8 ms·

U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

87 points by endorphone 8y ago

chrisseaton 8y ago
A problem (at least in the UK) is the promoting breast feeding has actually turned into some really nasty state-sponsored bullying of often vulnerable women who for whatever reason don’t manage to breast feed. The push the breast feeding seriously needs to be calmed down. The stress and shame it causes can’t be good for mothers or babies. ‘Breast feeding is great if you can do it’ is fine but the state line is only just short of being ‘if you don’t breast feed you’re a terrible mother.’
- joeblow9999 8y ago
  "promoting breast feeding has actually turned into some really nasty state-sponsored bullying of often vulnerable women" I think I see the problem here and it's not in promoting breast feeding.
- Vendan 8y ago
  This happens in the US as well.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ams6110 8y ago
  Agreed. I 100% think breast feeding is great if you can do it but it's no shame if you can't or need to supplement with formula. Additionally I think it should be a matter between a mother and her pediatrician/lactation specialist and not the government.
  - mirceal 8y ago
    Hmm. I think the government can step in and properly inform people, subsidize lactation consultants so that everyone can afford them, subsidize breast pumps (how are you gonna feed your baby when you’re at work?) and subsidize breast milk banks. You make the final call, but it should not be a struggle to feed your baby breast milk.
    - usaar333 8y ago
      I definitely agree with you on information providing, but I think these actions all need careful cost/benefit analysis. > subsidize breast pumps Especially given that they can be rented, this is probably a clear positive to do. > subsidize breast milk banks Donor Milk is extremely expensive ($3-$5 an once). While infant consumers do see reduced rates of gastrointestinal tract infection and eczema, other benefits are less clear. Some more research would be needed to see if this is the best use of health dollars; perhaps a minimal amount of donor milk (several onces), combined with formula may be optimal. > subsidize lactation consultants so that everyone can afford them I'm down with this, as long as lactation consultants are more regulated. The ones we used were far overzealous in over-pushing breast feeding (e.g. overstating benefits)
      - mirceal 8y ago
        Sure. Not gonna chance the world overnight, but we need to know where North is. Right now I feel like people are questioning the compass and if it really works :(
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - cxseven 8y ago
    Not that you intend to support this, but many mothers fear that they're not providing enough milk to their babies, even though there are natural ramp-up periods where a baby will be left temporarily wanting more. Lack of faith (or awareness) in this stressful process, and the beckon of relief lures those mothers to supplementation. That can interrupt the feedback loop that encourages more milk production and begin a slide towards dependence on formula, reassured by its pervasiveness and positive marketing. Of course, even more significantly, most mothers are forced back to work prematurely and then don't have the time, energy, or even a private space to pump their milk. I bet formula companies know all of this. They shipped a pallet of "free" formula to our address as soon as our daughter was born, unrequested.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  > ‘Breast feeding is great if you can do it’ is fine but the state line is only just short of being ‘if you don’t breast feed you’re a terrible mother.’ To me this is something you decide on a private level. I don't see what the government or the society has to decide about what you do at home, as long as you don't actively, purposely aim at making your children suffer.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Implying it’s ok to make your children suffer as long as you didn’t mean to do it? I don’t think we should just let ignorant parents hurt or kill their children because of some idea that it’s a private matter. Obviously you can take it too far, but if you refuse to feed your baby what it needs, or seek treatment for serious medical problems, or put the baby in a dangerous environment, that should be stopped even if the parent thinks it’s just dandy.
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    These sorts of resolutions at the government / society play a more indirect role. It may affect educational materials, pediatrician recommendations, research funding, etc. But it isn't a direct affect on what you decide in private; there's no new law or anything like that.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    You are arguing against a straw man.
  - mirceal 8y ago
    Yes. It’s a private decision that the family makes when the mom has to return to work 2 weeks after giving birth (oh hello unpaid vacation). Fuck this. You, as the government, need to help the people and need to ensure that where matters are clear cut (like breastfeeding) you make it stupid easy for people to be informed and to follow the right path. Ultimately it should be your choice, but you should not struggle to make the choice.
    - usaar333 8y ago
- tzahola 8y ago
  Amongst mothers, the same bullying/shaming goes with vaginal birth vs C-section.
- mirceal 8y ago
  Bullying is not okay obviously. But people do need to be informed. If breast milk is an option you should take that option. I have actually gone as far as seeing people buy breast milk (legit sources - some sort of breast milk bank) to ensure their kid has the best. Why would someone do this if formula was just as good?
  - dpark 8y ago
    > I have actually gone as far as seeing people buy breast milk (legit sources - some sort of breast milk bank) to ensure their kid has the best. Why would someone do this if formula was just as good? Because they don’t know any better. There are women who feed their babies juice or even soda. That doesn’t mean it’s a good choice. There is some evidence that breast fed children have some minor immune benefits. There is to my knowledge no evidence that children fed from breast milk banks have any benefit over formula fed children. The health benefits are not well understood but one reasonable theory is that the feedback loop from breastfeeding (bacteria/viruses migrate from the child’s mouth through the mother’s nipple) is what allows the milk to provide useful antibodies. If the milk is from a bank or the mother exclusively pumps, that feedback loop does not exist. The bonding/nurturing that is sometimes hypothesized to help the child is also missing with bottled milk, no matter the source.
