5 ms·

U.S. Opposed Breast-Feeding Resolution at World Health Assembly (2018)

78 points by eitland 7y ago

jngreenlee 7y ago
Wait, why is this old article even a thing? It's a resolution being drafted by technocrats far away from "real people". While everyone else here is debating corporate influence, what about the epistemology of the issue itself...why does an inter-governmental organization need such a resolution, and "who the fork cares"? People across the globe know breast feeding works, and they don't learn that from the UN or any other government. They learn it from their tribe, family, friends, internet, books. It's also intuitively best...AKA its been around for millions of years and we all know that. People should be upset that time and money was spent on this....someone tell me if I missed some vital thing like "non-compliant governments will be replaced by IMF officials", or "North Korea to ban boobs"?
1123581321 7y ago
This was news to me, but is dated July 2018.
gjm11 7y ago
(This is from July 2018.)
ip26 7y ago
This feels like that time when the Colorado Attorney General sued Boulder County on behalf of the poor, defenseless oil & gas companies.
abvdasker 7y ago
Further proof that the US federal government now exists mainly to defend domestic corporate interests. Climate change -- just like the breastfeeding resolution -- is the other example of corporate greed corrupting the government to the detriment of science, the environment and public health.
- turk73 7y ago
  Climate change is just another huge scam. Look up Eugenics from the 1930s. Same bs as climate change.
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  The U.S.A. is now literally a poster child for WHY Citizen's United and Unlimited Capitalism or Unfettered Capitalism is probably just as damaging (if not more so) than socialism/communism. I lean a little libertarian-socialist or where I'd love to see M4A, but more personal freedom. Like legalize all drugs, and only incarcerate people who've committed violent crimes: Rape, Murder, Gunpoint robberies, Assault, etc... Everything else gets an ankle bracelet and fines. I feel we'd also benefit from more Worker Coops. But I come at it from an incremental point of view, I don't believe full ownership of the means of production by an authoritarian regime is EVER a good idea.. Instead more liquid/democratic control of some parts of industry I think make sense, in a more organic supply/demand way. You can't have your capitalism without revolutions if you don't have regulations that protect the working class. Eventually guillotines are brought out. It's already happening in Puerto Rico.
  - jrs235 7y ago
    The U.S. has swung over to corporatism and is currently aiming towards fascism. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/capitalism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/capitalism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/corporatism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/corporatism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fascism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fascism
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Let's suppose I'm contracted to provide concrete for a bridge. I provide substandard concrete, because it's cheaper, and I get to keep the profits. I do this for years across many jobs and make lots of money. I launder most of the profits to friends and family, by overcompensating them for their "jobs" at my company. Then, 10 years later the bridge collapses and 14 people die, due to the poor concrete. All I get is an ankle bracelet and fines? No worries about jail, because what I did isn't a violent crime? And if I can't pay the fine, because I don't have the money, then all I need is an ankle bracelet? Woo-hoo! So my friends and family, who made millions from my theft, can support me as a destitute man, while I wear the ankle bracelet in early retirement.
bantunes 7y ago
I don't see how the US will get out of the current "corporations run everything of value" situation. Seems like all tools to help fight it are themselves owned by corporations in no hurry to change the status quo.
- mofo569 7y ago
  I would prefer to live in a society where corporations run everything rather than a world there bureaucrats run things. What to feed their babies is a parental choice and the government should mind its own business.
