• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials (1 Viewer)

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
105,950
Reaction score
96,387
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

550_102385623.jpg


7/8/18
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. 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. “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 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. A Russian delegate said the decision to introduce the breast-feeding resolution was a matter of principle. “We’re not trying to be a hero here, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world,” said the delegate, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The Trump administration and Republicans shamelessly place corporate interests above that of babies.

Ladies ... remember this article on November 6 when you vote. And remember also, the Trump Conservative Court will not be a champion of women's rights.

Related: NYT: US threatened nations over breastfeeding resolution
 
U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials





The Trump administration and Republicans shamelessly place corporate interests above that of babies.

Ladies ... remember this article on November 6 when you vote. And remember also, the Trump Conservative Court will not be a champion of women's rights.

Related: NYT: US threatened nations over breastfeeding resolution

Who is being prevented from breastfeeding? Also, each case varies. Breastmilk is not always the healthiest if the mother isn't producing milk rich enough. This was the case with one of my nieces. I'd think a woman with questions would consult her doctor as well, not ask what the UN says. This is simply more anti-Trump blather.
 
U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials


The Trump administration and Republicans shamelessly place corporate interests above that of babies.

Ladies ... remember this article on November 6 when you vote. And remember also, the Trump Conservative Court will not be a champion of women's rights.

Related: NYT: US threatened nations over breastfeeding resolution

Breastfeeding is much healthier for infants than formula feeding but here's my question -- what does the resolution seek to do? Because women should be free to breast or bottle feed, whichever they choose.

Why do we need a resolution? We all know that breastfeeding is the healthies choice. Unfortunately, not all mothers can breastfeed, nor do they want to, so we're still going to need some formula around here.
 
Who is being prevented from breastfeeding? Also, each case varies. Breastmilk is not always the healthiest if the mother isn't producing milk rich enough. This was the case with one of my nieces. I'd think a woman with questions would consult her doctor as well, not ask what the UN says. This is simply more anti-Trump blather.

That's a good point, and there's also the problem of mothers who take drugs, drink, etc.
 
U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

550_102385623.jpg




The Trump administration and Republicans shamelessly place corporate interests above that of babies.

Ladies ... remember this article on November 6 when you vote. And remember also, the Trump Conservative Court will not be a champion of women's rights.

Related: NYT: US threatened nations over breastfeeding resolution

Wow, you're blaming the Trump Admin and Republicans for not enough women breastfeeding? :shock:

Not every woman can breastfeed, and not every woman wants to either.
 
If I was Baron Trump I'd still let mama breast feed me
 
I don't want any person, agency, coalition or whatever, to limit the choices for women who are unable to breastfeed. That is her choice, and hers alone!
 
If I was Baron Trump I'd still let mama breast feed me

I guess you're trying to be cute or clever here. You have failed. What a disgusting remark.
 
I guess you're trying to be cute or clever here. You have failed. What a disgusting remark.

It is typical for them, hence why so few people here respond to their stuff.
 
Who is being prevented from breastfeeding? Also, each case varies. Breastmilk is not always the healthiest if the mother isn't producing milk rich enough. This was the case with one of my nieces. I'd think a woman with questions would consult her doctor as well, not ask what the UN says. This is simply more anti-Trump blather.
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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html

This has nothing to do with a mother's choice to breastfeed or not. This had to do with the promotion of formula over the better choice of breastfeeding. Why would the U.S. government want to punish countries who wish to promote breastfeeding?
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.
...
“What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on best way to protect infant and young child health,” she said.

Why use punitive trade measures and withholding aide as a cudgel to force Ecuador drop the measure? How does the advocacy of breastfeeding relate to trade measures and foreign aide?
 
Who is being prevented from breastfeeding? Also, each case varies. Breastmilk is not always the healthiest if the mother isn't producing milk rich enough. This was the case with one of my nieces. I'd think a woman with questions would consult her doctor as well, not ask what the UN says. This is simply more anti-Trump blather.
No one is being prevented....not the point of the resolution. And breast is always best in most cases... there will always be exceptions.

This is just another example of how bad the Trump administration and the GOP are... working for elitest corporate sponsors against the civilian population and their interests. In this case the interests of women and new borns.... all because some companies want sell more formula around the world...



Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
Where are all the anti-abortionists? This is effectively about the baby's right to get the best nutrition and protection (against infections and viruses).
 
This is just another example of how bad the Trump administration and the GOP are... working for elitest corporate sponsors against the civilian population and their interests. In this case the interests of women and new borns.... all because some companies want sell more formula around the world...

As stated in the OP, this ^ is exactly what it is ... and what it always is.

Trump and Republicans ALWAYS place corporate interests ahead of the interests of America and the American people.

In GOPworld, Americans are second class citizens to corporate donors.
 
IMO breast feeding should be allowed anywhere at any time under any circumstance. That said I'd prefer a mother be discreet about it, but if not convenient too bad for the those around her. As for the US backing out a bit, well, doesn't money always talk? Just goes to show again how corrupt things are.
 
I can't seem to find the actual resolution, so I can read what it actually says. Has anyone seen it? I searched the WHO website, but came up empty.
 
I don't want any person, agency, coalition or whatever, to limit the choices for women who are unable to breastfeed. That is her choice, and hers alone!

Fine, just don't give me crap if you have nice breasts and I watch.
 
Sounds to me like another one of those "America bad. Not America good" things.

There is no reason that the US should curtail free markets to promote some UN resolution. Women have been choosing for a long, long time whether to breast feed or not. Before formula was available there were wet nurses for those who couldn't or didn't want to breast feed. People figure this kind of thing out because they HAVE TO. The idea that we need to jump on board and promote some international feel good idea is ludicrous. The idea that we are screwing up the world because we don't join in is dangerous.
 
I'd knock the crap out of you if you did.

And YOU would get the felony aggravated assault charge. Or better yet, that is exactly why breast feeding in public should be unlawful.
 
Who is being prevented from breastfeeding? Also, each case varies. Breastmilk is not always the healthiest if the mother isn't producing milk rich enough. This was the case with one of my nieces. I'd think a woman with questions would consult her doctor as well, not ask what the UN says. This is simply more anti-Trump blather.

First world problems.
The vast majority of mothers have no problem breastfeeding. It's normal natural and effective. Discouraging that by promoting inferior alternatives adds expense, introduces additional infection risk from the mixing process, or poor storage, and puts profit over health.
 
And YOU would get the felony aggravated assault charge. Or better yet, that is exactly why breast feeding in public should be unlawful.

:shrug: it would be worth it
 
And YOU would get the felony aggravated assault charge. Or better yet, that is exactly why breast feeding in public should be unlawful.

Why? Because perverts can't control themselves? **** them.
 
Breastfeeding is much healthier for infants than formula feeding but here's my question -- what does the resolution seek to do? Because women should be free to breast or bottle feed, whichever they choose.

Why do we need a resolution? We all know that breastfeeding is the healthies choice. Unfortunately, not all mothers can breastfeed, nor do they want to, so we're still going to need some formula around here.

The resolution condemned pushing mothers to bottle feed instead of breastfeed. Unprincipled formula companies are doing that, and the US went with those companies.
 
Read the story, Trumpkins, painful as reading is for many of you.

It was reaffirmation of a UN resolution that had been in effect for 40 years. It forced no one. It recommended breast feeding as usually the healthiest method. The US had always supported it. This time, not only did we oppose it, we threatened small countries that count on us for aid to withdraw their support or else we would withdraw the aid, and some did. But Russia told us it wanted the resolution to pass and so, of course, we caved and it passed.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom