Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,959 posts, read 75,205,836 times
Reputation: 66918

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
there is no right or wrong about this.
There's plenty wrong with trying to convince women in nations with limited or intermittent access to clean water, or with limited economic resources, that formula is preferable to breast feeding.

Luckily for your granddaughters, it was a non-issue. Not so for everyone else on this planet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts View Post
The US motives could be the result of lobbying by big business, and if so, it is not right, but how does a resolution matter, really? I need to read the article more carefully, but if it’s in the NYT, they are sure to slant it according to their agenda.

You can make all the resolutions you want, but it wouldn’t affect how I fed my baby.
No one cares how you feed your baby.

What the UN cares about - and what we should all care about - is the big business lobby and the U.S. administration that's beholden to it trying to fleece women all over the world into believing that formula is safer and healthier for their babies, when the actual facts are much different.

Unless you think that the benefits to breastfeeding are just a New York Times slant ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
The article did seem incomplete so I read another article and discovered that infant formula manufacturers were attending the event. The US eventually backed down on their threat after Russia decided to sponsor the measure

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/09/us-o...officials.html
The clot thickens ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:18 AM
 
19,639 posts, read 12,231,401 times
Reputation: 26433
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
The WHO adopted this stance because breastfeeding is so much safer in countries where there is limited access to clean water and/or water for washing bottles and where pre-made formula is just too expensive for the average consumer.

For the US, where we CAN choose and still keep babies safe and well fed, to try to make it seem like formula is totally safe in, say, the Sudan, is reckless.
So poor people are buying contaminated formula instead of feeding babies the good stuff for free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:27 AM
 
Location: My House
34,938 posts, read 36,264,326 times
Reputation: 26552
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
So poor people are buying contaminated formula instead of feeding babies the good stuff for free.
No. But, the US refusing to back initiatives to encourage poor people in third-world countries to breastfeed because it is safer for babies is wrong.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:31 AM
 
19,639 posts, read 12,231,401 times
Reputation: 26433
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
No. But, the US refusing to back initiatives to encourage poor people in third-world countries to breastfeed because it is safer for babies is wrong.
Why would they need encouragement? If they cannot afford formula they ARE breast feeding. If they are told formula is BAD they might not want to use it when it is necessary such as if they don't produce enough breast milk because of their own malnutrition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:36 AM
 
8,226 posts, read 3,423,206 times
Reputation: 6094
Default Trump hates babies

Well we knew that already, because of the illegal immigration policy.

But wait, there's more. The Trump administration is against a policy of recommending that women breastfeed their babies. That's so the infant formula companies won't lose any money.

So, case closed, obviously Trump himself despises babies and will do everything possible to damage their health.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:37 AM
 
13,898 posts, read 6,446,965 times
Reputation: 6960
lol...Mental illness is spreading like wildfire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:39 AM
 
8,226 posts, read 3,423,206 times
Reputation: 6094
I was actually paraphrasing real comments I saw on my facebook page. Liberals are planning a revolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:42 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,226,860 times
Reputation: 12102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Well we knew that already, because of the illegal immigration policy.

But wait, there's more. The Trump administration is against a policy of recommending that women breastfeed their babies. That's so the infant formula companies won't lose any money.

So, case closed, obviously Trump himself despises babies and will do everything possible to damage their health.
If Trump hated babies they would be in jail with the parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
794 posts, read 1,325,876 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
Why would they need encouragement? If they cannot afford formula they ARE breast feeding. If they are told formula is BAD they might not want to use it when it is necessary such as if they don't produce enough breast milk because of their own malnutrition.

I only read one article about it but I don't believe the focus of the resolution was to encourage woman to breastfeed...it was about limiting the promotion (i.e., marketing) of formula instead of breast milk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,959 posts, read 75,205,836 times
Reputation: 66918
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly_widget View Post
I only read one article about it but I don't believe the focus of the resolution was to encourage woman to breastfeed...it was about limiting the promotion (i.e., marketing) of formula instead of breast milk.
Correct. Nestle, for example, for decades has been marketing its formula to women all over the world, trying to convince them that its formula is safer and healthier than breast milk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:14 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top