
U.S. Opposed Breast-Feeding Resolution at World Health Assembly (2018) - eitland
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html
======
markdown
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-
scand...](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)

------
ip26
This feels like that time when the Colorado Attorney General sued Boulder
County on behalf of the poor, defenseless oil & gas companies.

------
abvdasker
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.

~~~
gremlinsinc
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.

~~~
eesmith
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.

------
RHSeeger
> “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
>I'm curious what those hurdles were.

Made it harder for nestlè to make money marketing baby formula.

~~~
RHSeeger
> 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
[https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-08-12/why-did-us-try-
block-...](https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-08-12/why-did-us-try-block-un-
resolution-encouraging-breastfeeding)

>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.

------
kasperni
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/)

------
bantunes
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
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.

~~~
JaimeThompson
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?

------
jimbob45
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
The economist Emily Oster debunks some of the more dubious claims of
breastfeeding advocates (and many pediatricians) in her book _Expecting
Better_.

~~~
RHSeeger
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.

------
basilgohar
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
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
> 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
I'd have said she's more neoliberal than most ... but still, could you imagine
her endorsing something like this?!??

~~~
justwalt
Maybe not on some specific instances, but it’s not like this is the first time
something like this has taken place.

~~~
rusk
people wanted brazen, they got brazen

------
1123581321
This was news to me, but is dated July 2018.

------
gjm11
(This is from July 2018.)

------
luckydata
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
Nothing has fundamentally changed in decades. Right now is nothing but
business as usual.

~~~
ilikehurdles
Was it the Obama admin that worked to rip up the Paris agreement?

~~~
lostlogin
Are you talking about breast feeding or CO2? If CO2, no.
[https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/01/barack-obama-
slams...](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/01/barack-obama-slams-donald-
trump-paris-climate-239032)

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

------
tptacek
July, 2018.

------
BillSaysThis
Handmaiden's Tale

------
mcherm
Could someone please flag this as being from 2018?

------
mofo569
> “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.

~~~
sgc
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.

------
jngreenlee
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"?