    - mirceal 8y ago
      http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/breastfeeding/conditioninfo/benefits http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/breastfeeding/conditi... Yeah. Right! Fuck all these “scientists” and “doctors”. And let’s also forget millions of years of evolution and the refining of breast milk, through natural selection to be just what a baby needs. That’s fake news.
      - dpark 8y ago
        Where on that page do you see any claims that milk from a bank provides any health benefits over formula? You are presenting an idealogical belief here, not one based on science.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  I see a lot of truth in this, but is that what the US diplomats were worried about with this resolution? From reading the article, it isn't clear to me what their real problem with the language is. The article strongly claims that it is about protecting formula companies rather than about supporting women who can't breastfeed. I don't see a huge amount of actual evidence for that in the article, but absent a statement from the State department explaining their thinking, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw.
  - will4274 8y ago
    > I don't see a huge amount of actual evidence for that in the article, but absent a statement from the State department explaining their thinking, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw. This attitude leads to groupthink and polarization. You read the source from your ideological group, which leaves out inconvenient facts, leading to your "reasonable conclusion." Another person reads different sources from a different ideological group, which mentions women who are incapable of breastfeeding but doesn't mention the health benefits for the general population and that person draws a totally different "reasonable conclusion." We'd all be better off if both of you would admit your news sources are incomplete and find better sources instead of drawing "reasonable conclusions."
    - marcosdumay 8y ago
      We are on a discussion site. If somebody has a source from another point of view that clarifies the drawbacks of this one, this site would be a great place to post a link. What I get from the story is that no explanation was given, to anybody. Thus no, there is no such other site, and the GP's position is perfectly reasonable. I would be glad to hear that this is not the case.
      - will4274 8y ago
        > What I get from the story is that no explanation was given, to anybody The story doesn't include any comment from US government officials. It also doesn't include that they failed to comment (excluding the one ambassador, who is too low level to comment). Lacking a "declined to comment" line, the default assumption is that the newspaper didn't ask for a comment. It's lazy journalism. With good journalism, newspapers figure out who did what and why. Here we are mostly missing who and we have speculation to why but no hard facts. Story needs another week of research before it is published.
- ExploitsforFun 8y ago
  It's like that in the US. My spouse got all sorts of pressure to breast feed. However she was not producing enough milk and we ended up supplementing so our children can get enough nutrients. The amount of bullying in this area is approaching ridiculous levels.
- smb06 8y ago
  If someone says "exercise is good for you and helps to control your weight gain" are you going to turn around and say "well they didn't say you should only exercise if you're able to therefore this is state propaganda against those that are physically unable to exercise" Of course it's implied that you cannot exercise if you didn't have the limbs needed for exercising. In the same way of course it's implied that you should breastfed, if you can.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- foobarbazetc 8y ago
  You’re kind of arguing against a point no one is making...
wool_gather 8y ago
Boy, the next few decades are going to be...interesting...with how bent the current U.S. government seems to be on inverting the relationships that have coalesced over the last seventy or eighty years. Especially over small potatoes like this. Diplomatic disruption is not a recipe for peace.
- weiming 8y ago
  I'm wondering how much "the State" should intervene in matters like this. Some families may choose to breast-feed, some won't. Should this decision be government organization-mandated? If the administration's decision is based on "the government should stay out of your family's life," then I may see logic here.
  - tedd4u 8y ago
    I think this line of questioning applies to public health issues like cigarettes, sugar, obesity, communicable diseases & vaccinations, etc.
    - weiming 8y ago
      Great question as to where to draw the line. Maybe "don't endanger the health of others" is a useful rule of thumb. I don't mind/care if people smoke in their own homes, but don't want them smoking near my children in a park. To show another extreme, the recent California bill making it not a felony to give HIV to others, or to donate blood if you're HIV-positive is where it seems like the government is being too hands-off.
      - jjeaff 8y ago
        I care if people smoke in their own homes if I am going to have to help subsidize their health care cost.
        will4274 8y ago
        Smokers have lower health care costs because they die younger, avoiding some of the very expensive end of life treatments that are typical of heart failure and cancer patients.
ekianjo 8y ago
> countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes. Why do you need a new resolution for that? Isn't that kind of things already covered by advertising laws in all member countries? And especially, why can't each individual country decide what standards to apply by themselves?
- mhluongo 8y ago
  Did you read the article? Clearly the resolution tweaked the US- eg threatening to withdraw military aid from Ecuador- implying there's a large couched interest.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Yes I read the article and the article fails to mention why this resolution is necessary in the first place, and why it needs to be happening at the WHO level.
  - AdamM12 8y ago
    Is this stopping mothers in Ecuador from breast feeding?
- endorphone 8y ago
  "why can't each individual country decide what standards to apply by themselves" A number of replies to this effect have appeared, and they seem to misunderstand the whole purpose of the World Health Organization. You can disagree with the notion of scientific consensus regarding human health and condition (which has no state boundaries), but this falls entirely within the purview of the WHO, and is the sort of thing that is the reason for its very existence.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    > but this falls entirely within the purview of the WHO, and is the sort of thing that is the reason for its very existence. Oh, like when they declared that bacon was carcinogen? Yeah, that's pretty much part of their core mission.
Puer 8y ago
Are we really surprised by this? Here's a quick reminder of the awful things Nestlé has done with regards to breast milk "substitutes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
dnautics 8y ago
Why is the UN doing this? Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the states?
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Yes, pretty much the responsibility of the states. WHO's obviously trespassing here (and this is not the first time).
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    Coordinating global health strategy is well within the mandate of the WHO. Globalism skeptics certainly question the usefulness of such a mandate, but this particular resolution is not unusual within it.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      There is reason for skepticism when it comes to WHO: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-w...
      - endorphone 8y ago
        How is that a possible reply to your nonsensical, ridiculous reply that the WHO is "trespassing" when they're doing exactly what they are mandated to do?
mirceal 8y ago
So the US started threatening other countries until Russia stepped up? WTF is wrong with the US delegation? You have tens of years of data telling you that breast milk is the best thing for a baby and you go ahead and do shit like this? If this wasn’t the real I would guess this is some sort of flat earth society kind of thing.
- fencepost 8y ago
  WTF is wrong with the US delegation? I can think of at least 6 possible explanations, with some overlap between them and with none of them complimentary. They pretty much all can be categorized into one or more of Incomprehension, Misinformation, Corruption or Malicious Intent.
  - mirceal 8y ago
    I know. It was mostly venting and pinching myself to ensure this us not a bad dream.
AdamM12 8y ago
What would the resolution even do? Like are WHO officials gonna be following around mothers telling them what to do? Seems like much to do about nothing. Doubtful many people are gonna change their behavior because of some resolution by some way off organization.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  With lots of conflicting anecdotes out there, a WHO resolution provides a strong appeal to authority argument. At least here in Brazil, "The World Health Organization stated that..." gets thrown around a lot.
alexmlamb2 8y ago
The breastfeeding research seems like peak "bad science", because there's so much obvious confounding between the causes of breastfeeding as a behavior and the properties of the child. I probably would suspect minimal effect unless there were (1) a clear mechanism of action, (2) really strong associations even after adding controls, (3) a causal study, perhaps on non-humans.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  Have you reviewed the literature? Are you certain none of your points have been attempted? (Citations would be welcome.)
jjuhl 8y ago
America (USA) being America (USA) once again. Can't wait for them to navel gaze enough to remove themselves from global politics - the sooner the better.
- sctb 8y ago
  This site is for intellectually interesting discussion and nationalist dismissals aren't that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
usaar333 8y ago
For the NY Times, this is rather lazy reporting. The quote by the HHS doesn't go into the details of what they see are unnecessary hurdles for women. Did the reporter not try to dive in more? > A 2016 Lancet study found that universal breast-feeding would prevent 800,000 child deaths a year across the globe and yield $300 billion in savings from reduced health care costs and improved economic outcomes for those reared on breast milk. Well, yes, this is true, but context here would help. This isn't due to formula substitutes (i.e. Abbott laboratories isn't going around killing kids to make money), this is due to improper substitutions (e.g. giving children actual mashed food). See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866289/ > Scientists are loath to carry out double-blind studies that would provide one group with breast milk and another with breast milk substitutes. “This kind of ‘evidence-based’ research would be ethically and morally unacceptable,” Ms. Sterken said. There absolutely is controlled research out there on the effects of breastfeeding. Here's some: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/193490 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/193490 (or for using pumped milk): http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002971.pub3/pdf http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD0029... A good overview: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everybody-calm-down-about-breastfeeding/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everybody-calm-down-abo...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mcphage 8y ago
  > The quote by the HHS doesn't go into the details of what they see are unnecessary hurdles for women. Did the reporter not try to dive in more? The HHS spokesperson wouldn’t even attach their name to their statement, I don’t know why you think they’d be forthcoming about anything else.
- whatyoucantsay 8y ago
  > For the NY Times, this is rather lazy reporting. The NYT has fallen far in the past 5 years. It still clears a higher bar than most print media, but is now a mere simulacrum of journalism.
- 8y ago
devmunchies 8y ago
when given a choice between American health and supporting American animal agriculture, the government almost always chooses the agriculture.
dingo_bat 8y ago
Tl;dr USA refuses to be a nanny state and impugn on the liberty of private citizens.
cjhanks 8y ago
> “The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children,” an H.H.S. spokesman said in an email. “We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” The spokesman asked to remain anonymous in order to speak more freely.
Grue3 8y ago
Good. The government shouldn't tell women what to do with their own body.
foobarbazetc 8y ago
Ecuador: “Breastfeeding is good, actually.” United Corporate States of America: “We will turn your country into a smoldering ash heap.” Russia: “Breastfeeding is good, actually.” UCSA: “Yes, Boss! Whatever you say!”
AKifer 8y ago
I think such a matter being discussed at this level is void and a nonsense. Are parents really needing to delegate the choice of breastfeeding their children or not to the government or the WHO ?

