4 ms·

>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.