U.S. tried to block resolution endorsing breast-feeding

[Blue Bianchi 77]

NEW YORK — The United States threatened nations in an effort to blunt a World Health Assembly resolution supporting breastfeeding this spring.

 

The US delegation worked hard, but largely unsuccessfully, to water down a resolution recognizing the importance of breastfeeding for infants and working against misleading attempts to sell substitutes for a mother’s milk, citing more than a dozen participants from various countries, many of whom requested anonymity for fear of US retaliation.

 

The US delegation threatened retribution on trade and military aid to Ecuador to get the nation to drop the resolution, according to the Times, and said at least a dozen countries also avoided the resolution out of fear of the US. Members of the delegation also suggested cutting US funding for the World Health Organization.

https://fox61.com/2018/07/08/nyt-us-threatened-nations-over-breastfeeding-resolution/

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

That’s just silly.  A mother’s milk is (98.2% of the time) the best thing for a baby.  I support it 100%. And trying to force mothers to hide it is ridiculous, too.  It’s nature...

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

9 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

That’s just silly.  A mother’s milk is (98.2% of the time) the best thing for a baby.  I support it 100%. And trying to force mothers to hide it is ridiculous, too.  It’s nature...

98.2 huh ? You got something to back that claim up?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

98.2 huh ? You got something to back that claim up?

Several peer-reviewed studies full of statistical data, but it’s not easy for the lay person to understand. 

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

98.2 huh ? You got something to back that claim up?

How about 98.276...sounds more official.

[Unidentified 2,930]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

98.2 huh ? You got something to back that claim up?

Why don't you do some research on the benefits on breastfeeding yourself?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Why don't you do some research on the benefits on breastfeeding yourself?

the question was not he benefits of breastfeeding, it was the validity and lack of statistical data to support the 98.2% of the time. I think its a lot closer to 96.5 personally but its just a hunch. I mean if your going to make a precise statistical claim you should have valid studies to back it up

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

4 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

the question was not he benefits of breastfeeding, it was the validity and lack of statistical data to support the 98.2% of the time. I think its a lot closer to 96.5 personally but its just a hunch. I mean if your going to make a precise statistical claim you should have valid studies to back it up

I am 💯 that the power play to fight breastfeeding is a waste of our influence on the world stage. 

[jb914 33]

This move on Trump admin, to put infant formula industry profits ahead of the health of infants in developing countries, and threaten Ecuador with trade sanctions for a simple resolution in support of breastfeeding over artificial infant formula, is truly heinous. Just when you think they can't sink any lower...

 

I would like to say to any immigrants going through this process, as an American citizen, with grandparents on both sides that fought in WW2, and ancestors going back even before the revolution, that we are better than this as a country.

 

This is unfortunately a nadir in the stark amorality of our leadership, but it will get better. America at its best does represent a higher ethics than avarice alone.

 

 

[yuna628 9,540]

I would simply say the following: it's pretty clear that a mother's milk is always best. However, there are some instances where it is not the best for mom or baby, and in many of those instances women do not have good viable options in some countries available to them. Harsh stigmas may be associated towards women who choose for a variety of reasons not to breastfeed. The US is also largely hypocritical in the promotion of breastfeeding, because research shows that while many mothers (some 80%) start out breastfeeding, they will then stop doing so within a few weeks time, and less than 19% of American babies will receive the recommended allotment of breastfeeding time for their development and health (worldwide it's only 35%). There are clear and obvious reasons for this as well that no one likes to talk about.

 

I was not breastfed, as the doctors said I was highly allergic and mom honestly just couldn't be bothered by that point. So it was a special type of formula for me. But back then the doctors never told mom about the risks associated to my overall health being a formula baby.

 

The US Delegation's behavior was appalling here.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I would simply say the following: it's pretty clear that a mother's milk is always best. However, there are some instances where it is not the best for mom or baby, and in many of those instances women do not have good viable options in some countries available to them. Harsh stigmas may be associated towards women who choose for a variety of reasons not to breastfeed. The US is also largely hypocritical in the promotion of breastfeeding, because research shows that while many mothers (some 80%) start out breastfeeding, they will then stop doing so within a few weeks time, and less than 19% of American babies will receive the recommended allotment of breastfeeding time for their development and health (worldwide it's only 35%). There are clear and obvious reasons for this as well that no one likes to talk about.

 

I was not breastfed, as the doctors said I was highly allergic and mom honestly just couldn't be bothered by that point. So it was a special type of formula for me. But back then the doctors never told mom about the risks associated to my overall health being a formula baby.

 

The US Delegation's behavior was appalling here.

Those two statement directly contradict each other. Both cant be true 

[yuna628 9,540]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Those two statement directly contradict each other. Both cant be true 

For a child's development it is best. It also eliminates a variety of health risk factors down the line.

However, have you ever had to deal with a child that is allergic to mother's milk? That's what I mean by some instances and in those instances mom and baby have no choice. It is not the ideal or best choice, but it is the only choice they may  (not even counting numerous cultural socioeconomic reasons why women are forced to stop). Both are true.

Edited July 10, 2018 by yuna628

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

For a child's development it is best. It also eliminates a variety of health risk factors down the line.

However, have you ever had to deal with a child that is allergic to mother's milk? That's what I mean by some instances and in those instances mom and baby have no choice. It is not the ideal or best choice, but it is the only choice they may  (not even counting numerous cultural socioeconomic reasons why women are forced to stop). Both are true.

I got you but, but you said it was always best followed by sometimes it isn't.

 

I think what you meant was, most of the time it's best but not in ever case.  Some say 98.2% I say 94.6

 

I was gonna post some pics, but IDWTGB

[yuna628 9,540]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I got you but, but you said it was always best followed by sometimes it isn't.

 

I think what you meant was, most of the time it's best but not in ever case.  Some say 98.2% I say 94.6

 

I was gonna post some pics, but IDWTGB

I've not had my coffee today.  But you got the point.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

9 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I've not had my coffee today.  But you got the point.

wait you just admitted I am right. Aren't you female ? This may be a once in a lifetime event for me