87 points by endorphone 8y ago

A problem (at least in the UK) is the promoting breast feeding has actually turned into some really nasty state-sponsored bullying of often vulnerable women who for whatever reason don’t manage to breast feed. The push the breast feeding seriously needs to be calmed down. The stress and shame it causes can’t be good for mothers or babies. ‘Breast feeding is great if you can do it’ is fine but the state line is only just short of being ‘if you don’t breast feed you’re a terrible mother.’

joeblow9999 8y ago
"promoting breast feeding has actually turned into some really nasty state-sponsored bullying of often vulnerable women" I think I see the problem here and it's not in promoting breast feeding.
Vendan 8y ago
This happens in the US as well.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ams6110 8y ago
Agreed. I 100% think breast feeding is great if you can do it but it's no shame if you can't or need to supplement with formula. Additionally I think it should be a matter between a mother and her pediatrician/lactation specialist and not the government.
- mirceal 8y ago
  Hmm. I think the government can step in and properly inform people, subsidize lactation consultants so that everyone can afford them, subsidize breast pumps (how are you gonna feed your baby when you’re at work?) and subsidize breast milk banks. You make the final call, but it should not be a struggle to feed your baby breast milk.
  - usaar333 8y ago
    I definitely agree with you on information providing, but I think these actions all need careful cost/benefit analysis. > subsidize breast pumps Especially given that they can be rented, this is probably a clear positive to do. > subsidize breast milk banks Donor Milk is extremely expensive ($3-$5 an once). While infant consumers do see reduced rates of gastrointestinal tract infection and eczema, other benefits are less clear. Some more research would be needed to see if this is the best use of health dollars; perhaps a minimal amount of donor milk (several onces), combined with formula may be optimal. > subsidize lactation consultants so that everyone can afford them I'm down with this, as long as lactation consultants are more regulated. The ones we used were far overzealous in over-pushing breast feeding (e.g. overstating benefits)
    - mirceal 8y ago
      Sure. Not gonna chance the world overnight, but we need to know where North is. Right now I feel like people are questioning the compass and if it really works :(
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cxseven 8y ago
  Not that you intend to support this, but many mothers fear that they're not providing enough milk to their babies, even though there are natural ramp-up periods where a baby will be left temporarily wanting more. Lack of faith (or awareness) in this stressful process, and the beckon of relief lures those mothers to supplementation. That can interrupt the feedback loop that encourages more milk production and begin a slide towards dependence on formula, reassured by its pervasiveness and positive marketing. Of course, even more significantly, most mothers are forced back to work prematurely and then don't have the time, energy, or even a private space to pump their milk. I bet formula companies know all of this. They shipped a pallet of "free" formula to our address as soon as our daughter was born, unrequested.
ekianjo 8y ago
> ‘Breast feeding is great if you can do it’ is fine but the state line is only just short of being ‘if you don’t breast feed you’re a terrible mother.’ To me this is something you decide on a private level. I don't see what the government or the society has to decide about what you do at home, as long as you don't actively, purposely aim at making your children suffer.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Implying it’s ok to make your children suffer as long as you didn’t mean to do it? I don’t think we should just let ignorant parents hurt or kill their children because of some idea that it’s a private matter. Obviously you can take it too far, but if you refuse to feed your baby what it needs, or seek treatment for serious medical problems, or put the baby in a dangerous environment, that should be stopped even if the parent thinks it’s just dandy.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  These sorts of resolutions at the government / society play a more indirect role. It may affect educational materials, pediatrician recommendations, research funding, etc. But it isn't a direct affect on what you decide in private; there's no new law or anything like that.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  You are arguing against a straw man.
- mirceal 8y ago
  Yes. It’s a private decision that the family makes when the mom has to return to work 2 weeks after giving birth (oh hello unpaid vacation). Fuck this. You, as the government, need to help the people and need to ensure that where matters are clear cut (like breastfeeding) you make it stupid easy for people to be informed and to follow the right path. Ultimately it should be your choice, but you should not struggle to make the choice.
  - usaar333 8y ago
tzahola 8y ago
Amongst mothers, the same bullying/shaming goes with vaginal birth vs C-section.