  - bosswipe 7y ago
    Large corporations are full of bureaucrats.
  - huebomont 7y ago
    but companies can control that choice, and that's cool with you?
  - tclancy 7y ago
    Because you know the right answer for every single situation in life and don't need any coaxing in the right direction and all your neighbors do as well? Weird that you created an account just to post this.
  - JaimeThompson 7y ago
    I can talk to my representatives and possibly work to vote them out when they do things I don't like. How do I do that to corporations with monopoly level powers?
    - AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
      When was the last time you were able to vote out a government bureaucrat? Sure, in theory, they work for the elected officials, but practically, it's nigh-impossible to remove them.
basilgohar 7y ago
I realize this is a problem since time immemorial, but something needs to be done to prevent corporate interests from dictating government and international policies. I can only call out the problem, I don't know what the solution is. But why should people bother to vote if leaders' ignore their constituencies' needs in the face of aggressive corporate lobbying?
- rusk 7y ago
  Maybe I'm a bit starry-eyed and innocent, but do you think this would have happened if Hillary got in? I've no horse in this race, but this does seem to be very much in line with how the current white house administration does things. Sorry, I know this is a fairly indirect answer to your question, but I think how people vote must have some part to play in all of this. You could I suppose argue that a certain voting segment are staunch, and will only vote a certain way anyway, but I also remember hearing that there were a lot of people who voted against their normal preference because they didn't like her personally, or because she pulled a stroke on Bernie, or something something hurdur leaked emails ...
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    > do you think this would have happened if Hillary got in? Hillary is just as neoliberal as anyone. If Sanders had gotten in, maybe we'd see some movement, perhaps.
    - rusk 7y ago
      I'd have said she's more neoliberal than most ... but still, could you imagine her endorsing something like this?!??
      - justwalt 7y ago
        Maybe not on some specific instances, but it’s not like this is the first time something like this has taken place.
luckydata 7y ago
A reminder that the US is, right now, functionally a cleptocracy and that the immense amounts of corruption we're currently witnessing has been put in place by people saying "job creators" every two sentences.
- rapsey 7y ago
  Nothing has fundamentally changed in decades. Right now is nothing but business as usual.
  - bosswipe 7y ago
    From the article: > a marked contrast to the Obama administration, which largely supported W.H.O.’s longstanding policy of encouraging breast-feeding.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    Was it the Obama admin that worked to rip up the Paris agreement?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - lostlogin 7y ago
      Are you talking about breast feeding or CO2? If CO2, no. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/01/barack-obama-slams-donald-trump-paris-climate-239032 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/01/barack-obama-slams...
  - the_gastropod 7y ago
    One of the worst things of the Trump era is this nihilistic "both sides!" attitude. The EPA is being run by an oil lobbyist. The Dept of Education is run by someone who doesn't believe in public education. The Interior Department is pushing to sell public lands to private entities. These are all very much not "business as usual".
- 7y ago
mofo569 7y ago
> “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” Why is it any government's business in first place and why would these super bureaucracies waste they time passing such kind of stuff is beyond. If baby formula companies are any smarter they will probably not waste time and money on WHO resolutions.
- ryanackley 7y ago
  Sure but isn't indifference easier than opposition. Why oppose it rather than ignore it??
- sgc 7y ago
