sanitized cow's milk. There was a drive to get women to breastfeed, but also a drive to clean up the generally poorly regulated dairy industry. The inadequacy of cow's milk got conflated with the unsanitary nature of cow's milk, so that when dairy conditions improved, people kind of took that to mean that cow's milk was now A-OK.

A History of Infant Feeding

Low Breastfeeding Rates and Public Health in the United States
Poor women were less likely to breastfeed in the U.S. even 100 years ago and the trend continues to this day. Researchers have found dose-dependent benefits to human milk that led to agencies recommending 2 years of nursing and longer if desired. But it very much became an uphill battle and most people seemed to think that breastfeeding for a month or two was plenty, and artificial just automatically came to be seen as better. Formula was considered "scientific," maybe? I'm sure marketing took its toll as well.
Two years of nursing? I thought kids started eating regular food before that? (I know nothing about children.)
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.