mirceal 8y ago
Bullying is not okay obviously. But people do need to be informed. If breast milk is an option you should take that option. I have actually gone as far as seeing people buy breast milk (legit sources - some sort of breast milk bank) to ensure their kid has the best. Why would someone do this if formula was just as good?
- dpark 8y ago
  > I have actually gone as far as seeing people buy breast milk (legit sources - some sort of breast milk bank) to ensure their kid has the best. Why would someone do this if formula was just as good? Because they don’t know any better. There are women who feed their babies juice or even soda. That doesn’t mean it’s a good choice. There is some evidence that breast fed children have some minor immune benefits. There is to my knowledge no evidence that children fed from breast milk banks have any benefit over formula fed children. The health benefits are not well understood but one reasonable theory is that the feedback loop from breastfeeding (bacteria/viruses migrate from the child’s mouth through the mother’s nipple) is what allows the milk to provide useful antibodies. If the milk is from a bank or the mother exclusively pumps, that feedback loop does not exist. The bonding/nurturing that is sometimes hypothesized to help the child is also missing with bottled milk, no matter the source.
  - mirceal 8y ago
    http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/breastfeeding/conditioninfo/benefits http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/breastfeeding/conditi... Yeah. Right! Fuck all these “scientists” and “doctors”. And let’s also forget millions of years of evolution and the refining of breast milk, through natural selection to be just what a baby needs. That’s fake news.
    - dpark 8y ago
      Where on that page do you see any claims that milk from a bank provides any health benefits over formula? You are presenting an idealogical belief here, not one based on science.
sanderjd 8y ago
I see a lot of truth in this, but is that what the US diplomats were worried about with this resolution? From reading the article, it isn't clear to me what their real problem with the language is. The article strongly claims that it is about protecting formula companies rather than about supporting women who can't breastfeed. I don't see a huge amount of actual evidence for that in the article, but absent a statement from the State department explaining their thinking, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw.
- will4274 8y ago
  > I don't see a huge amount of actual evidence for that in the article, but absent a statement from the State department explaining their thinking, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw. This attitude leads to groupthink and polarization. You read the source from your ideological group, which leaves out inconvenient facts, leading to your "reasonable conclusion." Another person reads different sources from a different ideological group, which mentions women who are incapable of breastfeeding but doesn't mention the health benefits for the general population and that person draws a totally different "reasonable conclusion." We'd all be better off if both of you would admit your news sources are incomplete and find better sources instead of drawing "reasonable conclusions."
  - marcosdumay 8y ago
    We are on a discussion site. If somebody has a source from another point of view that clarifies the drawbacks of this one, this site would be a great place to post a link. What I get from the story is that no explanation was given, to anybody. Thus no, there is no such other site, and the GP's position is perfectly reasonable. I would be glad to hear that this is not the case.
    - will4274 8y ago
      > What I get from the story is that no explanation was given, to anybody The story doesn't include any comment from US government officials. It also doesn't include that they failed to comment (excluding the one ambassador, who is too low level to comment). Lacking a "declined to comment" line, the default assumption is that the newspaper didn't ask for a comment. It's lazy journalism. With good journalism, newspapers figure out who did what and why. Here we are mostly missing who and we have speculation to why but no hard facts. Story needs another week of research before it is published.
ExploitsforFun 8y ago
It's like that in the US. My spouse got all sorts of pressure to breast feed. However she was not producing enough milk and we ended up supplementing so our children can get enough nutrients. The amount of bullying in this area is approaching ridiculous levels.
smb06 8y ago
If someone says "exercise is good for you and helps to control your weight gain" are you going to turn around and say "well they didn't say you should only exercise if you're able to therefore this is state propaganda against those that are physically unable to exercise" Of course it's implied that you cannot exercise if you didn't have the limbs needed for exercising. In the same way of course it's implied that you should breastfed, if you can.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
foobarbazetc 8y ago
You’re kind of arguing against a point no one is making...

wool_gather 8y ago

Boy, the next few decades are going to be...interesting...with how bent the current U.S. government seems to be on inverting the relationships that have coalesced over the last seventy or eighty years. Especially over small potatoes like this. Diplomatic disruption is not a recipe for peace.

weiming 8y ago
I'm wondering how much "the State" should intervene in matters like this. Some families may choose to breast-feed, some won't. Should this decision be government organization-mandated? If the administration's decision is based on "the government should stay out of your family's life," then I may see logic here.
- tedd4u 8y ago
  I think this line of questioning applies to public health issues like cigarettes, sugar, obesity, communicable diseases & vaccinations, etc.
  - weiming 8y ago
    Great question as to where to draw the line. Maybe "don't endanger the health of others" is a useful rule of thumb. I don't mind/care if people smoke in their own homes, but don't want them smoking near my children in a park. To show another extreme, the recent California bill making it not a felony to give HIV to others, or to donate blood if you're HIV-positive is where it seems like the government is being too hands-off.
    - jjeaff 8y ago
      I care if people smoke in their own homes if I am going to have to help subsidize their health care cost.
      - will4274 8y ago
        Smokers have lower health care costs because they die younger, avoiding some of the very expensive end of life treatments that are typical of heart failure and cancer patients.

ekianjo 8y ago

> countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes. Why do you need a new resolution for that? Isn't that kind of things already covered by advertising laws in all member countries? And especially, why can't each individual country decide what standards to apply by themselves?

mhluongo 8y ago
Did you read the article? Clearly the resolution tweaked the US- eg threatening to withdraw military aid from Ecuador- implying there's a large couched interest.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Yes I read the article and the article fails to mention why this resolution is necessary in the first place, and why it needs to be happening at the WHO level.
- AdamM12 8y ago
  Is this stopping mothers in Ecuador from breast feeding?
endorphone 8y ago
"why can't each individual country decide what standards to apply by themselves" A number of replies to this effect have appeared, and they seem to misunderstand the whole purpose of the World Health Organization. You can disagree with the notion of scientific consensus regarding human health and condition (which has no state boundaries), but this falls entirely within the purview of the WHO, and is the sort of thing that is the reason for its very existence.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  > but this falls entirely within the purview of the WHO, and is the sort of thing that is the reason for its very existence. Oh, like when they declared that bacon was carcinogen? Yeah, that's pretty much part of their core mission.

