Trumps weighs in on breastfeeding debate, defends formula

Trumps weighs in on breastfeeding debate, defends formula

Trumps weighs in on breastfeeding debate, defends formula

US officials made threats to Ecuador in an attempt to water down a resolution in support of breastfeeding, according to a report in The New York Times. According to UNICEF, "an exclusively breastfed child is 14 times less likely to die in the first six months than a non-breastfed child".

Pensa Branco, who says she was part of a group that reviewed and provided feedback on the initial United Nations proposal, says there's nothing to stop Ottawa from bringing in its own version of the original resolution, which include greater limits to how breast milk substitutes are marketed.

Amongst other things, the resolution urges member states "to increase investment in development, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of laws, policies and programmes aimed at protection, promotion, including education and supportof breastfeeding" and "to end inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children".

"We all started talking about it at the conference", said Dr. Mitchell. In the mother, breastfeeding decreases the risk of cancer, cardiovascular problems and type 2 diabetes, among many others. They found no impact, except under one condition: In communities that lack clean water, access to formula raised infant mortality by 9.4 per 1000 births-essentially, the availability of formula "led to more bad water getting to infants", he said. The companies denied any wrongdoing.

"The formula industry is a multi-billion dollar industry", said Sullivan.

At first, the US delegation tried to just water down the language in the resolution, but when that didn't work, they began to threaten and bully countries who were supporting the resolution. "What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the US holding the world hostage and trying to overturn almost 40 years of consensus on best way to protect infant and young child health".

More news: LeBron James set to join the Lakers on a four-year deal

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.

The assault on the baby, the bathwater and everything else was so savage that the US Department of Health and Human Services, which had sought to edit down the resolution, clarified that it did not use threats.

It remains puzzling as to why the liberal media blame USA protections of formula companies, as even The Times had to note: "Although lobbyists from the baby food industry attended the meetings in Geneva, health advocates said they saw no direct evidence that they played a role in Washington's strong-arm tactics".

The main concern isn't whether breastfeeding should be supplemented with formula, but what happens when formula becomes a substitute for breast milk entirely. "We were astonished, appalled and also saddened", Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action told The Times of the United States' actions. In a 2011 paper, US Department of Agriculture economists reported that three of those giants-Abbott, Mead Johnson, and Nestlé-own 98 percent of the US market-a figure echoed in a May 2018 New York Times Magazine exposé of black-market infant-formula sales here in the United States.

Most mothers can breastfeed, but formula is a helpful substitute for women who don't produce enough breast milk. "I'm really pleased that Russian Federation did take it forward on a very good basis to actually make sure that breastfeeding would be protected", she said, but noted that the USA then put their own alternative resolution forward "with nothing in it".

"We recognize not all women are able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons", it added, saying they should have "full information about safe alternatives".

Related news



[an error occurred while processing the directive]