U.S. Opposed Breast-Feeding Resolution at World Health Assembly (2018)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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...
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.
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.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/capitalism
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.
I'm curious what those hurdles were.
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.
>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.
https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/s...
I would assume it's the committee A series
At least Nestlé and friends have stopped dressing up their salespeople as nurses....
Weird that you created an account just to post this.
Your attempt to present us with a false dichotomy is very suspicious.
You are either blinded by ideology or pushing an agenda.
One of the problems with corporate media today is that it's always aligned with the state on topics such as war. "The battle is won when the average American regards a corporate journalist exactly as they regard a tobacco executive." ~Michael Malice
Remember the quote about the boxes to use?
Then a landmark supreme court decision decided that this was unconstitutional. Then a more recent landmark supreme court decision further decided that a lot of campaign finance restrictions were also unconstitutional.
The first step to changing things would be to get the Supreme Court to overturn those decisions. There's nothing in the US Constitution that openly declares that money is speech, and therefore that dumping it on Washington is protected by Freedom of Speech. That's (perhaps arguably) an ideological opinion that could change along with the attitudes of the sitting justices.
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 ...
Hillary is just as neoliberal as anyone. If Sanders had gotten in, maybe we'd see some movement, perhaps.
> a marked contrast to the Obama administration, which largely supported W.H.O.’s longstanding policy of encouraging breast-feeding.
I think it's near impossible to have it on the open Internet these days, or on an informal "caucus talk."
I would've very liked to hear somebody like Neil Fergusson, or another serious political historian on it, but people like these charge like $100k for a lunch small talk
It's somewhat disappointing that there isn't more substantive discussion going on here. My experience is that the La Leche/Breastfeeding folks are a bit nuts and wildly exaggerate the evidence. The biggest problem with all of these studies is that formula vs breast milk is self selected. Meaning that they don't randomly assign one group to breast milk and the other to formula. In the West, that dramatically skews the groups.
To exclusively breast feed you have to be wealthy enough for Mom not to work or have a job that allows her to pump. Then you have to have the knowledge that breastfeeding is optimal and the dedication to stick with it. And the baby has to be able to breast feed and gain an appropriate amount of weight (A baby not gaining weight would be switched to formula). All of this combines to significantly bias the breast feeding group towards wealthy and involved mothers physically able to breastfeed with healthy babies.
The breast feeding folks have taken these flawed studies and run with them. The pressure on new mothers to breastfeed is enormous and the "if you don't breastfeed you're harming your baby" message is pretty thinly veiled. It's causing a lot of emotional toll for a pretty dubious benefit.
Yes, millions of years of evolution and now only rich women breastfeed their kids
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.
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"?