  Because it is government's job to promote the welfare of it's citizens. It is important for babies that they are breastfed if at all possible. That is not happening enough. So government promotes it (when not corrupt). It's similar to a marriage license. Why should the government be involved at all? because it is not purely private, but involves multiple people and is part of the public good, so it falls under the role of government.
RHSeeger 7y 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.” I'm curious what those hurdles were.
- grawprog 7y ago
  >I'm curious what those hurdles were. Made it harder for nestlè to make money marketing baby formula.
  - RHSeeger 7y ago
    > Made it harder for nestlè to make money marketing baby formula. Sure, that's a fair assumption. But what about them made it harder for a mother that had chosen to breastfeed to do so, specifically? - If you're adding things that make it harder to breastfeed (to support corporations), I think we can all agree you're a bad person. - If you're adding things to make it easier to choose not to breastfeed (once again, to support corporations), I think it's a greyer area. The quote seemed to imply the first was being done. Pushing back against either of them seems to run counter to the pro-corporation stance the US government is being berated for. Hence, why I want to know what was being referred to.
    - grawprog 7y ago
      https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-08-12/why-did-us-try-block-un-resolution-encouraging-breastfeeding https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-08-12/why-did-us-try-block-... >Companies who sell formula often make nutrition and health claims in their advertising and on their labels which suggest that a certain ingredient, such as DHA or ARA, will lead to better eyesight, brain development or neurological development, Starken says. Instead, she insists, these companies should include warnings that formula can actually lead to increased rates of diarrhea, respiratory disease, obesity and cardiovascular disease, as well as various other long-term consequences. The problem is misleading marketing claims are currently allowed. Claims like this would be banned under the resolution.
jimbob45 7y ago
Is there a steelman for the opposition to be made? Piling on the shame-bandwagon isn't expanding the horizons of anyone in this thread.
- senderista 7y ago
  The economist Emily Oster debunks some of the more dubious claims of breastfeeding advocates (and many pediatricians) in her book _Expecting Better_.
  - RHSeeger 7y ago
    I don't know that debunks is the right word. Rather, it seems like she provides differing opinions and some counter-arguments/data. At least for the alcohol argument, she puts for "it hasn't been proven that drinking is a risk" which, while a reasonable stance, is not the same as "it's been shown not to be a risk". There's a lot of parents that would rather not risk it for the former.
BillSaysThis 7y ago
Handmaiden's Tale
tptacek 7y ago
July, 2018.
markdown 7y ago
A reminder that Nestle got third world women hooked on formula by lying about it and giving away free samples (once you stop breastfeeding your child, you stop producing milk). They did this in poverty stricken countries where mothers didn't have access to potable water with which to prepare the milk. Millions of babies died from illness and from malnutrition (when the mothers could no longer afford to buy formula) as a direct result of Nestle's greed. https://www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-scandal-2012-6#meanwhile-in-the-third-world-women-tried-to-save-money-by-diluting-the-formula-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-scand...
gok 7y ago
(2018), and previously discussed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17484206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17484206
kasperni 7y ago
The US opposition to this goes back many years. When WHO adopted the International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes in 1981. The US cast the only negative vote [1]. At least Nestlé and friends have stopped dressing up their salespeople as nurses.... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371222/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371222/
mcherm 7y ago
Could someone please flag this as being from 2018?

78 points by eitland 7y ago

Wait, why is this old article even a thing? It's a resolution being drafted by technocrats far away from "real people". While everyone else here is debating corporate influence, what about the epistemology of the issue itself...why does an inter-governmental organization need such a resolution, and "who the fork cares"? People across the globe know breast feeding works, and they don't learn that from the UN or any other government. They learn it from their tribe, family, friends, internet, books. It's also intuitively best...AKA its been around for millions of years and we all know that. People should be upset that time and money was spent on this....someone tell me if I missed some vital thing like "non-compliant governments will be replaced by IMF officials", or "North Korea to ban boobs"?

1123581321 7y ago

This was news to me, but is dated July 2018.

gjm11 7y ago

(This is from July 2018.)

ip26 7y ago

This feels like that time when the Colorado Attorney General sued Boulder County on behalf of the poor, defenseless oil & gas companies.

abvdasker 7y ago

Further proof that the US federal government now exists mainly to defend domestic corporate interests. Climate change -- just like the breastfeeding resolution -- is the other example of corporate greed corrupting the government to the detriment of science, the environment and public health.

turk73 7y ago
Climate change is just another huge scam. Look up Eugenics from the 1930s. Same bs as climate change.
gremlinsinc 7y ago
The U.S.A. is now literally a poster child for WHY Citizen's United and Unlimited Capitalism or Unfettered Capitalism is probably just as damaging (if not more so) than socialism/communism. I lean a little libertarian-socialist or where I'd love to see M4A, but more personal freedom. Like legalize all drugs, and only incarcerate people who've committed violent crimes: Rape, Murder, Gunpoint robberies, Assault, etc... Everything else gets an ankle bracelet and fines. I feel we'd also benefit from more Worker Coops. But I come at it from an incremental point of view, I don't believe full ownership of the means of production by an authoritarian regime is EVER a good idea.. Instead more liquid/democratic control of some parts of industry I think make sense, in a more organic supply/demand way. You can't have your capitalism without revolutions if you don't have regulations that protect the working class. Eventually guillotines are brought out. It's already happening in Puerto Rico.
- jrs235 7y ago
  The U.S. has swung over to corporatism and is currently aiming towards fascism. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/capitalism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/capitalism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/corporatism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/corporatism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fascism https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fascism
- eesmith 7y ago
  Let's suppose I'm contracted to provide concrete for a bridge. I provide substandard concrete, because it's cheaper, and I get to keep the profits. I do this for years across many jobs and make lots of money. I launder most of the profits to friends and family, by overcompensating them for their "jobs" at my company. Then, 10 years later the bridge collapses and 14 people die, due to the poor concrete. All I get is an ankle bracelet and fines? No worries about jail, because what I did isn't a violent crime? And if I can't pay the fine, because I don't have the money, then all I need is an ankle bracelet? Woo-hoo! So my friends and family, who made millions from my theft, can support me as a destitute man, while I wear the ankle bracelet in early retirement.

bantunes 7y ago

I don't see how the US will get out of the current "corporations run everything of value" situation. Seems like all tools to help fight it are themselves owned by corporations in no hurry to change the status quo.

mofo569 7y ago
I would prefer to live in a society where corporations run everything rather than a world there bureaucrats run things. What to feed their babies is a parental choice and the government should mind its own business.
- bosswipe 7y ago
  Large corporations are full of bureaucrats.
- huebomont 7y ago
  but companies can control that choice, and that's cool with you?
- tclancy 7y ago
  Because you know the right answer for every single situation in life and don't need any coaxing in the right direction and all your neighbors do as well? Weird that you created an account just to post this.
- JaimeThompson 7y ago
  I can talk to my representatives and possibly work to vote them out when they do things I don't like. How do I do that to corporations with monopoly level powers?
  - AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
    When was the last time you were able to vote out a government bureaucrat? Sure, in theory, they work for the elected officials, but practically, it's nigh-impossible to remove them.

basilgohar 7y ago

I realize this is a problem since time immemorial, but something needs to be done to prevent corporate interests from dictating government and international policies. I can only call out the problem, I don't know what the solution is. But why should people bother to vote if leaders' ignore their constituencies' needs in the face of aggressive corporate lobbying?

rusk 7y ago
Maybe I'm a bit starry-eyed and innocent, but do you think this would have happened if Hillary got in? I've no horse in this race, but this does seem to be very much in line with how the current white house administration does things. Sorry, I know this is a fairly indirect answer to your question, but I think how people vote must have some part to play in all of this. You could I suppose argue that a certain voting segment are staunch, and will only vote a certain way anyway, but I also remember hearing that there were a lot of people who voted against their normal preference because they didn't like her personally, or because she pulled a stroke on Bernie, or something something hurdur leaked emails ...
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  > do you think this would have happened if Hillary got in? Hillary is just as neoliberal as anyone. If Sanders had gotten in, maybe we'd see some movement, perhaps.
  - rusk 7y ago
    I'd have said she's more neoliberal than most ... but still, could you imagine her endorsing something like this?!??
    - justwalt 7y ago
      Maybe not on some specific instances, but it’s not like this is the first time something like this has taken place.

luckydata 7y ago

A reminder that the US is, right now, functionally a cleptocracy and that the immense amounts of corruption we're currently witnessing has been put in place by people saying "job creators" every two sentences.

rapsey 7y ago
Nothing has fundamentally changed in decades. Right now is nothing but business as usual.
- bosswipe 7y ago
  From the article: > a marked contrast to the Obama administration, which largely supported W.H.O.’s longstanding policy of encouraging breast-feeding.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  Was it the Obama admin that worked to rip up the Paris agreement?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    Are you talking about breast feeding or CO2? If CO2, no. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/01/barack-obama-slams-donald-trump-paris-climate-239032 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/01/barack-obama-slams...
- the_gastropod 7y ago
  One of the worst things of the Trump era is this nihilistic "both sides!" attitude. The EPA is being run by an oil lobbyist. The Dept of Education is run by someone who doesn't believe in public education. The Interior Department is pushing to sell public lands to private entities. These are all very much not "business as usual".
7y ago

mofo569 7y ago

> “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” Why is it any government's business in first place and why would these super bureaucracies waste they time passing such kind of stuff is beyond. If baby formula companies are any smarter they will probably not waste time and money on WHO resolutions.

ryanackley 7y ago
Sure but isn't indifference easier than opposition. Why oppose it rather than ignore it??
sgc 7y ago
Because it is government's job to promote the welfare of it's citizens. It is important for babies that they are breastfed if at all possible. That is not happening enough. So government promotes it (when not corrupt). It's similar to a marriage license. Why should the government be involved at all? because it is not purely private, but involves multiple people and is part of the public good, so it falls under the role of government.

RHSeeger 7y 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.” I'm curious what those hurdles were.

grawprog 7y ago
>I'm curious what those hurdles were. Made it harder for nestlè to make money marketing baby formula.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  > Made it harder for nestlè to make money marketing baby formula. Sure, that's a fair assumption. But what about them made it harder for a mother that had chosen to breastfeed to do so, specifically? - If you're adding things that make it harder to breastfeed (to support corporations), I think we can all agree you're a bad person. - If you're adding things to make it easier to choose not to breastfeed (once again, to support corporations), I think it's a greyer area. The quote seemed to imply the first was being done. Pushing back against either of them seems to run counter to the pro-corporation stance the US government is being berated for. Hence, why I want to know what was being referred to.
  - grawprog 7y ago
    https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-08-12/why-did-us-try-block-un-resolution-encouraging-breastfeeding https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-08-12/why-did-us-try-block-... >Companies who sell formula often make nutrition and health claims in their advertising and on their labels which suggest that a certain ingredient, such as DHA or ARA, will lead to better eyesight, brain development or neurological development, Starken says. Instead, she insists, these companies should include warnings that formula can actually lead to increased rates of diarrhea, respiratory disease, obesity and cardiovascular disease, as well as various other long-term consequences. The problem is misleading marketing claims are currently allowed. Claims like this would be banned under the resolution.

jimbob45 7y ago

Is there a steelman for the opposition to be made? Piling on the shame-bandwagon isn't expanding the horizons of anyone in this thread.

senderista 7y ago
The economist Emily Oster debunks some of the more dubious claims of breastfeeding advocates (and many pediatricians) in her book _Expecting Better_.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  I don't know that debunks is the right word. Rather, it seems like she provides differing opinions and some counter-arguments/data. At least for the alcohol argument, she puts for "it hasn't been proven that drinking is a risk" which, while a reasonable stance, is not the same as "it's been shown not to be a risk". There's a lot of parents that would rather not risk it for the former.

BillSaysThis 7y ago

Handmaiden's Tale

tptacek 7y ago

July, 2018.

markdown 7y ago

A reminder that Nestle got third world women hooked on formula by lying about it and giving away free samples (once you stop breastfeeding your child, you stop producing milk). They did this in poverty stricken countries where mothers didn't have access to potable water with which to prepare the milk. Millions of babies died from illness and from malnutrition (when the mothers could no longer afford to buy formula) as a direct result of Nestle's greed. https://www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-scandal-2012-6#meanwhile-in-the-third-world-women-tried-to-save-money-by-diluting-the-formula-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-scand...

gok 7y ago

(2018), and previously discussed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17484206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17484206

kasperni 7y ago

The US opposition to this goes back many years. When WHO adopted the International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes in 1981. The US cast the only negative vote [1]. At least Nestlé and friends have stopped dressing up their salespeople as nurses.... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371222/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371222/

mcherm 7y ago

Could someone please flag this as being from 2018?