Puer 8y ago

Are we really surprised by this? Here's a quick reminder of the awful things Nestlé has done with regards to breast milk "substitutes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

dnautics 8y ago

Why is the UN doing this? Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the states?

ekianjo 8y ago
Yes, pretty much the responsibility of the states. WHO's obviously trespassing here (and this is not the first time).
- sanderjd 8y ago
  Coordinating global health strategy is well within the mandate of the WHO. Globalism skeptics certainly question the usefulness of such a mandate, but this particular resolution is not unusual within it.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    There is reason for skepticism when it comes to WHO: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-w...
    - endorphone 8y ago
      How is that a possible reply to your nonsensical, ridiculous reply that the WHO is "trespassing" when they're doing exactly what they are mandated to do?

mirceal 8y ago

So the US started threatening other countries until Russia stepped up? WTF is wrong with the US delegation? You have tens of years of data telling you that breast milk is the best thing for a baby and you go ahead and do shit like this? If this wasn’t the real I would guess this is some sort of flat earth society kind of thing.

fencepost 8y ago
WTF is wrong with the US delegation? I can think of at least 6 possible explanations, with some overlap between them and with none of them complimentary. They pretty much all can be categorized into one or more of Incomprehension, Misinformation, Corruption or Malicious Intent.
- mirceal 8y ago
  I know. It was mostly venting and pinching myself to ensure this us not a bad dream.

AdamM12 8y ago

What would the resolution even do? Like are WHO officials gonna be following around mothers telling them what to do? Seems like much to do about nothing. Doubtful many people are gonna change their behavior because of some resolution by some way off organization.

emiliobumachar 8y ago
With lots of conflicting anecdotes out there, a WHO resolution provides a strong appeal to authority argument. At least here in Brazil, "The World Health Organization stated that..." gets thrown around a lot.

alexmlamb2 8y ago

The breastfeeding research seems like peak "bad science", because there's so much obvious confounding between the causes of breastfeeding as a behavior and the properties of the child. I probably would suspect minimal effect unless there were (1) a clear mechanism of action, (2) really strong associations even after adding controls, (3) a causal study, perhaps on non-humans.

sanderjd 8y ago
Have you reviewed the literature? Are you certain none of your points have been attempted? (Citations would be welcome.)

jjuhl 8y ago

America (USA) being America (USA) once again. Can't wait for them to navel gaze enough to remove themselves from global politics - the sooner the better.

sctb 8y ago
This site is for intellectually interesting discussion and nationalist dismissals aren't that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

usaar333 8y ago

For the NY Times, this is rather lazy reporting. The quote by the HHS doesn't go into the details of what they see are unnecessary hurdles for women. Did the reporter not try to dive in more? > A 2016 Lancet study found that universal breast-feeding would prevent 800,000 child deaths a year across the globe and yield $300 billion in savings from reduced health care costs and improved economic outcomes for those reared on breast milk. Well, yes, this is true, but context here would help. This isn't due to formula substitutes (i.e. Abbott laboratories isn't going around killing kids to make money), this is due to improper substitutions (e.g. giving children actual mashed food). See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866289/ > Scientists are loath to carry out double-blind studies that would provide one group with breast milk and another with breast milk substitutes. “This kind of ‘evidence-based’ research would be ethically and morally unacceptable,” Ms. Sterken said. There absolutely is controlled research out there on the effects of breastfeeding. Here's some: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/193490 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/193490 (or for using pumped milk): http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002971.pub3/pdf http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD0029... A good overview: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everybody-calm-down-about-breastfeeding/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everybody-calm-down-abo...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mcphage 8y ago
> The quote by the HHS doesn't go into the details of what they see are unnecessary hurdles for women. Did the reporter not try to dive in more? The HHS spokesperson wouldn’t even attach their name to their statement, I don’t know why you think they’d be forthcoming about anything else.
whatyoucantsay 8y ago
> For the NY Times, this is rather lazy reporting. The NYT has fallen far in the past 5 years. It still clears a higher bar than most print media, but is now a mere simulacrum of journalism.
8y ago

devmunchies 8y ago

when given a choice between American health and supporting American animal agriculture, the government almost always chooses the agriculture.

dingo_bat 8y ago

Tl;dr USA refuses to be a nanny state and impugn on the liberty of private citizens.

cjhanks 8y ago

> “The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children,” an H.H.S. spokesman said in an email. “We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” The spokesman asked to remain anonymous in order to speak more freely.

Grue3 8y ago

Good. The government shouldn't tell women what to do with their own body.

foobarbazetc 8y ago

Ecuador: “Breastfeeding is good, actually.” United Corporate States of America: “We will turn your country into a smoldering ash heap.” Russia: “Breastfeeding is good, actually.” UCSA: “Yes, Boss! Whatever you say!”

AKifer 8y ago

I think such a matter being discussed at this level is void and a nonsense. Are parents really needing to delegate the choice of breastfeeding their children or not to the government or the WHO ?